Only an arrogant adolescent with delusions of upcoming grandeur would defend the tactics and antics described by the fellow leaving the firm. You have a cartoon vision of becoming a robber baron? Or do you just have an affinity to sociopathy? What the hell is the matter with so many people here?
This is the biggest tempest in a teapot non-story. For everyone who thinks that Wall St. is just a bunch of fatcats, the words from a disgruntled former non-executive just gives them more fodder for slamming a firm that makes a ton of money.
What exactly did he describe? That the clients are called "muppets"? ER doctors call old people "GOMER"s, homeless people "SHPOS"s and many other things. Is it that the firm is trying to make money off their clients? Show me someone who is not, in any industry. His clients are most probably were large institutionals that, given a chance, would rip Goldman's face off as well. As an HF vol trader I picked off sell-side desks on regular basis, was it unethical? How come when an insurance company charges X for a life insurance product while it costs them X * 0.2 to hedge it and then tries to do everything in their power to avoid paying (at least legally), it's "the nature of the business". If a plumber tried to charge a thousand dollars to replace a pipe under the sink, "he's just doing honest work and trying to stay afloat". If a bank tried to do the same, it is "trying to rip clients off". Any selfish behaviour can be described as unethical and it's the balance of greed and intelligence that keeps the world running. Yeah, I must be a sociopath...
Seriously? What you gathered from the piece is that the company operates ethically and properly? It would be one thing if you disputed the conduct he describes. It is quite another to actually defend it as presented.
You've really identified what is at the heart of the matter when you say, " the whole industry has horribly misaligned incentives." There is a fundamental difference between Wall Street, which I'm using as a generic for the entire industry, and say other businesses-- car dealers, loan sharks, rent to own, etc. None of these other businesses have control of the Media, the Treasury Dept., the Fed, and both the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government the way the very smart, very clever, financially powerful, and ruthlessly unprincipled mavens of Wall Street have. Naive citizens are completely unaware of the depth of deception, malfeasance, and fraudulent nature of the financial industry. They think that someone selling them stocks or options is trying to help them make money, because they are inundated with hype intended to give Wall Street the appearance of legitimacy. Whereas they are not nearly so naive when buying a car, for example. We all know that when Goldman issues a buy recommendation that it might very well mean that Goldman wants to sell. But tell me, when was the last time you heard that explained on CNBC, and how much emphasis did it get.
They've never accomplished anything, and never will, so are left with nothing but tired old Ayn Rand fantasies about what could've been, if only the world let them.
I'm not paying the real estate agent nor the car salesman for advice. It's definitely a grey area. And it's not right when an electrician does it or an immigration lawyer. I felt very dirty when i was doing it.
well now Random and you too Piezoe, are usually the only unbrainwashed commpassionate capitalists left on ET or in the world, but on this one I would have to disagree with you. I don't have an account with Goldman and neither did my grandmother. The comparison between Goldman and used care salesmen is accurate, but we are not talking about Chevys here, these are Ferraris. Their clients have amassed great amounts of money yet are still as gullible as the 5k ET trader who whines that the only one who made any money was the guy he bought the trading service from (although there were a few good trades which kept him coming back.) If you've been taken by Goldman or the 2 bit salesman selling you the next NQ daytrading system you deserve to lose money. The broker in the article was just dissallusioned because he thought Goldman had superior intellenge and could use that to help their "clients" make money. And he found out (took him 12 years and got paid enough money not to care anymore) that it is the "clients" who make Goldman money. Now, if you want to decry the fact that all this money was made legitmately by the population and was ulimately siphoned down to Goldmans coffers that is another matter. It's the age old story, "There are all the brokers yachts." "Where are all the customers yachts?"