Which is why this story– Maybe Goldman Sachs Will Make It’s Employees Give Money To Charity, Maybe It Wont, It’s All Relative– was leaked to the media. Here’s the rub: as you may have noticed, Goldman’s had a tough go it lately, PR-wise. They’ve adopted kittens, they’ve let the first known instance of an apology pass their lips, they’ve touched actual garbage, all in the name of getting everyone to shut the hell up with the Goldman hate. And yet the bitching and the moaning and the “Hey mister, those Swarovski crystals you’re about to have applied to your balls were paid for by the American taxpayer” continue apace. And now it’s not just coming from the plebes, who can for the most part be written off as people who don’t know what they’re talking about, it’s coming from shareholders, too. Since it’s most likely only going to get worse when the bank backs up the bonus truck, here’s what GS is considering: what would you think of Lloyd and Co being forced, publicly of course, to give money to charity? They used to do something like this at Bear Stearns, and while Goldman tends to avoid adopting any idea devised by two guys hot-boxing an air shaft,* this one seems like it might have legs.
While the details of the latest charity initiative are still under discussion, the firm’s executives have been looking at expanding their current charitable requirements for months and trying to understand whether such gestures would damp public anger over pay, according to a person familiar with the matter who did not want to be identified because of the delicacy of the pay issue. The charity idea would be similar to a decades-long program at the failed investment bank Bear Stearns, which required more than 1,000 of its top workers to give 4 percent of their pay to charity each year and then checked their tax returns to ensure compliance.
Assuming a similar percentage and level of participation, that would mean Goldman’s top employees would commit to giving hundreds of millions of dollars to charity, though the precise amount would depend on the level of contributions and the number of workers who are required to take part.
But before we get ahead of ourselves, let us know honestly– would it do any good? Because if there’s no mileage to get out of it, you can forget it. To that end, let’s get some brainstorming going. If not this, what would get Goldman back in your good graces, or at least closer on the spectrum to nuzzling Lloyd’s scrot than taking a nine iron to it? How about, instead of just signing a check to charity, what if every employee was assigned a buddy, and had to serve as their butler for one year, doing whatever his/her “master” wanted, no questions asked. Need your thoughts on this one.
Update: Based on this great idea, how about just a Boys of Goldman Calendar? Bald is beautiful. And Lloyd has always loved the idea of posing like a fireman.
*I’m kidding, that exactly how they came up with the idea to initiate a buddy system between the prime brokerage and prop desk in order to facilitate front running of clients. As Lloyd says, sometimes you need to “open” your mind to see what’s right in front of you.
Human fund, bitches.
It's time for traders and bankers to have agents. Any time a trader or banker is paid more than the minimum NFL starting contract, said banker or trader should have to create a foundation to do good things in the way Lee Steinberg allegedly manages a sports celebrity. That foundation should not be confused with the "bitch fund" that many professional athletes have at present.
I give to charity, I pay the sell side.
@ 3 = major queer
Bess – your spelling & grammar has been poor these last few days. This has been offset by an improvement in the quality of your stories (more interesting insider scoops, less gratuitous T&A). I'll take that swap – keep it up!
@ you used the word queer. Take the dildo out of your ass and put it back in my desk drawer.
@5 you need to kill yourself. like, right fucking now.
@5….Your posts have become more annoying these last few days. That has been offset by your achieving new high in condescension and prudery. Examine your motives.
I would settle for GS paying Fed taxes!!
@8 agreed.
@5 fuck off and die.
A 'Goldman Girls' 2010 calendar, given out to every man in America. That'd definitely put Goldman back in my good graces. Although, on second thought, finance chicks aren't good looking…which is why they work in finance and not at the local strip club. So maybe, the calendar could be a make up of the hotest chicks Goldman bankers have banged over the past year.
@2
So we also get to unionize? That'd be interesting
I like LB "he has no Negro dialect unless he wants one." he can talk to both shareholders and employees
- harry Reid
Let me take a guess at how this will work:
1.) Goldman employees are forced to give part of their big bonuses to charity.
2.) The majority choose to max out their donations to political campaigns.
3.) Politicians lessen regulation and make it easier for GS to make money by taking advantage of main streeters and/or putting on huge bets that would ruin the economy if they fail.
4.) GS makes a boatload of money.
5.) Rinse, repeat.
@14 Main Street? Is that what we are calling your mom's ass these days?
@5 – Is today the worst day of your life?
@13 nice
@11 I have two words for you: Wealth Management
@17 Thanks
13
are they playing airplane in that pic?
@11, @18, judging by the lawsuits flying around these days, GS has got to be hiding some prime stuff in Investor Relations. Anyone know how the ladies and gents in GS IR would do in a calender?
@ 3, huh?
Replace LvP with the lovely and talented Charles Gasparino.
too many grammar mistakes – someone has the case of the mondays?
the * made my day.
@24 no one cares for your faggy contributions to the site. now run along and jerk off with a noose around your neck.
I think God directed LB to force Goldman associates to donate money to charity.
By the way LB, I happen to know that God is talking 4% gross, not net after tax. God cannot be expected to keep track of state and federal marginal income tax rates.
This might be good. Everything depends on how we define "charity". The more charity we give, the more we help build dependency. Or at least we can silence certain media /political wanna-be glad flies who will always attend our chicken dinners. You see if we give to certain charities, then we can lower the numbers of people we have to employ. We won't have to feel any guilt over the job loss on financing the next leverage buyout in Ohio.
@28
You had guilt about that in the first place? Enjoy the back office, you sap. See you at the holiday party if we have one
-Your Boss
@29
The point is I don't have any guilt. If it's not deductible, it's not on my radar. The charity stuff is giving them cake; and they won't notice because we've been spending a lot of money over the past 20 years dumbing them down. Dependency reigns, doesn't it.
So they pay the employees 4% more and the money comes out of shareholders pockets.
clinical psychopaths
that picture creeps me out
@ 14 – A contribution to a political campaign does not count as a charitable donation. So…your "guess at how all this will work," is wrong…putz.
@32: Though you are right (I didn't realize that political contributions were not considered charitable donations), you are missing the spirit of my argument for the details. To dismiss an entire argument because of a mistake in the details is just plain sophistry. The general idea of my post could be realized in other ways (enumerated here http://www.ehow.com/how_2061784_write-off-politic… Logic (or lack thereof) such as this is probably why we are where we are in the first place.
-14
Instead of asking senior executives to donate money to charity and receive all the personal benefits that go along with that (ie. your name on a building at your alma mater, securing your wife/husband a position as CEO of your own personal charity, etc.) why not have them forgo a portion of their bonuses completely and leave the money where in belongs – in the hands of the friggin' shareholders who own the company!! Unbelievable that these bozos seem to think they can run their company as their own personal piggy banks.
Again- HOW ABOUT PAYING FUCKING FED TAXES!!!!
How about that for charity…
@33/14: Actually, the mistaken idea that donations to political candidates/parties is tax deductible is critical to your theory, and not a mere "detail".
Also, I clicked on your link and an article came up on how to clear sidewalks of snow without damaging plants.
Personally I think it would be better to select a few Senior Goldman Sachs employees/executives at random and allow the public to stone them to death, or pull stomp their heads in until gray matter spews all over on the sidewalk, of course, their immediate families including children would have to be part of it to ensure their seed goes no wear… That would be awesome.
@37 Please note, we've all moved on and now we're talking about sticking chicken wings up asses. Like yours.
kthnx
4BbXOF I am so grateful for your blog.Really thank you!