Goldman Sachs Traders Brought Shame Upon Firm Two Days Last Quarter

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

For the third quarter this year, Goldman Sachs's trading desks made more than $100 million on seven days, some sort of profit on 64 out of the 66, and lost on a mere two. At Morgan Stanley, which only had one single $100 million day and lost money on ten days, these results would be considered excellent and the sort that James Gorman would knock off a hobo to report. There would be piñatas and cake and they'd let everyone take the rest of the year off for a job amazingly well done. But this is not Morgan Stanley, this is Goldman Sachs, which means the responsible parties are going to pay.

For the traders who brought shame on God's house, who've been made persona non grata since the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission this morning, who will receive cold shoulders from colleagues and not so much as a 'ha' in response to a funny link sent over IM this afternoon, there must be some recognition of what they've done. Something worse than being fired or having their bonuses shrunk or their nipples zapped for every inch in the red. An aversion shock therapy of sorts. Something that will make them never want to lose money again.

Not to give away too many details but as a warning to the rest of you at GS-- if you hear cries coming from the basement of 200 West today, don't go down there to investigate unless you want to see things you can't unsee. Your friends, strapped down and being read passages of a new book by the author himself. Wearing the bandana. As Lloyd and Gary watch through one way glass from above. Wondering if they've gone too far, but knowing this is the only way anyone will learn.

The same mistakes won't be made again.

Related

Goldman Sachs Does Not Look Kindly Upon First Year Analysts Who Plan In Advance

Pop-quiz: you're a first year analyst at Goldman Sachs, with a little more than twelve months left until your two year commitment is over and you are free to take a job elsewhere. Do you A) take part in private equity and hedge fund recruiting now, and, if someone was particularly impressed with your junior mistmaking skills, accept an offer for a gig beginning in June 2013 or B) tell the buyside you are sorry but are prohibited from engaging in such activities at this time, as they would pose a conflict of interest for Goldman Sachs? At this time, GS JM's believe the correct answer is A, while higher-ups, who believe there is a firm policy in place that says no analyst shall take part in recruiting until six months from the time they've finished the two year program, are going with B. So now this is happening: Goldman has been firing IBD first year analysts with buyside offers. Senior people are calling up funds to ask if any analysts have received offers from them. A bunch have been cut so far. A bunch, we're told, is in the ballpark of four, which seems like enough to put the fear of god into people.

Goldman Sachs Can Fix This

A week ago today, a man named Greg Smith resigned from Goldman Sachs. As a sort of exit interview, Smith explained his reasons for departing the firm in a New York Times Op-Ed entitled "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs." The equity derivatives VP wrote that Goldman had "veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say I identify with what it stands for." Smith went on to note that whereas the Goldman of today is "just about making money," the Goldman he knew as a young pup "revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients." It was a culture that made him "love working for the firm" and its absence had stripped him of "pride and belief" he once held in the place. While claiming that Goldman Sachs has become virtually unrecognizable from the institution founded by Marcus (Goldman) and Samuel (Sachs), which put clients ahead of its own interests, is hardly a new argument, there was something about Smith's words that gave readers a moment's pause. He was so deeply distraught over the differences between the Goldman of 2012 and the Goldman of 2000 (when he was hired) that suggested...more. That he'd seen things. Things that had made an imprint on his soul. Things that he couldn't forget. Things that he held up in his heart for how Goldman should be and things that made it all the more difficult to ignore when it failed to live up to that ideal. Things like this: