Goldman Sachs Probably Won't Be Laying People Off Anytime Soon

People being the operative word here, as the statement "we're going to look for other means for efficiency" most certainly suggests plants may once again find themselves on the chopping block. After a year of cost-cutting that resulted in more than 2,400 job cuts, Goldman Sachs is satisfied with its staffing levels and doesn't intend to conduct more large layoffs. Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said the firm has "largely implemented our announced expense reductions" and is "relatively well-positioned, assuming the environment stays where it is." He was speaking on a conference call with analysts to discuss first-quarter earnings. "We're going to look for other means for efficiency," he said. "I wouldn't expect anything major to change from where we are." Goldman Sachs Ends Layoffs [FINS] Related: Layoffs Watch ’11: Goldman Sachs’ Philodendrons In The Line Of Fire
Author:
Updated:
Original:

People being the operative word here, as the statement "we're going to look for other means for efficiency" most certainly suggests plants may once again find themselves on the chopping block.

After a year of cost-cutting that resulted in more than 2,400 job cuts, Goldman Sachs is satisfied with its staffing levels and doesn't intend to conduct more large layoffs. Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said the firm has "largely implemented our announced expense reductions" and is "relatively well-positioned, assuming the environment stays where it is." He was speaking on a conference call with analysts to discuss first-quarter earnings. "We're going to look for other means for efficiency," he said. "I wouldn't expect anything major to change from where we are."

Goldman Sachs Ends Layoffs [FINS]
Related: Layoffs Watch ’11: Goldman Sachs’ Philodendrons In The Line Of Fire

Related

Layoffs Watch '12: Goldman Sachs

The cuts aren't expected to go too deep but every man, woman, and plant counts. David A. Viniar, Goldman's chief financial officer, said the latest round of belt-tightening by the New York company might include job losses for "a couple of hundred people." By year end, Goldman will reduce total expenses by $500 million on top of about $1.4 billion in cuts since last spring. Goldman To Tighten Belt Further [WSJ] Related: Goldman Sachs’ Philodendrons In The Line Of Fire

Layoffs Watch '12: Goldman Sachs

A whole bunch of senior people were to pack up their things and leave last Thursday. Goldman Sachs laid off about 50 people last week, according to people briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak on the record. The cutbacks have rattled some people in the firm, in part because a number of the employees were managing directors and on the higher end of Goldman’s pay scale. We're also told that "good performers, not dead weight" were among those cut, which must doubly sting. Goldman Sachs Cuts A Little Deeper [NYT]

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:

FYI, Whitney Tilson's Investment Thesis On Goldman Sachs Has Not Changed In Light Of Times Op-Ed (Update)

Having said that, T2 Partners will be "monitoring" the situation. The op ed in today’s New York Times by retiring Goldman Sachs Executive Director Greg Smith is the talk of Wall Street. We think we know Goldman well, as the company has been our prime broker for the past seven years and Goldman (both stock and call options) is one of our largest positions, so we wanted to add our comments. Our direct experience as a client of Goldman has been universally positive. The many people we have dealt with there have all been exceptionally talented and high-grade, and never once have we had a negative experience in which we felt that they took advantage of us or didn’t do what they said they would do. That said, we are not naïve. In all of our dealings with Wall Street firms, we assume that they are looking out for their own bottom lines, not ours. And we are certainly aware that the old, gentlemanly culture in which integrity and a customer-first attitude generally prevailed is long gone – not just at Goldman, but across all of Wall Street – and, in fact, across the entire financial industry (the reasons for this and what should be done about it are the subject for another day). When we think about investing in any company – especially a financial one, which is heavily regulated, leveraged, and particularly difficult for an outsider to analyze – we factor into our investment equation our assessment of the company’s culture and values, and, if we have any concerns, what the potential associated risks are, such as unexpected losses and regulatory action. In light of our view of the moral decay across the U.S. financial sector, we aggressively haircut our estimates of intrinsic value in the sector – some companies more so than others. But at some price, of course, any stock is a buy, and last August and September we felt that the negativity surrounding the financial sector was way overdone and hence made a big – and, so far, very profitable – bet on Goldman and a number of other U.S. financial firms. With the run-up in Goldman’s stock – after falling below $90 as recently as December, it’s now over $120, just above tangible book value of $119.72 as of 12/31/11 – we’ve been debating whether to trim or exit our position, so today’s op ed is timely. But is it relevant to our investment thesis? We think probably not, for two reasons: 1) The argument that Goldman has become increasingly profit driven, sometimes at the expense of clients’ best interests, and that some employees use vulgar and disrespectful language is hardly news. What’s the next “shocking” headline: “Prostitution in Vegas!”? 2) We highly doubt that Goldman is as truly corrupt as Smith makes it out to be. Goldman has more than 30,000 employees (including nearly 12,000 vice presidents, of which Mr. Smith is one) and has gone through wrenching changes in the past year, including savage cuts to bonuses and extensive layoffs, so it doesn’t surprise us that there are many disgruntled employees, especially those who are leaving. Is Smith one of them? It’s hard to tell, but here’s an email sent to me this morning by a former partner at Goldman (who generally agrees that the firm’s culture is not what it once was): There are a couple of things out of place. 1) This guy has been at firm for 12 years and is only a VP…a piss ant of sorts. He should have been an MD-light by now, so clearly he has been running in place for some time. 2) He was in U.S. equity derivatives in London…sort of like equities in Dallas…more confirmation he is a lightweight. Somewhere along the line he has had sand kicked in his face…and is not as good as he thinks he is. That happens to a lot of high achievers there. In summary, we think it’s likely that Goldman does the right thing for its clients the vast majority of the time – but not as certainly as it used to in the old days. Times have changed and the trend is unfortunate, but it is not unique to Goldman. In fact, we believe that Goldman still has a better culture and is more ethical than most of its competitors – though this is a very low bar to be sure. Our investment thesis on Goldman is simple: when all the dust settles, it will remain the premier investment banking franchise in the world – and, if so, will be worth a substantial premium to tangible book value. Smith’s column is a warning flag that we’ll be monitoring closely, but we believe our investment thesis remains intact and the stock is still cheap, so we’re not selling.