Skip to main content

Who Didn't Realize Sending Packages Containing Fake Grenades Was Something This Office Frowned Upon?

As you may have heard, earlier today, people working in 2 World Financial Center were evacuated from the building after a suspicious package was flagged by security. Initial reports claimed it contained a grenade; obviously this was cause for alarm and would have continued to be had the NYPD determined it to be an actual grenade and not a "grenade-like novelty item," mounted on a plaque with a sign that says "Complaint Dept. Pull Pin." Now that it's clear everyone is safe (and at least mildly buzzed), a few questions need answering. 1. Who sent this thing? Was it: a) A person whose sense of humor involves putting something like the above (or a sign that reads "I can only please one person per day. Today isn't your day...and tomorrow don't look good either") on her desk. b) An idiot friend of someone who works in the building. c) An rival bank trying to disrupt Nomura trading d) other 2. Assuming the item was purchased by someone working in the building, when do you think it dawned on him or her that they were responsible for having the building evacuated? 3. What will the consequences for the sender be, legal and professional? Senior Jailhouse Correspondent Matt puts the probability of prison time at 1.37 percent.
  • Author:
  • Updated:
    Original:

As you may have heard, earlier today, people working in 2 World Financial Center were evacuated from the building after a suspicious package was flagged by security. Initial reports claimed it contained a grenade; obviously this was cause for alarm and would have continued to be had the NYPD determined it to be an actual grenade and not a "grenade-like novelty item," mounted on a plaque with a sign that says "Complaint Dept. Pull Pin." Now that it's clear everyone is safe (and at least mildly buzzed), a few questions need answering.

1. Who sent this thing? Was it:
a) A person whose sense of humor involves putting something like the above (or a sign that reads "I can only please one person per day. Today isn't your day...and tomorrow don't look good either") on her desk
b) An idiot friend of someone who works in the building
c) An rival bank trying to disrupt Nomura trading
d) other

2. Assuming the item was purchased by someone working in the building, when do you think it dawned on him or her that they were responsible for having the place evacuated? Right away or after they'd been standing outside for a while, shooting the shit with colleagues and speculating as to what was going on ? And at that point what level of terror washed over them? Like, "This is awkward" or "[I need to get out of here NOW]"

3. What will the consequences for the sender be, legal and professional? Senior Jailhouse Correspondent Matt puts the probability of prison time at 1.37 percent.

Related

2 World Financial Center Evacuated, "Suspicious Package" Being Investigated [Update: Break's Over]

Building 2 is home to Nomura Securities, among others. According to the Daily News reports the package is thought to contain a grenade. Update: Though initially worried about what was going on, Nomura employees are apparently "pretty calm right now" and "gathered at a local bar waiting to see what's next." Nomura NY Offices Evacuated Due To Suspicious Package, Traders Say [MarketBeat] NYPD Investigating Suspicious Package at World Financial Center [Bloomberg] World Financial Center evacuated after suspicious package found [NYDN]

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.

Who Wants To Live In A Shipping Container?

For those answering "hell yes," one Wharton grad has got you covered.

Yahoo! RésuméGate, Day 9: Scott Thompson Didn't Even Offer Yahoo The Courtesy Of A Fake Résumé

Last Thursday afternoon, hedge fund manager Daniel S. Loeb, who is waging a proxy battle against Yahoo, made a simple request: that the board of directors fire CEO Scott Thompson, who had lied about having a computer science degree from Stonehill College, when in fact the academic fraud only graduated with a degree in accounting. Loeb wanted the job done by Monday at 12 noon, EST and as the deadline passed, it was clear the request was would not be honored. As a result, Loeb was forced to demand every single document related to Thompson's hiring at the company. Emails, heading hunting referrals, thoughts, feelings, the works. Most importantly, the résumé Thomspon submitted when applying for the gig. Did Loeb enjoy dragging this out? No. Did he take pleasure in watching the "carnage" unfold? Certainly not, and he's shocked and offended anyone would ever think that. Nevertheless, a computer science degree had been fabricated out of thin air and Loeb felt he owed it to shareholders to get some answers. And while Yahoo! has presumably not yet faxed over the documents he asked for, they did offer this: Apparently the Yahoo chief says he's being honest when he tells us no fake résumés were submitted to Yahoo because they never got any résumés, period. Yahoo‘s embattled chief executive, Scott Thompson, told the company’s senior management on Thursday that he never submitted a résumé or falsified his academic credentials, a person briefed on the matter said. [Dealbook]