4 out of 5 stars.....
This former Goldman Sachs insider employee,
Steven Mandis, does a very good job in presenting both the history of
the firm and how it changed.
Founded over a hundred years ago as a
partnership, partners had the same values, extremely ethical, basically
to care most for the customers and think "long-term greedy" so that if
the customers were treated well and the customers knew that, the
partners would do well even if the film would sacrifice profits in the
short term to please the customers. And, as a partnership, the partners
were personally liable, so that all the partners' money was at risk, not
just their money in the firm, but their personal assets also, therefore
creating an environment of trust between partners and customers.
So,
a culture of both high ethical values and high profits created a
renowned culture, so much so, the firm was able to easily recruit the
best talent where each new recruit strove to be a partner. It created a
real team approach, everything for the customers and all employees.
The author described how that once proud culture didn't change overnight or dramatically over time, but "drifted."
The
drift began when the firm, around the 1980's changed to a limited
partnership, LLC, so that only the partners' assets held at the firm
were at risk. This change happened as competition grew and instead of
concentrating on things like mergers and acquisitions, and financing for
such deals - investment banking functions, expanded into where really
big profits were, propriety trading. The industry had metastasized, so
Goldman Sachs risked not attracting big clients.
Then, in 1999
the firm went public, with an IPO, the last major investment bank to do
so. Now, the firm had a priority to shareholders first, clients second
even though the firm still had fiduciary responsibilities to them. Plus,
the partners no longer had much liability. So, the firm was now more
concerned with following just legal responsibilities, making it harder
to follow just high ethical standards with clients, as public companies
were required to treat shareholders first, plus have a short term
outlook, rather than the former long term outlook. Also, as the company
became more complex, compensation policies changed, therefore less of a
team approach.
The author is perhaps most critical of Jon Corzine
and Lloyd Blankfien in transforming the firm around this time, to
making it competitive with the other companies especially with propriety
trading.But, there still was much of that previous culture around,
almost religious, so much so, the employees believed so even if not as
true anymore. So, the firm "drifted," still maybe a cut ahead of the
competition on ethics and reputation. It did survive the 2008 financial
crash, but needed help. Also, this drift happened at other firms and
really a warning to all about the industry.
Some points also from the book:
1. After the crash it was revealed in an email some securities sold to clients were "s***y.'
2.
Goldman Sachs always did have a commitment to public service, part of
its culture of a sense of higher purpose, and thus around 1979 many
former employees went to work for the federal government. This did have
the effect of expanding the firm's powerful network.
3. Part of
the firm's rationalizations that it's shareholder responsibilities
didn't really hurt clients is that they considered the clients "big
boys" and were aware of the new risks.
4. Goldman did branch out
into asset management in 1928 with closed end trust funds, which
cratered with the 1929 crash and Goldman did close down for a time.
5.
In 2012, in an Op Ed, former employee, Greg Smith, called the culture
at Goldman "toxic," specifically blaming CEO Blankfein and president
Gary Cohn.
6. Since teamwork was so important to Goldman
originally, it strove to recruit those with team sports, military and
public service backgrounds.
7. As competition grew, Goldman
expanded internationally, even taking on some questionable clients like
the Libya sovereign wealth fund.
8. Goldman was accused of its
privileged position of trust and confidentiality regarding its bailout
of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM).
9. In 2003, Goldman
settled charges by the SEC for conflicts of interest by research
analysts by paying $110M in fines, because of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
passed in 2002.
10. Beginning in 1999, Goldman's board of
directors had some outside directors, so less knowledge of inside
workings of the company.
11. It is debatable whether Goldman could have survived the 2008 financial crash without help from the government.
12 In 2006, Goldman was betting against mortgage bonds it was selling to clients, resulting in a fine.
13.
The author counted negative and positive articles about Goldman in the
NY Times from 1980-2012, and found more positive before 2007 and more
negative after 2007. Most of the negative articles after 2007 dealt with
conflicts with clients and connections to the government.
14. A
former employee, Greg Smith, mentioned above, wrote a scathing Op Ed,
criticizing Goldman with treating clients as "Muppets."
15. Goldman spent over $15M lobbying Dodd-Frank.
In
conclusion, Goldman's culture drifted over time, less to welfare of its
clients and more to welfare of it. All the while, even current
employees felt they were serving a higher purpose, based on original
culture. Meanwhile, clients still seemed to prefer Goldman because it
was better than its competition, not a very good testimony to the
industry