The Vampire Squid Is Getting Meaner
The “Vampire Squid” refers of course to Goldman Sachs. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone used this moniker to describe “the world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
It was a bit controvercial when his 2010 article proclaimed this. After all, Goldman was still doing bring business and there were no signs of client defections. You’d think customers would be the first to dislike the offending GS behavior.
Today came an interesting opinion piece in the NYT. A long-time employee writes why he is leaving GS and it isn’t pretty for the firm. Greg Smith is leavings because of “the trajectory of its culture…the environment is now as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.” Almost corroborating Taibbi’s claim is that “Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way.”
Interestingly, his main claim is that “the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money” and “how callously people talk about ripping their clients off”. The problem for GS’s future, Smith writes, is “how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.”
Which raises some interesting questions. If GS’s behavior is so bad, why aren’t clients defecting? Are they that oblivious, clueless, blind or dumb? Or does GS offer things that can’t be matched elsewhere such that customers stay anyway? Perhaps clients simply don’t feel these claims are accurate and that GS really does care about them? As illustrated by Buffett saving Salomon in the early 1990′s or Arthur Andersen disappearing after Enron, reputation and trust are so important in finance that if GS’s business doesn’t hurt from these allegations, either they are not taking advantage of clients or clients are truly oblivious. It’s hard to see a middle ground.
5 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2012 (2)
- January 2012 (3)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (3)
- August 2011 (6)
- July 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

For CEO Blankfein’s internal memo about the incident made public by the WSJ:
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/03/14/goldman-memo-we-were-disappointed-to-read-assertions/?mod=wsj_share_twitter
RE: why aren’t clients defecting:
No idea, I know nothing about investment banking. But maybe they’re the worst investment bank there is, except for all the others. Or least profitable for their clients, except for all the others.
If either of those are the reason GS clients aren’t defecting, then maybe there is insufficient competition in the investment banking world for some reason (high barrier to entry due to…. regulations? capital required? amount of time required to establish reputation/trust?).
That sounds a reasonable explanation to me, Gavin. Though there is roughly a dozen or so “second tier” investment banks. Why can’t they take share and compete with the big guys? It has been speculated that a) they aren’t as good and/or b) they aren’t as ‘good’ because they don’t have the same resources and balance sheet to back up their advice (too complicated for this space). I don’t know.
Another ‘Why I left GS’ from an older managing partner:
http://www.jackizehner.com/2012/03/16/why-i-left-goldman-sachs-version-two/
[...] The Vampire Squid Is Getting Meaner (thelongrunblog.wordpress.com) [...]