
Greg Smith is resigning from Goldman Sachs and in the process confirming every dark liberal fantasy about how Wall Street works and what it does.
It's been a while since I've been on the sell side, but I can still see this guy coming a mile off. I don't know him at all. But it's obvious that he's lost some internal political war and made the determination that he'd be better off leaving in a big public way than trying to tough it out a little longer. Maybe he's changing firms, or maybe he's looking for a gig on MSNBC, working on a book, and he thinks an OpEd would be an opener for him into the media world. Like I said, I don't know him. But I do know that no one who is capable of success on Wall Street writes an OpEd trashing their employer unless the bridge is already burned.
My first job on the JPMorgan trading floor was working on the exotic swaps desk in NY. Swaps were still a new thing back then, and we dealt in Swaptions, knock-ins, knock-outs, step functions and the various permutations of the probabilistic swaps market.
Although it's quite a way back in the mists of time, I can still recall a situation where we determined that one client - a municipality - had put on it's positions in such a convoluted way that if rates went up they paid us a lot, if they went down they paid us even more, and if they stayed the same they paid us a little. These were just hedges so the numbers weren't very big, and we had responded only to customer requests so it wasn't our fault - it's what the client did to themselves. But since they had lost track of their positions, they had put themselves in a spot where there was literally no way for them to win.
We explained this to the MD in charge and he ordered us to inform the client of the situation and to unwind which ever two of the three risk components they wanted us to. "They may go broke" he said "but they aren't going to go broke because of us." We argued that they may have positions with other firms offsetting the positions with us (and in fact they did) but it meant nothing to the boss. He was insistent. And it was a good thing too. The client was Orange County California, and just a few weeks later, they declared bankruptcy - and did it with no help from us.
The point is, a Sell Side firm and their clients have aligned interests, but the bank doesn't control them. They never did. It's even more true for this guy where his clients are professional investors, than it was for me. And in an environment like the one we have today where Wall Street is being systematically vilified by politicians and 'fellow travelers' like the NYTimes editorial board, it's probably going to be even more true. Goldman is no different from JPMorgan in that regard.
This guy says that it's testimony to how important he was that he appeared in the recruiting video. To me that only says that he has one of those interesting and worldly sounding South African accents. We all used to fight like hell to avoid recruiting work because you don't make the firm any money doing it. And if you don't make money for the firm then you don't get promoted and you don't get paid. That's the real culture of the Sell side - always has been. And I think that probably points to Greg Smith's real problems at Goldman.
Whatever industry you're in, I'm sure you've seen people who lose political battles and are forced to leave because the tide turns too strongly against him. That's what this guy sounds like to me. He has no specific allegations and names no names. He doesn't even have the 'evil' corollary to my story where he was told to ignore the client's interest and focus on profitability. All he has is a general feeling about the culture of the firm, and an instinct that his political sun is setting. But that's enough for him to trash Goldman and the rest of the industry on his way out the door.
The big banks aren't saints. They never were. But to believe a story like Greg Smith's is to indulge in a fantasy that benefits no one. I'm quite sure that he's written this piece because he thinks it will help him. He believes it's opening up his options. He's going to be a hero to the left of course, but he's no hero. He's a guy who can't take his loss like a man and move on like the rest of us do. He's not the first guy to be where he is.
%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%
Already a spoof: Why I left The Empire By Darth Vader
I'm sure someone is already working on the subtitles for when Hitler learns of Gregg's departure from the Third Reich.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE #2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A person familiar with the matter said Mr. Smith’s role is actually vice president, a relatively junior position held by thousands of Goldman employees around the world. And Mr. Smith is the only employee in the derivatives business that he heads, this person said.
Apparently there is a reason I don't know the guy. Twelve Years as a VP in charge of a one man department is not exactly a fast tracker.

5 comments:
spot on.
Sounds like Greg got 'stepped over' which is to be expected.
even at Bear, we had a great culture; we were Delta House in equities, but we had a lot of douchebag rah-rahs like Greg Smith that figured if he sucked enough corporate schlong and played the golden boy part he'd be living large. He failed to adapt and failed to look over his shoulder.
He got 'stepped over' probably by another guy or gal just like him.
... and he deserved it.
I'm calling all my GSC pals and having a hysterical laugh over Greg's decision to take his bat, glove and balll and go home...
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've never been in finance and don't know it. However,I love Milton Friedman, and I'd really, really like to think that what they call "Wall Street" is doing what it's supposed to be doing in what I'd like to believe is still mostly a free market economy, and that every dollar of bonus paid to a finance guy represents value added to the economy at large.
But every time I read some story about Goldman Sachs in particular, my faith is shaken. From my perspective, it seems like Goldman Sachs is rich and powerful to a huge extent because of enormous success in lobbying the government to tip the scales in favor of Goldman Sachs.
It feels like living in Facsist Italy circa the '20s, or in some corrupt banana republic. I don't have anything against profit or success or wealth, earned by merit, but Goldman Sachs seems to stink of favoritism and political pull earned by who -- not what -- you know.
For example, let's say this Greg Smith character is a whiny failure at whatever it was he was supposed to be doing. He had the title of vice president, but that title is basically meaningless. Fine, but what kind of an institution hands out meaningless titles like that? It seems deceptive. And he was used in recruitment videos because of his exotic accent, not because he had anything of worth to say. Well, then. And Greg Smith may be a hypocrite. But, if his claims are valid, that's a shame to him, but not a defense of Goldman Sachs. Are they providing a service to the "muppets" who are their clients or not?
The fact that they get paid is not an answer. Bernie Madoff got paid. Friends of Putin in Russia get paid. Union contractors who screw up their work usually get paid.
To a Wall Street insider, the difference between the good guys and the bad guys may be intuitive and obvious. To us outsiders, it's not. I desperately want to believe that our country's economy has not descended into third world cronyism. If you want to, you could help in that way by explaining to us outsiders the way Wall Street really works in practice.
Fair Questions Gerard.
I'm drafting something right now to address some of them but it's already too long for the comments section. I'm right up to my A$$ in gators today, so it might not be available until this evening, but keep an eye out for it as my next substantive post.
But as a teaser... Citicorp has MUCH closer ties to Washington than Goldman and no-one seems to hate them.
Think about it.
what people forget about GS was that during the 80's and 90's they stepped up their game. They were ahead of the curve when it came to the tech sectors and were recruiting and building a system that was not only highly desireable, but established the marquis in institutional account coverage, research and market making. This is no more mystical or unfair as George Steinbrenner did with the Yankees.
Before GS it was Solomon. You had Solomon guys everywhere...
GS demostrated organizational qualities and personalities that was now being desired by the public sector.
I remember when Clinton Appointed Arthur Levitt to chair the SEC.
We thought good ol' Artie was going to regulate in favor of the market-makers, what we got was tighter spreads, law suits, more regs and the spawn of that period that has replaced specialists: High Freq!
After 1998, you realized which companies were running "backwards" with a deep desire to retain a margin model that was going the way of the dodo...
Case in point was UBS aquiring Schroedr, then PWJC... and building the white elephant in Stamford.
GS went forward when so many companies were unwilling to adapt or hired dolts like Dick Fuld to run the show.
I can't blame GS for giving Jon Corzine to NJ, but I can blame idiot NJ voters for getting star-struck and not realizing why GS shitcanned him.
A little 'inside baseball' but very well said.
Post a Comment