JPMorgan CEO warns staff on schadenfreude after Goldman resignation | Reuters


All we need now is BBA wading-in in an attempt to persuade the gullible that banking culture has morals!!!

“I want to be clear that I don’t want anyone here to seek advantage from a competitor’s alleged issues or hearsay — ever. It’s not the way we do business.”

via JPMorgan CEO warns staff on schadenfreude after Goldman resignation | Reuters.

Morally bankrupt culture:: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs – NYTimes.com


A salutary lesson for every firm…particularly those within Financial Services (irrespective of scale).

Any “leader” who believes this is only about banks or bankers had better think again!

This is about the prevailing culture that they have presided-over, if not created. It may have enabled you to secure the wealth and power you so craved. But, if it is all that some of the newest, youngest, brightest recruits of the last 10 years have been fed and were/are too fearful to question, you can no longer deny that YOU have done your firm, these individuals, your clients (past and present), economies (local &/or global), future generations and, perhaps, the planet untold, perhaps irreparable, damage.

Unlike a Rating Agency my opinion is completely free! It is based upon both qualitative and quantitative data. Put as simply as possible, unless a financial organisation can offer a high level of transparency, sufficient to reassure its stakeholders and to (re)build TRUST it is not and cannot be deemed to be “investment grade”.

Financial Reform, courtesy of Basel and such like, should not come at the enormous expense that it does. Instead of spending increasing amounts on relentless lobbying it could be invested in “change” that stakeholders can see and believe in…TRANSFORMATION from the inside because you know and admit that it is the only way forward.

I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

via Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs – NYTimes.com.

If you like a good conspiracy story I would urge you to read this piece about Martin Armstrong who was only released from jail last year:

Looking behind the curtain: If you like a good conspiracy theory…

Don’t forget that Goldman’s played their part on aiding the Greek Government bring the Euro to the brink of the abyss! I (like others) have had a go at Goldman Sachs on more than one occasion. Enjoy.

 

Facebook and GS tie-up may be unholy disaster (Part 2)


I was reassured to find out that I am not the only person who “harbours concerns” about the future for Facebook:

“…This meme has slowly propagated, and quite a few other analysts have looked at the same; See Douglas Rushkoff and the Reformed Broker, amongst others. Goldman Sachs does not agree with this assessment, as they just poured $500 million into FB at a $50 billion dollar valuation, with an option for another $1.5 billion right behind it.

If and when Facebook goes public, they must monetize their user base — I find it hard to see how they do that without annoying their base of users away. Mine is a decidedly non-consensus viewpoint.

The free web app has to figure out a way to have the site generate revenue and profits from its immense user base. Currently, they generate about $ 1 billion dollars in revenues at about a 25% margin”.

Read full article: 5 Questions for Facebook Investors

Facebook have been “valued” by banksters Goldman Sachs at an outrageous amount but, on a couple of levels, this may be just a step too far: Facebook has already lost some of its appeal. It has become less “personal”, more confusing and complex with the addition of more and more features.    Then there was the underhand way in which the privacy debacle was handled. Facebook are only where they are now because of … Read More

via Get “fit for randomness” [with Ontonix UK]

Facebook and GS tie-up may be unholy disaster


Saint Wolfgang and the Devil, by Michael Pacher.

Image via Wikipedia

Facebook have been “valued” by banksters Goldman Sachs at an outrageous amount but, on a couple of levels, this may be just a step too far:

Facebook has already lost some of its appeal. It has become less “personal”, more confusing and complex with the addition of more and more features.   

Then there was the underhand way in which the privacy debacle was handled.

Facebook are only where they are now because of the phenomenal growth of its membership and it has been becoming more “monetized” (that’s commercial for us Brits).

Now it’s Facebook v Google.

How many people are  interested in taking sides, if it came to that? If presented with that choice I suspect that, given similar functionality, less commercial (or more personal) would be a major factor.

But, wait a minute, even with this huge investment from GS I have an inkling that success or failure will be determined by the memberships reaction to a deal, done with a firm, who were at the very centre of dodgy multi-billion dollar “off-book” deals, lies to Regulators, pressure on rating agencies, lying to and cheating clients, etc.      Of course GS weren’t  the only guilty firm responsible for saddling much of the current and future generations of potential Facebook members with debt that is not theirs and that they may never be free of.

Want some insight into why or how they have such a bad rep? Here’s what a former MD of GS had to say on their modus operandi:

…get the business, rake in the fees—and pawn off the overpriced goods on the clients (even the “shitty deals” so Goldman’s not holding the bag. That dirty formula cost Goldman a $550 million fine less than six months ago.

Yet the Facebook phenomenon shows us that nothing has changed. Goldman again moved aggressively to get the business—investing $75 million into Facebook early, at a low valuation,

Read more of this post

More evidence of the need for cultural change


self evident 

Image via Wikipedia

We already know, from the number of cases that have been exposed in the last few years, how banks, oil companies, insurers, aerospace, construction, motor manufacturers, Politicians, even nations and Churches have misrepresented themselves. Preferring to spend [and spend big] to create and maintain the illusion of respectability, quality, integrity, even piety!  Employees becoming dis-engaged. Prudent and dissenting voices silenced, even, “dismissed”.

Business has made itself just another victim of a culture of its own making. One of opacity and excess complexity.

FTSE 100 companies analysis reveals a lack of transparency over risk in most annual reports. Let’s face it this isn’t really news is it? Nor is it bounded by national borders! No surprise either that BP are cited in the article but, whilst their, justifiably, much maligned CEO came in for some real stick from US Senators I thought his “performance” more credible than that of the Goldman Sachs CEO! Apparently he knew next to nothing, couldn’t remember much about anything related to strategy, transactions, conversations with Treasury Officials, etc. where there may have been some scope for further implicating GS and [the clincher] struggled to see too much wrong in “stealing” money from US taxpayers in the guise of bailout payments to AIG!!!

“Risk identification and management discussion still seems to be difficult for companies to convey in a relevant and informative manner with some reports providing very little in detail in terms of risk management regarding who is responsible, what the process is and some practical examples of how risks are managed throughout the business.”

Related articles by Zemanta