It's all so predictable, even the reaction of the bank:
Quote
From the Rolling Stone article
Update: Well, the blowback is already here. The Wall Street Journal this morning has stooped already to helping Goldman smear Smith. Here's
their take:
Goldman is taking issue with other elements of Mr. Smith’s piece.
“We disagree with the views expressed, which we don’t think reflect the way we run our business,” a Goldman spokeswoman said. “In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves.”
Mr. Smith described himself as an executive director and head of Goldman’s U.S. equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
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.
You just knew that sooner or later, the bank was going to come out and say that Smith was actually a janitor in Goldman's Mozambique office or something. It's just surprising they did it so quickly.
Anyone who reads these critiques and even thinks about believing them should go back and look at Senator Levin's report on Goldman. There's backup in there for all of Smith's allegations, from the bit about the axes to the derogatory comments about clients (only in the Levin report, they weren't "muppets," but a "white elephant, flying pig, and unicorn all at once"). All of this is in internal emails that were published long ago. The only difference now is that it's coming from one of Goldman's own people.
Read
this article of a few years back yesterday on Rolling Stone. Colourful language, but then again, there are no words colourful enough to describe the bank. The thing is, why do we/the general public still trust/believe these people?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2012 03:22AM by tliet.