The following is a comment posted by Custody Calculations dealing with an article that appeared on The Washington Post with Bloomberg Business by Christine Harper and updated, Thursday, March 15, 2012.
The article was in response to an Essay by prior employee Greg Smith who resigned saying among other things that he was quitting after 12 years at the company, blamed Blankfein, 57, and President Gary D. Cohn, 51, for a “decline in the firm’s moral fiber.”
Goldman Sachs responded in a memo to current and former employees, saying that Smith’s assertions don’t reflect the firm’s values, culture or “how the vast majority of people at Goldman Sachs think about the firm and the work it does on behalf of our clients.”
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. saw $2.15 billion of its market value wiped out after an employee assailed Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein’s management and the firm’s treatment of clients, sparking debate across Wall Street. (It is clear based on their stock market decline that many disagree with the rebuttal position of Goldman Sachs.)
Just recently Custody Calculations blogged, “Does Goldman Sachs Have a Moral/Ethical Responsibility to Invest in Tax Payers.” A retired law enforcement officer with nearly 24 years of experience I approached CEO Blankfein and other members of Goldman Sachs for an investment in impacting the very devastating social problem of divorce, making it less traumatic for children and families and more efficient for divorce professionals and the courts.
We identified that Goldman Sachs had received nearly 20 Billion in bail out monies and that the bail out of the divorce process would be in the neighborhood of $700,000. Which seemed a small price to pay for the monies they received. We also invited Goldman Sachs to “impact this social problem” more fully by lending their expertise in management and other areas.
They couldn’t be bothered to help tax payers! Their response; “this opportunity is not consistent with current investment objectives and interests.” Wonder what would have happened if the “muppets” had said the same to Goldman Sachs that “this opportunity is not consistent with current investment objectives and interests.” Where would Goldman Sachs be today!
The term “muppets” says exactly what Goldman Sachs thinks of their investors and what value they are placing on the investment monies they have been entrusted with.
This story combined with the release of the information on national debt is exactly why investing in capitalism to solve social problems of this country as opposed government is so necessary. I only hope that Morgan Stanley will feel differently. After all they received approximately 107.3 Billion dollars compared to Goldman Sachs smaller cut of 20 Billion.
To read the full article and comments appearing on the story click on the following link or copy and past into your url window: