Barry Ritholtz, chief executive officer at FusionIQ, talks about departing Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Greg Smith’s op-ed attacking the firm. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness With Margaret Brennan.”


Source: Bloomberg, March 15 2012

Category: Corporate Management, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

3 Responses to “Bloomberg TV: Me on Goldman Executive’s Op-Ed”

  1. jd351 says:

    Barry, I am one of your biggest fans, loved the book and I think you do a wonderful job . However when it comes to the question whether you would hire this guy, I must say you gave the biggest Bull Shit answer. The guy was honest plain and simple, did he throw you guys under the bus, absolutely, but that is a good thing, no matter how you look it it. Now this is all a game to you guys, but for people like me who invest their 401 k , this is serious business. Anyways I am passive index investor, boring yes , but it works. Next time keep the bull shit to yourself.

    ~~~

    BR: What am I going to do with an ex-Goldman Institutional sales guy in my shop?

  2. CitizenWhy says:

    Straight on point about the differences between a private partnership, which is free to act long term, and a public company that has to meet short term quarterly expectations.

    The compensation/bonus system is also very different. Under a partnership Goldman Sachs compensation was structured to reward long term success and punish short term gain that harmed relationship value.

    As a partnership Goldman Sachs was a real investment bank – raising capital through equity and bonds offers, advising on mergers and acquisitions, and not trading on its own capital. It promoted people with diplomacy and relationship management skills as well as money making abilities. And there was fiduciary responsibility to clients.

    Now calling Goldman Sachs an investment bank is a joke. It is a big trading house dealing in dodgy and deliberately deceptive derivatives. Investment bankers now cannot make it to CEO. That office is reserved for traders (like Hank Paulson). Even worse is the hypocrisy of rechartering Goldman Sachs as a commercial bank so it can live off money from the Fed, money put to dubious purposes.

    Goldman Sachs must be eliminated. It would be a better world without Goldman Sachs in it.

  3. adamsdc says:

    The money changers have always been with us, but the US tax code has been taken over by these people who contribute many millions to elect their candidate regardless of the party. (Goldman being the poster boy in the last election.) A flat 70% tax on those who make their money by speculation vs. producing goods that have value would take us back to even better days that Greg Smith never saw, when Lincoln said that speculators are always out to steal from people who earn their money through hard work.