無良的高盛

Vic：我看了Greg Smith的紐約時報投書，認同美國聯儲局前主席沃爾克（Paul Volcker）所說：此信是「強而有力」的控訴。

高盛剝削客戶之事，早有聽聞，如今高盛自己人的控訴，提供了有力的佐證。我想起陳雲日前所言：「自利是要考慮利他的，因為利益他人有助於自利。自私卻不必考慮利他，只是考慮自己利益，不惜化公為私、損人利己！」金融機構提供有價值的服務，利人利己，是合情合理的「自利」，但如今高盛這類型的投資銀行，視損害客戶利益自肥為等閒事，示範了最惡劣的「自私」。這種公司，以及它們所代表的文化與思想，正是當今世界的毒瘤。

偶然看到Forbes上的一篇評論，作者說，假設Greg Smith所言屬實，大眾及政界不必採取任何行動，因為資本體制固有的自我修正功能，最終會淘汰這種腐敗的公司。理論上確實如此，但經歷金融海嘯後，我們都已知道，公眾與政界其實已被這些「大到不能倒」的金融機構挾持：我們都是它們的人質，為免與它們同歸於盡，只能拯救它們。（是否真的非救不可，大可爭論，但至少在金融海嘯中，大型投資銀行，只有倒霉的雷曼兄弟因為政府不願救而倒閉了。）

紐約時報的讀者留言，有許多精彩評論，茲摘錄數則：

dpr

I believe the change in culture you've seen at Goldman Sachs is just a reflection of the change that has taken place in our national culture over the last few decades. When I was growing up, no one considered a person's wealth to be an absolute measure of his or her worth to society. Now, for a large part of our culture, that has changed; the acquisition of wealth is seen as good, no matter how it is achieved.

Money-grubbing behavior is rewarded, and victims of such behavior are considered fair game, not just at Goldman Sachs, but everywhere. My cable company charges huge fees out of proportion to what it delivers, but fails to adequately staff customer service to field complaints. My bank has added ridiculous fees for just about everything except were expressly prohibited by law. I am put on hold for large swaths of time to get just about anything fixed. There is a fervor for ever more tax cuts for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of the middle class.

Our whole attitude about what is important has changed, and in my opinion, not for the better.

TH

I don't think things have changed that much at GS in the last 12 years. He must have joined right after the internet bubble collapsed, which GS was a big part of, hyping companies that had no real business plan. And then they moved right on to double-dealing toxic mortgage products. So the only thing that might have changed in the last 12 years isn't GS' culture but Mr. Smith's assessment of that culture.

The thing that really changed GS is the change from a partnership to a public company in 1999, just before Mr. Smith joined. Suddenly, the risks are off-loaded from leadership to shareholders, quarterly earnings become the focus, and management is free to wheel & deal any way they want to with little consequence to them. That has created a huge moral hazard and nothing is being done to control that.

John Woods

I have long felt and written about the purpose of an organization: it is to create a mutually beneficial relationship between itself and those that it serves. Whenever an organization does not do this, it undermines its long-term survival. Another thing I am sure of is that profit is a way to measure the quality of service to others because you have created a lot of value for them. Losses measure the same thing. GS is very profitable, but apparently this is because it manipulates the system and exploits its customers for its short-term gain. This is a formula for its eventual demise.

I hope this article is a wake-up call for Goldman's clients and management. If I had money with this place, I'd get it out now. If management focuses on profit rather than service, it is doing exactly the things to bring about its downfall. I seriously doubt that the current management of this place can make the changes necessary to turn this firm around. Their heads are in the wrong place. They have created this toxic culture to which their employees are adapting. I hope the board throws them out and brings in those who understand the first sentence of this comment.

Organizations are part of the larger environment and society in which they operate. They look out for themselves by looking out for that of which they are a part. GS seems to be doing all it can to destroy that environment and take itself down at the same time. Thanks to Greg Smith for calling them out.

GT LaBorde

Thank you, Greg for speaking out. I have been a Goldman client since 2006, and have been trying to get my money out for several years now, to no avail. My money was placed in proprietary funds that have under-performed other similar investments and were clearly designed to maximize Goldman's profit at my expense. I am not allowed to get money out of these investments, in some cases for up to 8-10 years, without a significant "haircut" (hmmm, I wonder if Goldman partners profit from the haircut??).

In one of these investments (which has lost 35% of its value since 2008), Goldman even refuses to provide basic information, like estimates of income or expenses for tax planning purposes. I literally have to guess the income my K-1 will show when I file my taxes in April, because Goldman won't even give me an estimate (much less quarterly or annual commentary or disclosure by the fund managers). In many years, the fund shows substantial interest income (on which I have to pay taxes), but none of that income is ever distributed to me and the NAV of the fund simultaneously goes down. Where did the income go? When asked, Goldman refuses to provide specifics (even though I am a limited partner of the investment partnership and have a right to this information).

It is amazing how little Goldman cares about its customers. Goldman exists for the sole purpose of enriching its partners.

John Riley

It takes a long time for people to come to the painful realization that the place you have dedicated your career to is morally bankrupt, and not worthy of your time or energy. Mr. Smith realized this, and left in a way where he would expose much of the misaligned culture, and hopefully bring about resolution. That takes courage.

amc

Congratulations, Greg!

I resigned from more than one company where integrity was seriously lacking. In my first position, I was ordered to help clients lie on financial statements and change invoices - the partner actually handed me a bottle of white out! I was ordered to be a part of hiding a pension shortfall that I discovered and was walked out for refusing to go along.

I have paid a price for walking away from these 'great opportunities', but I sleep well at night. You are brave to take a stand for your clients and for your own integrity. I applaud you for walking away and for speaking out.

延伸閱讀：葉家興 - 金融創新 向下沉淪

離職主管K高盛 罵掉市值635.8億

點名執行長與總裁負最大責任

自由時報 – 2012年3月16日

〔編譯楊芙宜／綜合報導〕高盛前主管史密斯（Greg Smith）週三刊載在紐約時報的投書，痛批高盛只向「錢」看、海削客戶的企業文化，「具毒害與毀滅性」，現任執行長與總裁須負起最大責任。投書透過電子郵件與推特被瘋狂轉載，在華爾街掀起軒然大波，高盛形象重創，股價應聲重挫三．四％，市值一夕間蒸發掉二十一．五億美元（約台幣六三五．八億元）。

史密斯在高盛工作十二年，為高盛在歐洲、中東與非洲地區的美國股票衍生商品事業部主管。他在離職前一天，以員工身分重砲抨擊高層的管理與唯利是圖的文化，被認為極具說服力。文章刊出的當天，他同時宣布離職。

這篇「我為何要離開高盛」投書指出，高盛將客戶利益放在一邊，滿腦子想的都是賺錢，與史密斯當初從大學畢業加入時相差許多，他不能再「昧著良心說認同這種環境。」

稱客戶為玩偶 由其身上撈錢

史密斯說，高盛內部冷酷無情地談論如何剝削客戶，過去一年他至少聽到五位董事把客戶稱為玩偶（muppets），有時直接在內部電子郵件裡如此稱呼。在高盛變成領袖的三種最快方式，一是向客戶強行推銷高盛不賺錢、亟欲脫手的股票或其他商品；二是慫恿客戶做高盛能賺大錢的交易；其三，從銷售任何沒有流動性、難理解的金融商品下手。

他指出，出席公司內部衍生性金融商品銷售會議，沒有一分鐘是討論如何協助客戶，全都在聊如何盡可能從客戶身上撈錢。高盛過去賴以成功的文化︰團隊精神、正直、人性精神和客戶利益優先，已經蕩然無存。在執行長貝蘭克梵（Lloyd Blankfein）和總裁寇恩（Gary Cohn）的監管下，公司道德淪喪，將嚴重危及長期營運。

史密斯表示，希望以公開投書喚醒高盛董事會，回到客戶為中心的文化。

高盛週三發表聲明反駁文中觀點，指投書無法反映公司營運方式；高盛認為，只有客戶成功，公司才能有成，這項基本事實深植於營運核心。然而，高盛形象已受到重創，週三股價重挫三．四％。

簽保密協議籠裏雞作反極罕

2012年3月16日

【明報專訊】一般投資銀行職員由任職開始，通常已簽署保密協議，不得對外透露內部運作，也不得與媒體接觸。史密斯高調投書控訴，在高盛可說是史無前例，在整個金融界亦屬罕見。雖然他的爆料內容很多已在有關高盛的著作出現，但首次由高盛在職員工現身說法，無疑令說服力大增，令輿論要求監管華爾街「肥貓」的呼聲更高漲。

《滾石》雜誌作家泰比（MattTaibbi）前年撰文，形容高盛為「巨大吸血魷魚，無情地將吸血觸鬚伸向任何有金錢氣息之物」，令高盛的「吸血鬼」形象深入民心。泰比對高盛昨「矮化」史密斯的身分、強調他只是普通職員不感驚訝，說早知高盛會說他只是「非洲莫桑比克分部的看更之類」，但認為這無損其爆料的說服力。

華爾街悄抗金融監管

泰比期望史密斯的「勇敢叛變」，可為華爾街帶來改變。他希望投資者認清高盛「不但驕傲可鄙，也不妥善管理資產」。

澳洲一間基金公司去年已入稟紐約法院，狀告高盛在金融海嘯前大搞劣質按揭證券（CDO），令他們輸錢。該公司的律師已準備利用史密斯的指控作為證據。

為防金融危機重演，美國總統奧巴馬2010年簽署金融監管改革法案，核心內容包括擴大監管機構（聯儲局）的權力，允許分拆陷入困境的金融機構和禁止濫用納稅人資金救市，同時有權對金融業高層的薪酬加以限制；其次是設立新的消費者金融保護局，監管金融產品銷售，同時又禁止投資銀行大搞「坐盤交易」（用公司自己錢來進行投機性交易賭博），以免因嚴重虧蝕引發系統性危機。

但華爾街也不就此坐以待斃，高盛、摩通等紛把坐盤業務剝離開來，讓部分交易員表面上「另起爐灶」搞新的投資基金，儘管他們跟老東家仍維繫着千絲萬縷的關係。

明報記者

正直史丹福高材生難再立足華爾街

2012年3月16日

【明報專訊】史密斯的公開信雖贏得掌聲，但恐怕他畢生也難再獲華爾街大行聘用。他的前校長盛讚他為人聰明正直，相信他受到強烈的是非觀驅使，所以不為金錢折腰，誓要揭露黑幕。但高盛內部也有人質疑他，只因「高不成、低不就」，陷入中年危機才炮轟公司。

成績優異校長盛讚操守

史密斯生於南非的中產猶太家庭，少年時在約翰內斯堡猶太大衛王私立高中就讀。他的校長沃爾夫稱，他性格沉靜踏實，聰明有禮，「正直無比」，持有很高的道德操守，在校內人人喜愛。在1996年的畢業考試，他在會計、英文、希伯萊文等8科全獲A級，憑獎學金赴美國史丹福大學攻讀經濟。

他大學時曾到高盛實習，畢業後旋即加入高盛，至今12年。他很多時負責訓練實習生，並在高盛的招聘影片上鏡，指導各院校學生如何向高盛應聘。但他在高盛的仕途似乎不大如意，雖然他自言是歐洲、中東和非洲地區的美國金融衍生品業務負責人，但《華爾街日報》引述知情人士稱，他的部門其實只有他一人，既不能升職，也沒下屬。

有高盛人士指出，史密斯的崗位應可為公司帶來豐厚利潤，很少人會像史密斯那樣待在這職位那麼久，要麼早獲晉升為董事總經理，要麼早已跳槽到其他公司擔任薪水更高的職務。有知情人士稱，爆料其實是史密斯的忠誠表現，他原本對公司前年的內部檢討寄望甚殷，但管理層卻漠視規管建議，才觸發他公開勸諫。消息指，史密斯去年薪酬約50萬美元，在華爾街標準不算多，估計他未必夠積蓄退休，可能要轉行從事教育等工作。

（紐約時報/路透社）