Goldman’s new standards watchdog needs real teeth

May 9, 2010

There doesn’t seem to be much Goldman Sachs boss Lloyd Blankfein can do to silence his critics these days. The Wall Street firm’s decision to set up a business standards committee is a smart idea that could help shore up its reputation — and improve its relations with clients — but only if Blankfein gives the new watchdog real teeth.

The clearest way to do that is to ensure that the committee’s members have the power to say no to traders focused on making a fast buck that could damage the reputation of the franchise in the future. Blankfein reckons Goldman already does that, telling senators in April that the firm believes in rewarding “saying no as much as saying yes.”

To prove that, the committee will need to indulge in a modicum of transparency. That could mean appointing independent outsiders as members. At the very least it requires making public the standards by which the firm’s bankers and traders will be judged. That won’t be easy for Wall Street’s most cloistered parish. But without it, the committee will be little more than an empty PR exercise.

At stake is Goldman’s status as the trusted adviser that gets the first call from corporate chieftains, governments and investors the world over. Up to now, Blankfein says the business has held up well. But talk that AIG is dumping Goldman as its restructuring advisor is not a good sign — even if as a ward of the government it is easy to see why the insurer would be more sensitive to Goldman’s reputational issues than other firms.

The risk is that the longer Goldman remains under the microscope, the greater the chance that corporate clients will think like an AIG. A thoughtfully constructed committee tasked with “rigorous self-examination” of the firm’s business would be one way to ensure that Goldman’s legendary focus on what legendary senior partner Gus Levy called “long-term greedy” can continue to pay off.

Comments

I love the attention that this is bringing to greed & the unethical business practices on Wall Street. However, my question is this: why is the focus solely on Goldman Sachs? Clearly, other firms were acting in a similar manner.

In the end, I think that what is needed is heavy reform and policing of the industry. Without this action, there will firms that act unethically will have a competitive advantage over those who do not, since those practices lead to higher profits. And if this is the case, then inevitably there will be firms who take the unethical route.

Lastly, I think Goldman Sachs should be pushing for strong reforms & policing. No matter the level of policing, they will be in the best position to make the most profits, since they recruit the top employees, so why not make those large profits under a culture that they can feel good about?

Posted by Luke_Don | Report as abusive
 

if its possible I reply to Luke_Don: Goldman and Suchs is a BIG, BIG name and reuters take it as an exemple for all the others banksters. It’s name is also all explained WHY the usa are in the hand of some european tribe all of us know well without say it clearly,ok.
(Sorry, Reuters, I have a new laptop tonite where I can’t take the sign AT of my mail, sothat the subscribtion to the insiders panel has failed.Give me some name of DUBAI office both financial and media ones.Thanks)

Posted by magdin | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/