Comments on: When Winkelried left Goldman

By: johnhhaskell

johnhhaskell — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:17:19 +0000

Felix-
It’s cute that you bought the cover story.

Winkelreid blew himself up and was forced out.

By: Gaw

Gaw — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:53:51 +0000

I bet they were relieved to get rid of him at that salary. Quite a bit more to go around.

By: msobel

msobel — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:48:03 +0000

If you want loyalty, have your assistant lease a dog.

By: Philon

Philon — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:36:59 +0000

“Loyalty to the firm”? What utter nonsense! A corporation is not a person; it has no feelings or other psychic attributes. It is not the sort of entity that is properly either the subject or the object of loyalty.

“Winkelried got paid $53.4 million in 2006, and $67.5 million in 2007. That should have bought a bit more loyalty than this . . . .” What that bought was two years’ worth of work. Winkelried delivered his side of the bargain; he owed nothing more.

By: scott1959

scott1959 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:31:39 +0000

He may not have shown a lot of loyalty to the firm, but do you really think the firm would show a lot of loyalty to him? In the end, I doubt it. Not in this day and age. So I am not sure why loyalty is even mentioned here.

By: RIckWebb

RIckWebb — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:13:44 +0000

I’m sure he had a further horizon to look past than just the stock price on that day, though. He probably had pretty intimate knowledge of everything we now know – that profits were back, that their trading operations were going gangbusters, and that they’d come out ahead. Time has proven him correct. And he stayed long enough to make sure the company was safe. Where’s the disloyalty?