Since the publication of Greg Smith's now infamous Op-Ed, Why I am Leaving Goldman Sachs, I've been deluged with messages from many friends and former
colleagues wanting to process this very public resignation in light of my
much-quieter Wall Street departure nearly 11 years ago. They recognized my privately
expressed concerns, "Wall Street is changing and I don't want to work
here anymore," as similar to Mr. Smith's departure from a finance career that
began about the time mine ended.
These have been fascinating conversations,
rippling around the airwaves and cyberspace. Conversations that
reminded me of the recent St. Paul's Institute Study Value and Values: Perception of Ethics in The City Today which investigates the attitudes of London's elite financial service workers about their work. Like Mr. Smith, they perceive a type of "soulessness" when they view their work in light
of their values. Unfortunately for most of us--- folks who do not participate in the annual compensation bonanza known as Wall Street bonuses---our experience as market participants has not been very profitable since my career change back in
2001.
Whether savers, investors or simply future pension beneficiaries hoping to someday retire with dignity, the phrase "Financial Innovation" has become synonomous with Warren Buffet's
oft-repeated definition of derivitives as "financial weapons of mass
destruction."
Through the lens of sustainicity, the most troubling aspect of Mr. Smith's provocative resignation tactic is summed up in the Kevin Roose's column in yesterday's Times, Wall Street Loses Luster On Campus. I was encouraged to read that our nation's best-and-brightest are reconsidering the arc of their careers and are looking outside "The Street" to deploy their considerable intellectual capital. They seem to be considering enterprises that are stimulating and well paid but which align more closely with their values---working on innovations that build social capital and help solve our world's most intractable problems. Although some are motivated by altruism, most are simply trying to avoid risking their own reputations with an industry that still does not seem to get it.
If Goldman Sachs and other firms fail to recruit these young minds, how will they continue to innovate and build value for their investors? How long can the firm retain its leadership position?
When I left Wall Street the decision was highly personal, the "service" part of financial services seemed to be on the decline in favor of dispersion analysis and modeling that had little to do with value creation or customer service. Back then the derivitives floodgates were really just cracking open. Like Mr. Smith, I was one of thousands of Vice Presidents. Unlike Mr. Smith, I was neither a disgruntled employee nor particularly visionary. I just found myself increasingly uncomfortable with my firm's priorities and had a chance to exit.
Goldman surely won't miss Mr. Smith and yet in all their smug rebuttals to his inelegant departure, they may want to consider its impact as they recruit his replacements. Through the scrim of breathtaking institution hubris I am compelled to ask---Goldman, are you listening?
Maybe I misread Smith's op ed but I failed to discern the visionary aspect of his resignation. More than three years have passed since the financial crisis for which Goldman Sachs is seen as especially complicit. More than three years in which Smith stayed at the firm, collecting the considerable compensation of a VP.
ReplyDeleteMore compelling a story of vision might be that of one who left a firm at which he or she was doing well, in order to embark on a career of doing good.