But is his view a naive one? He says: "It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off.
Doesn't the health of a business, according to the dogmas of 21st-century capitalism, rest on its ability to squeeze the most out of its customers? And then there's Smith himself. Is what he's done a heroic act, sacrificing his own career for the greater good?
Is he a whistleblower, or something different? And to what extent do individuals bear responsibility for the ethical conduct of the place they work? Should this burden be shouldered by management, or, indeed, regulators? Tell us what you think about the explosive letter.
This article is more than 9 years old. In a statement cited by the Associated Press , Goldman Sachs said Smith's account did not "reflect the way we run our business. Similar charges have been levelled at the firm before, The Atlantic pointed out , especially following the financial crisis, which saw Goldman and others bailed out by US taxpayers.
However, its columnist wrote, "to hear them now, from a former true believer — Smith started at the firm as intern 12 years ago, and has been there ever since graduating from Stanford — makes them particularly damning. Meanwhile anthropologist Joris Luyendijk, who has conducted dozens of interviews with people in London's banking industry for The Guardian over recent months, said Smith's complaints were echoed by many others. Bankers' testimonies suggest many firms treat both their customers and their employees like "muppets," according to Luyendijk, who cites accounts of advisers pledging "We're gonna suck this client dry," and staff being fired at a moment's notice.
In an analysis piece , the New York Times suggested that Smith's criticism would be "especially painful to Wall Street now," as it seeks to win back investors' confidence following accusations of underhand dealings in the run-up to the financial crisis. However, Forbes columnist Nathan Vardi argued that it shouldn't take Smith's letter to put investors on guard — the recent scrutiny should have done that already.
More from GlobalPost: Tough times for Australian billionaires. But that does not and should not represent our firm of more than 30, people.
0コメント