DJ Goldman Statement In Response To Report Of Layoffs -CNBC Page 1/1

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Goldman Sachs (GS) said it is targeting the bottom 5%
of performers in its workforce to lay off as part of its annual review process,
CNBC reported Friday.
The review targets about 1,500 of 30,000 positions.
Goldman's statement came in response to a Reuters report saying the financial
giant was aiming to lay off 5% of its global workforce. Goldman told CNBC the
review was entirely related to individual performance, not business conditions.

Your snitch is spot-on.

Check GS's employment numbers in May (before the summer interns). W/h/e/n/ If they're not the same, remind the person who sent the press release.

Still waiting for you to talk about the AAPL, in Erin's Eye...

Firing the weakest non-goldmanesque employees, what could be more goldman than that?

Bottom 5%? Consider yourself lucky.

@11:33 Agreed - just natural selection and capitalism at work.

I love how they try and spin this like it's not a layoff, albeit a small one. Those laid-off guys/gals feel just as laid off as the ones from other firms.

Just saw news that Credit Suisse laying off 500 across IBD!!

Add that to Morgan and Goldie- cuts and its looks like NYC real-estate is quickly becoming a buyers market.

Holla

It's not a layoff! But ladies and gentlemen, you will find that a few of you have our golden boot in your asses this morning and will have to exit the premises.

It's not a layoff! But ladies and gentlemen, you will find that a few of you have our golden boot in your asses this morning and will have to exit the premises.

if you're the bottom 5% at GS, does that make you the top 5% at BAC or C?

if you're the bottom 5% at GS, does that make you the top 5% at BAC or C?

@12:00 -- No, it makes you a private banker.

i'm inclined to believe bess's reasoning, re: god being busy writing the sodomy article.

if you're the bottom 5% at GS, does that make you the top 5% at BAC or C?

@12:00 - Check the league tables and see who gets the deals. You are way off, at least where C is concerned.

Regarding league tables, you should understand that a very important factor regarding who gets a deal is the degree to which banks are willing to provide capital to support a transaction in addition to the underwriting at hand (be it debt or equity). That means participate in revolvers, bridge financing for M&A transactions and the like. Hence the rise of the universal banks, who are willing and able to pony up. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here, but its an important issue to raise. Kind of the elephant in the room: the deals are more and more commoditized. They don't always go to the best and brightest.

everyone say hello to 12:22 we have a first year analyst prepared to teach us all about banking

@12:22

You're absolutely right that C and MER, for example, have lots of capital. However, that does not mean that they do not also employ top people, and private banker's comment was totally unfounded and uneducated.

And thank you @12:34.

i would argue that the private bankers are among the least likely to get dumped, as that is a relationship business, you actually lose something tangible as opposed to culling say the bottom 5% traders, sales, IB analysts, whatever

@12:22 here. Actually not a first yr analyst, but an AT at an industrial in charge of M&A and capital raising. My reason for offering the lesson was that 12:06 implied that the league tables are indicative of the best and brightest. Which you people need to understand is bull shit. I know that news is difficult to swallow given your long days and nights of toil, but learn to deal with it.

The best part of GS layoffs, is that it means the gawd-awful 2nd and 3rd tier banks/brokers etc will fire even more people now!! The argument is that if GS cant make money, how can they?

If any hot chicks got laid off though, let me know. I am very understanding.

12:49 just admitted that he has not worked at a BB and has no idea that they trade people back and forth like baseball cards.

@12:54 I am more understanding and am willing to get hot girls not just a "job" but a "raise". Perhaps you've seen some of my work with me helping out girls to get rent money? After helping them out, I feel much warmer and relaxed.

"I would like to know where the hell God, Goldman Sach’s co-pilot, is during all of this."

Brilliant.

@ just me yeah hows that going, with 25,000 layoffs on the books have you run into ANY hot laid off chicks yet? they are the ones who keep their jobs.

Thank you for this hilarious article in this vein... much needed

@12:49 I used to work at a BB, so know very well what goes on.

@12:49 again. You never responded to my point, which was that getting the deals (being high in the leagues) is not indicative of the quality of the firm. As no goldman envy 12:06 believes. What do you think? I'm asking nicely.

Goldman's one record at picking employees looks ok....95%. It's way below that as you look at the 5 year rate. Beyond that its long term record sucks. (Past results are not indicative of future returns etc)

just curious about morality of people working in subprime CDO area being fully aware that this is business is not sustainable in long run. I knew like almost everyone during dotcom time, that 80% of the companies wont make it and same was the case with subprimes CDO's. I remember people talking how CDO's will burn in long run way back in 2005.

possessive of Goldman Sachs is Goldman Sachs' co-pilot.

Not Goldman Sach's.

There is no Goldman Sach, Bess, put the Valtrex down and pay attention, this is like the 3rd time you've made this error..

stfu all you spell checkers. go get a job at the village voice if you care so much about spelling errors

@Quantster: Back in dotcom, there were a lot of people who fully believed they were changing the world and who were entirely devastated when everything blew up. So as with CDO-land today, I think there were a lot of people through the "value chain" who honestly believed they were helping everyone to achieve their American Dream. And "golly, I can't believe how much money I'm making while doing it!" Everyone chimed the same mantra "This time it's different".

Anyone with a modicum of analytical skill in numbers and psychology could see that these runs were going to be finite in length. It's like Wile E. Coyote - he can run off the cliff edge and keep running through thin air until he realizes that there's no ground underneath him and then and only then does he plummet.

As long as the salesmen are able to come up with new variations on the get-rich-quick scheme, there will always be ridiculously irrational markets that will pull in even the most rational and disciplined among us because who is going to ignore a major opportunity to make hay?

There's a diff btw 'spell-checking' and not knowing what GS' name is.

Or is that Gh's name?

@VVR- Wait. Holy shit. Do you honestly mean to tell me it's "Goldman Sachs" and not "Goldman Sach"? For serious? If so, this is more than a little embarrassing. Please get back to me asap, either here or at bess at dealbreaker dot com. I need an answer right away!

sit down village voice

What's avg Net Worth by title (Assc., VP, Dir, MD) in Bulge Bracket (range for seniority)?

Pls post based on your #, or direct knowledge not hopes/dreams or delusions/bitterness.

This is one # that everyone can crunch.

A friend a GS told me the layoffs would be back office. They are moving it to India.

Great, Indians taking jobs from Indians.

People in the bottom 5% of anything should be euthanized, not just laid-off. But, then again, the laid-off should be euthanized as well. So, either way these people should be euthanized.