João Leão: Economia precisa de imigrantes (e não só dos qualificados)

[mcarvalho]

Goldman Sachs: Banca espanhola precisa de mais 58 mil milhões para equilibrar contas

24/04/2012

Citada pelo "Cinco Días", a Goldman Sachs estabelece 58 mil milhões de euros adicionais para fazer face à deterioração dos activos dos bancos.

Para a casa de investimento, os mais de 50 mil milhões de euros de esforço que a reforma financeira impôs à banca espanhola para limpar os activos tóxicos não são suficientes.

Assim, considera que farão falta mais 58 mil milhões de euros, dos quais 19 mil milhões de euros correspondem a um aumento de provisões para os activos mais problemáticos e os outros 39 mil milhões ao impacto que terá na carteira de crédito o aumento do crédito malparado.

A Goldman Sachs calcula que metade da exposição actual ao sector imobiliário entrará em incumprimento. E é precisamente a inquietude sobre a evolução da morosidade, em conjunto com a ausência do efeito que teve a reforma financeira, o que levou o governo e o Banco de Espanha a promover uma separação mais efectiva dos activos tóxicos dos saudáveis através da criação de sociedades de liquidação.

Para a casa de investimento os oito maiores bancos espanhóis elevaram a sua exposição a activos imobiliários em 2011. Essas oito instituições bancárias têm agora activos imobiliários no valor de 210 mil milhões de euros, o equivalente a 11,3% do seu balanço.

[mcarvalho]

filme

os segrdos da Goldman Sachs


http://aventar.eu/2012/04/23/hoje-da-na ... man-sachs/

[VirtuaGod]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-25/goldman-s-succession-fight-roiled-by-infamous-op-ed.html

Terias da conspiração dizem agora que o OP-ED pode ter sido um movimento de algo mais elaborado na luta pelo topo na GS!!

[MarcoAntonio]

Boas tardes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPOmbEpI ... r_embedded

Cpmts

Tá boa mas eu prefiro a original do filme.



Para quem ainda não teve a oportunidade de ver:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cRTjksM3YAs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jlmf]

Boas tardes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPOmbEpI ... r_embedded

Cpmts

[Pantone]

Defending Mr. Smith of Goldman Sachs
Belittling and attacking Greg Smith, the ex-Goldman derivatives trader, who wrote about his personal experiences and opinions based on working at Goldman Sachs, has become a cause celeb.

But comments from reporters who cover Wall Street show some serious prejudices and deficiencies in their journalistic perspectives.

First, attacking Mr. Smith is not good journalism. Mr. Smith’s New York Times article was an op-ed, an opinion piece. Surely, editors and reports don’t want to penalize Mr. Smith for voicing his opinion? Secondly. Mr. Smith has been belittled because these same editors and reporters claim Mr. Smith forgot that Goldman Sachs was all about making money. Well, so were Krupps and Dow Chemical (which made napalm during the View Nam war). They profited from wars, which most people find abhorrent. Goldman contributed largely to the severe recession and subsequent federal bailout by its risky OTC, mortgage-related derivatives. Ask AIG head Hank Greenberg how Goldman treated him as a customer.

Finally, editors and reporters should recognize the benefits of whistle blowers in any industry since they invariably know more than the editors and reporters, who cover the industry. Mr. Smith is no whistle blower; he only voiced his opinion. By all accounts, he is intelligent and rose to become a top manager based on his exceptional abilities. As a 30-something professional, he also reportedly made about $600,000 a year, which is much more than 99% of all reporters, including those who criticized him. So if he was only concerned about the money, why rock the boat?

Obviously, there was something more at work here and it did not conform to the Wall Street media’s worldview. Unfortunately, this says more about the sad state of the financial media than Mr. Smith. And this may be the bigger story here, rather than the one about one individual’s opinion about his company’s management and treatment of its clients.

What’s Wrong With the Financial Media
As the former managing director of marketing for the NYSE’s futures exchange (the NYFE), I broke the story about former NYSE Chairman John Phelan’s $10 million secret bonus when he retired in about 1993. I could not interest any Wall Street media in that story, so it appeared in a London futures trade publication. I got paid $200. It was then picked up by a New York trade publication (Investment Dealer’s Digest) and then it appeared on page 3 of the Wall Street Journal.

So, my lesson is that the closer you are to Wall Street, the more important your editors and reporters think they are. Inflated self-importance and vanity come easily to many who cover Wall Street. Rather then focusing on the news event (Phelan’s secret bonus), I became the accused, after all, who would ever criticize the NYSE? (I remember one female NYSE board member even called me “impertinent” for even asking about the salary of the top executive of this semi-public institution.) Had there been more media attention about this small bonus in the early-1990s, it could have re-shaped the entire subsequent discussion about executive compensation and wage disparities, which has become so critical today.

So defending Goldman is really just a selfish self-defense mechanism that blinds many editors and reporters to widespread conflicts-of-interest and even mass fraud right in their own backyard. Sure Goldman is about making money, but so were Enron, Global Crossing, WAMU, Bank of America and the rest of the infamous names that imploded and caused billions in losses to shareholders and U.S. taxpayers.

Then, there is also the mean-spirited attack that says Mr. Smith’s exercise of his First Amendment rights will end his career. These same reporters and editors should remember the equity analyst scandal of 2000 in which equity analyst were forced or voluntarily complied with demands from their firm’s investment bankers to promote a company (often high-tech) based on false promises and fake profit projections. This widespread fraud by many Chartered Financial Analysts (ask Henry Blodget and Mary Meeker) and corrupt investment bankers helped cause the 2000 tech bubble and related recession.

But here again, there were some analysts who refused to co-operate with the intimidation and false claims. Some were fired and demoted, but there were a small number, who were highly ethical and refused to co-operate with the fraud. There is even a notable case of an analyst who criticized Donald Trump’s Atlantic City casino investment, and was fired after Trump protested his financial analysis. The analyst was demoted, but he was right: the Trump investment lost money.

Sadly, too many of these firms failed to recognize the courage of people who are critical of their management, and this continues today. This is a blatant misuse of power and shows poor executive leadership. America’s largest corporations rhetorically claim their organizations are open via their Town Hall meetings, but anyone who has ever attended one knows they are just exhibitions. Large corporations are not designed to handle serious complaints since they reflect poorly on management. This scenario is as old as the hills. Shoot the messenger and all is well. At mutual fund company meetings I attended, any discussion of fees and expenses was verboten, while individual investor concerns were never mentioned. This helps explain why fund expense ratios at the largest fund companies never are reduced even as assets under management increase. Mr. Smith presumably saw this same abuses over his 15-year career at Goldman. Now, the media and others consider him the messenger, but they wantonly disregard his message.

No Retribution Needed

Then, there are the calls for Mr. Smith to never work on Wall Street again. This is the retaliation side of Wall Street, and it helps foster the “business as usual” victimization of corporate, institutional and the most uninformed individual investors. These are the uninformed who buy high-fee annuities, under-performing actively-managed mutual funds, and even billions in exotic OTC derivatives.

In all these cases, the investor-customer relies on the supposed higher knowledge of the investment professional who is selling the product to provide the “best” advice. But when a professional sells ill-suited, deficient, inappropriate or overly expensive products, they have violated their basic duty. This applies even when there is no fiduciary standard in place, and it helps explain why the large fund and brokerage firms are fighting the adoption of the higher fiduciary standard. Being ethical applies to selling clothes, food, or something as important as an investment to unsuspecting buyers. Mr. Smith saw this and voiced his opinion.

The Bible (Leviticus 19:14) says: “You shall not curse the deaf nor place a stumbling block before the blind.” This relates to giving bad advice to another or causing harm in any way to the unsuspecting. It is 2,000-year-old advice, and it is just as important today.

As more comes out about Goldman’s trader culture, which victimizes the less-informed, but sticks them with all the risk, commissions and fees, I bet these same editors and reporters will owe Mr. Smith an apology. He certainly deserves one

in http://mutualfundreform.com/2012/03/15/ ... man-sachs/

[A330-300]

Já que que agora estão empenhados em provar que são sérios e dizem a verdade , podiam mudar o nome da empresa para GOLDEN SAQUES



A330

[VirtuaGod]

e agora é o neto do fundador do GS que diz eles f**** o banco do avozinho

GOLDMAN HEIR SPEAKS: Greg Smith Was Right, They Ruined My Great-Grandfather's Company


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-go ... z1pHHVBUZn

Great-Grandfather é bisavô...

[andre_ferreira]

e agora é o neto do fundador do GS que diz eles f**** o banco do avozinho

GOLDMAN HEIR SPEAKS: Greg Smith Was Right, They Ruined My Great-Grandfather's Company


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-go ... z1pHHVBUZn

[Pantone]

Stephen Colbert - http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... 12---pt--1

[Pantone]

E ainda:
Another Ex-Goldman Banker Confesses: The Firm Became 'Toxic' in http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/15/ ... signation/

e Rivals fear Goldman backlash on Wall St in http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e1aa813a ... z1pHAcXVty

[Pantone]

Did Greg Smith Commit Career Suicide?

Career coaches say it was a mistake for Greg Smith to publicly criticize his boss, Lloyd Blankfein.

When Greg Smith decided to write a scathing op ed piece that ran in the New York Times yesterday, blasting his employer, Goldman Sachs, for sacrificing its clients’ best interest in favor of maximum profits, he violated a cardinal rule of career advancement: Do not bad-mouth your former employer. Career coaches and executive recruiters who have worked with finance professionals agree that making such a public statement foils any chances Smith, 33, might have had of working on Wall Street.

Roy Cohen, a New York career coach who worked as a regular outplacement consultant for Goldman Sachs from 1990-2004, says that Smith’s Times piece “raises questions about this fellow’s integrity and loyalty.” An even bigger issue, says Cohen: When Smith detailed how Goldman employees “callously … talk about ripping their clients off,” he put the livelihoods of the 30,000 people employed by the firm at risk. Goldman’s stock dropped 3.4% yesterday after the op ed appeared, though shares have been recovering some of their losses today. Employers will be wary of hiring someone who would intentionally cause such damage. According to a Times story today, Smith sent an email resignation to his bosses at 6:40 a.m. London time yesterday, 15 minutes before the op ed appeared.

Further, says Cohen, potential employers will be turned off by the fact that Smith seems to have inflated his role at the firm. The Times called him “executive director” in its author description, when it turns out he was a vice president. According to Cohen, after 12 years at Goldman, Smith should have at least advanced to managing director. Getting stuck in the vice president position means “something must have broken down” for Smith inside the firm, says Cohen. In a memo to employees yesterday, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn, whom Smith criticized in his piece, clarified that Smith was a vice president, not a director.

By holding himself out as superior to, and more ethical than, the firm where he worked, could Smith’s op ed be read as a job advertisement for himself? Not in finance, say recruiters and coaches. Cohen says that the kind of disillusionment with ethical standards that Smith expressed is common on Wall Street, but that it was “naïve” for Smith to blame his employers for his personal feelings. “It’s a problem in every financial institution,” says Cohen. Wise employees keep their sentiments to themselves, he says, and resign if they are unhappy.

Jesse Marrus, a former financial executive recruiter who now runs the finance jobs website StreetID.com, sees a slim chance that Smith could be picked up by a small hedge fund. But on the other hand, he says, “I don’t see anyone wanting to be associated with someone who has muddied the waters.”

New York career coach Eileen Wolkstein, who has worked with many clients in finance, says she doesn’t think Smith’s career is completely over, though she agrees that he won’t get a job in finance, or any job until the furor over his op ed dies down. Then he should tap into the network at his alma mater, Stanford. “Are there buddies who could use his expertise in a start-up?” she says. “Sure.” Marrus guesses that Smith could get a job in green energy or another industry several steps removed from Wall Street.

Those may be possibilities, says Dale Winston of headhunting firm Amrop Battalia Winston, but the fact remains that Smith aired his employer’s dirty laundry in the most public of forums, which would make any company wary. “He should have vented to his friends and colleagues and resigned gracefully,” says Winston.

Smith has not spoken to the media since his piece ran. Requests for comment sent from Forbes to his Facebook account have gone unreturned. This morning the Times quoted a friend who attended Stanford with Smith, Miami lawyer Daniel Lipkin, as saying Smith “sounded confident and felt good about his decision to go public,” after the article appeared. The Times also says Smith had a sheet listing Goldman’s business principles taped to the wall next to his computer in London. “He has a really high moral fiber and really cared about the culture of the firm,” Lipkin told the Times.

Cohen, author of The Wall Street Professional’s Survival Guide, speculates that Smith is in fact angling for some kind of writing deal. “I’m envisioning that he’s going to get a huge, huge book contract,” says Cohen. “There’s nothing people like to read about more than Goldman, Sachs.”

Wolkstein sees one other career option for Smith. “He could become head of Occupy Wall Street,” she says. “But I don’t think that’s the kind of job he’s looking for.”

Update: Cohen is misinformed when he says Smith inflated his title. Smith did not. Goldman Sachs uses the title “executive director” in its London office to mean the same level as “vice president” in the U.S.

in http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... r-suicide/

[Pantone]

repetido...

[atomez]

É assim a vida...

[N.]

http://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments ... SearchText

De um (ainda) empregado da JPM

[Pantone]

Mais comentários:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/03/ ... -2012.html

[vgasmo]

E pelos vistos o mercado não descartou a entrevista tão facilmente como algumas pessoas do caldeirão:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-15/goldman-stunned-by-op-ed-loses-2-2-billion-for-shareholders.html?mrefid=twitter

[VirtuaGod]

Deixo isto aqui:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-06/goldman-secret-greece-loan-shows-two-sinners-as-client-unravels.html

A culpa também é dos é dos Gregos (dois pecadores)... mas ética=0

Mas os gregos estão a pagar caro o "pecado" deles. Pergunto-me quando e se a Goldman vão pagar o deles...

[Pantone]

Public Rebuke of Culture at Goldman Opens Debate

Until early Wednesday morning, Greg Smith was a largely anonymous 33-year-old midlevel executive at Goldman Sachs in London.

Now everyone at the firm — and on Wall Street — knows his name.

Mr. Smith resigned in an e-mail message to his bosses at 6:40 a.m. London time, laying out concerns that Goldman’s culture had gone haywire, putting its own interests ahead of its clients.

What the e-mail didn’t say was that about 15 minutes later, an Op-Ed article he had written detailing his criticisms was to be published in The New York Times. “It makes me ill how callously people still talk about ripping off clients,” he wrote in the Op-Ed article.

The Op-Ed landed “like a bomb,” inside Goldman, said one executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The article reignited a debate on the Internet and on cable television over whether Wall Street was corrupted by greed and excess. By noon, television crews crowded outside Goldman’s headquarters in Lower Manhattan. More than three years after the financial crisis, the perception that little has changed on Wall Street — and that no one has been held accountable for the risk-taking that led to the crisis — looms large in the public consciousness. While it was an unusual cry from the heart of a Wall Street insider, many questioned whether it would prompt any change.

Greg Smith, an executive at Goldman Sachs, resigned on March 14 and criticized the company's culture.Greg Smith, an executive at Goldman Sachs, resigned on March 14 and criticized the company’s culture.

Goldman disagreed with the assertions in the Op-Ed article, saying that they did not reflect how the firm treated its clients. Top executives have previously said that despite some rough times of late, clients have stuck with the firm.

Friends of Mr. Smith, who had a list of Goldman’s business principles taped on a wall by his computers in London, say they were not surprised by his public farewell. “He has a really high moral fiber and really cared about the culture of the firm,” said Daniel Lipkin, a Miami lawyer who went to Stanford with Mr. Smith. Mr. Lipkin learned about the Op-Ed on Wednesday from Mr. Smith. “He sounded confident and felt good about his decision to go public,” he said.

Although he isn’t highly paid by Wall Street standards — earning about $500,000 last year, according to people briefed on the matter — Mr. Smith is part of what some Goldman staff members and alumni refer to as a sizable, yet silent contingent within the investment bank. These people are increasingly frustrated with what they see as a shift in recent years to a profit-above-all mentality.

Evidence of this shift, they say, can be seen in the accusations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 that the firm intentionally duped certain clients by selling a mortgage-security product that was designed by another Goldman client betting that the housing market would crash. More recently, a Delaware judge criticized Goldman over the multiple, and potentially conflicting, roles it played in brokering an energy deal. (In both cases, Goldman has denied any wrongdoing.)

The reaction on Wall Street to Mr. Smith’s resignation ranged from those cheering him to others criticizing him for resigning in such a public way. Some within Goldman sought to portray Mr. Smith as a lone wolf — he did not manage anyone — who had failed to become a managing director. (There are about 12,000 executive directors, the equivalent of being a vice president in the United States, but only about 2,500 managing directors among Goldman’s 33,300 employees.)

Still, the ripple effects were felt beyond Wall Street. Shares of Goldman fell 3.4 percent. And media coverage was worldwide. “Goldman Boss: We Call Our Clients Muppets,” screamed the front page of The London Evening Standard.

Others were less surprised. One Goldman client who spoke on the condition of anonymity called the letter “naïve,” saying that the firm had been trading against its clients for years. “Come on, that is what they do and they are good traders, so I do business with them.”

Another Wall Street executive said it was “unforgivable” for Mr. Smith to make his opinions so public and he should have taken them privately to the firm’s senior managers. While Mr. Smith may have tried to raise his concerns with his superiors in meetings, as a fairly junior employee, he did not have much of a voice.

Goldman’s top two executives, Lloyd C. Blankfein and Gary Cohn, said in a letter to employees: “We were disappointed to read the assertions made by this individual that do not reflect our values, our culture and how the vast majority of people at Goldman Sachs think about the firm and the work it does on behalf of our clients. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But it is unfortunate that an individual opinion about Goldman Sachs is amplified in a newspaper and speaks louder than the regular, detailed and intensive feedback you have provided the firm and independent, public surveys of workplace environments.”

But questions about Goldman’s culture persist at a time when the firm — and the rest of Wall Street — are undergoing a transition as the postfinancial crisis framework of regulations known as Dodd-Frank takes hold and as some profitable businesses show little sign of returning to their precrisis highs. It is not a hospitable environment for trading, yet Goldman remains very much a trading firm. Mr. Blankfein, a former gold salesman, comes from the trading business, as does the man who is seen as the most likely to succeed him as chief executive in the next year or two, Mr. Cohn.

Mr. Smith started at Goldman in sales. Born in Johannesburg, Mr. Smith is a grandson of Lithuanian Jews who emigrated to South Africa. His father is a pharmacist and his mother is pursuing a career in social work.

He won a full scholarship to Stanford and after graduating in 2001 landed a spot at Goldman, where he quickly worked his way up in the organization. A table tennis player, Mr. Smith won a bronze medal in the event at the Maccabiah Games in Israel.

He was sent to London about a year ago to sell United States derivative products to European and Middle Eastern investment funds.

What motivated Mr. Smith to come forward now? People close to him said he had high hopes for an internal report that came out after the S.E.C. case, which Goldman settled.

In 2010, Goldman embarked on an internal study that looked at the way it did business. The report reaffirmed the firm’s principles and outlined changes aimed largely at bolstering internal controls and disclosure.

But Mr. Smith thought it fell on deaf ears among senior managers, his friends say.

“I think this was the ultimate act of loyalty,” said Lex Bayer, a friend of Mr. Smith’s from high school in Johannesburg, who went to Stanford with him. “He has always been an advocate for the firm, but he wanted Goldman to do things the right way. In his mind, this was the only way that he could change the culture of the firm.”

He may not be alone inside Goldman. At staff meetings, Goldman’s leadership has been peppered with questions about the firm’s public reputation, say people who have attended those meetings, but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.

Mr. Smith is making a considerable financial sacrifice in publicly criticizing Goldman. Most Wall Street employees sign nondisparagement and nondisclosure agreements before they join a firm. If Mr. Smith did, Goldman may take legal action and refuse to release stock options he has accumulated. Mr. Smith may also find it difficult to find work on Wall Street after such a public resignation. A spokesman said that Goldman tried to contact Mr. Smith on Wednesday. It is not known whether he responded.

Mr. Smith did not speak publicly about his decision to leave Goldman. On Wednesday, Mr. Smith received messages of support from clients of Goldman.

“You do not know me, but I am a client of Goldman Sachs,” one of them said. “We trade a lot with Goldman and we know that we have to be very careful when we do so,” the person said. “We understand your message.”

People who have spoken to Mr. Smith said that he was flying back to New York on Wednesday night to see his family and friends. These people say Mr. Smith still has no concrete plan for what to do next. He tells friends that he wants to effect change in Goldman’s business practices, although it is unclear what that change would be.

Recruiters say it may be tough slogging for Mr. Smith to find work again on Wall Street, at least in the near term.

“There is a rule of thumb when interviewing — you don’t bad-mouth your old boss. No one wants to hear it,“ said Eric Fleming, the chief executive of the Wall Street recruiting firm Exemplar Partners Technology. “You can argue something like this needed to be said, but if you hire the guy who said it you are taking the risk he will do it again.”

in http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/ ... debate/?hp

[vgasmo]

Deixo isto aqui:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-06/goldman-secret-greece-loan-shows-two-sinners-as-client-unravels.html

A culpa também é dos é dos Gregos (dois pecadores)... mas ética=0

[BearManBull]

O cliente é que nunca deve esquecer -- quem compra que se cuide.

Não sabia que existia essa falta de competitividade no sector financeiro.

[paulop2009]

Não o condeno. Eu (que tenho hoje 33 anos) quando coecei a trabalhar como gestor (aos 23) era muito mais crente no mundo corporativo e hoje sou bem mais cínico. O mundo corpotativo não mudou... Eu é que mudei.

Acontece que ele não diz que ele mudou, ele diz que a Goldman Sachs mudou e é bem claro nisso.

Como é que te estás a identificar com ele então?

São coisas perfeitamente diferentes e não é um pormenor coisa nenhuma...

Do meu ponto de vista, podes considerar isso um pormenor ou um "pormaior", é irrelevante.

Ou seja, qualquer destas hipóteses
1 - a GS era boa e ficou má
2 - a GS sempre foi má mas só agora é que ele acordou para a vida

significa que a GS, ao dia de hoje, é má. E isso para mim é mais importante do que especular se ele andou a fingir que não via o que se passava, ou se lhe soube bem a massa que ganhava na altura, ou lá o que seja.

Eu identifico-me com ele pois no início da minha carreira defendia a minha empresa com unhas e dentes, hoje em dia apercebo-me que padece de males semelhantes a todas as grandes multinacionais. Não chego ao ponto do tipo da GS, mas entendo como uma cultura empresarial que ele descreve pode levar à agonia dos funcionários.

[fooman]

Na minha opinião, e tendo em conta o mundo em que vivo, não vi uma linha de falsidade escrita no artigo do Greg Smith.

Aliás, revejo-me no dia-a-dia em grande parte daquilo que ele escreve. O artigo não é sobre a Goldman, é sobre todo o mundo financeiro - sem excepção.

Quem trabalha no meio sabe muito bem que é assim que tudo isto funciona. A malta está preocupada com o P&L pessoal (que deriva da empresa) e muito pouco preocupado com o cliente: esse está lá para comer com aquilo que lhe dermos, até porque se ele fosse "smart" como os meninos da Goldman, estaria era a trabalhar na Goldman - é simples demais!

A grande mensagem que isto dá - que mais uma vez repito não é novidade para quem trabalha todos os dias neste meio - é que os génios que as universidades andam a criar vão, na sua maioria, trabalhar para estes bancos, em vez de irem para investigação científica e técnica, ou seja, para a economia real. Esta é que é a grande falha do sistema e por isso é que estamos cada vez pior. Nos ultimos 20 anos o processo tem acelerado: os bonzinhos são cientistas e os génios são corretores de bolsa que ganham dezenas de milhões de dólares por ano.

Infelizmente, mais uma vez os génios dominaram os medíocres (políticos) e obrigaram-nos a tomar medidas para prolongar a vida util destes bancos que são na prática máquinas de fazer dinheiro. Se tal não tivesse acontecido e, se em vez de uma Lehman tivessemos tido duas ou três, talvez os meninos que saem das universidades não tivessem os Goldmans e os JPMorgans à porta à espera deles, mas sim as Microsofts e as Merks e as Unilevers do mundo...

E esta, para mim, é que é a discussão!

[Marco Martins]

Curiosamente ando a ler o Liar's Poker e apenas muda o nome de Goldman Sachs para Salomon Brothers. A ser verdade o que o livro relata os clientes eram autenticamente assaltados.

Curiosamente isto acontece em muitas empresas cá em Portugal, onde o cliente é visto apenas como um pagante e onde o que interessa é espreme-lo ao máximo.

Por exemplo os bancos, quanto termina um depósito a prazo, pura e simplesmente passam o dinheiro para outro depósito a prazo com taxas mínimas e nem avisam o cliente.

Por exemplo Santander Totta, nos emprestimos à habitação, quando um cliente deixa de cumprir o rácio médio de movimentos com o cartão, eles automaticamente aumentam os spreads para valores incompreensiveis sem sequer tentar perceber o motivo ou ignorando se o cliente sempre foi certo nas suas obrigações.

Por exemplo nos telefones, podem surgir milhentos novos tarifários em em nenhuma das situações propõem aos clientes mudar para um tarifário melhor, deixando que eles andem a pagam valores absurdos.

O mesmo acontece nos seguros, etc, etc.

Compreendo que as empresas necessitem de ter lucros para crescer pois isso é importante, mas os clientes deveriam ser mais respeitados...

[MarcoAntonio]

MarcoAntonio, não percebo a diferença. Se foi a GS que mudou, na minha opinião o que ele afirma é grave. Se foi ele que mudou, o que ele afirma sobre a GS é grave.

Muffin, estamos em contextos completamente distintos.

Quanto ao artigo, eu não consigo fazer nada de um artigo onde o autor está nitidamente a aldrabar-me em algum ponto.

Como estou de fora (não conheço a GS por dentro nem tão pouco pessoalmente o autor) eu não consigo discernir exactamente qual é o ponto dado que há uma série de alternativas.