The magic of Goldman Sachs

T

testami

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
The current issue of the Economist has a feature article on Goldman Sachs. At one point they talk about what it takes to get a job there.

Long story short:

*slim chances of getting an interview

*often have to go through 10 or more interviews before an offer could be made

*one successful hire went through 150 (no, that's not a typo) interviews before getting an offer.

....also, once you're in, you are expected to work like a dog.

24,000 employees; 1,200 managing directors; 300 "participating" managing directors
....any of one them can be asked to leave if their production falls off.

The article also recounts a story in which a consultant offered to perform a detailed analysis of a firm for some CEO. The consultant said his firm could do a super job in two months. The executive replied he could "call Goldman in the evening and get an excellent report by the next morning".
 
yeah... screw that. you can make good money w/o selling your soul.
 
I posted about this a few days ago in the OT forum. You guys might want to have a look at it or add to the thread:

http://www.analystforum.com/phorums/read.php?15,355910,page=1
 
i can't believe you people believe the hype.

150, that @#$%&.

'Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.'
 
I just read that article from the economist. Says that average pay at gs is 500,000. I have a friend that has been working for 3 years in Operations at GS. He thinks he is the s%%t. What range salary do you think he is making? Does he have braging rights? What jobs can operations lead to? Would you rather work in back office for goldman sachs or front office for a start up? thoughts?
 
front office nearly always trumps back office. It would have to be a very crappy start up. For example something started by people with not connections or experience in the industry.
 
i have a friend who just got a job at backoffice 60k plus ot and bonus, this is his second year working.. i tend to think operations lead to more operations and would rather work front office somewhere else then back office at goldman... also the average salary is so high because some the partners and md's etc skew it a couple people making 20mil+ inflate the number a lot
 
median salary would make more sense.

'Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.'
 
i don't see why 10+ interviews is surprising...there are a lot of places where you have to meet with that many people during "final" rounds
 
I like the Goldman mystique, but now that it is a public corp. it has lost some the lustre to me. Without a doubt they are still one of the leaders in financial services, but for exclusitivity I think the private equity shops are ahead (ie. Carlyle, KKR, Warburg Pincus).

What leads me to say this, is that many people leave GS to work at these firms.

In my mind private is always more exclusive than public. You don't have to answer to the man.
 
"In my mind private is always more exclusive than public. You don't have to answer to the man."

-- While the first sentence could be correct, the second one is not. Those firms still answer to their limited partners and shareholders. More importantly, as an employee you still answer to the man.
 
there is nothing golden about GS - the best ones are the ones no one know about. the braggers are the one who need to convince other people. When you talk yourself up to that height.. how the mighty falls...

My money is on the smaller and private companies.
 
Charlie Munger at today's Brk Hath AM...

Half of students at the elite Eastern business schools I've heard want to go to private-equity funds or hedge funds," Munger complained later in the meeting. "They seem to judge their progress in life by using Goldman Sachs as the minimum standard. This can't possibly end well." - WSJ
 
This lame PE & HF bashing from warren & co is getting old. Investors are stumbling over themselves to invest with these firms.

People at top business schools want to make a good living and do rewarding work. Indexing, putting money into different buckets and rebalancing periodically is not going to give them that.

First they were putting down investment bankers for the deals that they were doing and for selling derivatives, when investment bankers started to put their own money where there mouths were they complain about that too. Envy, anyone?

"They seem to judge their progress in life by using Goldman Sachs as the minimum standard."

-- In my opinion this is as good a standard as any. Furthermore, it is an excellent benchmark for one�s professional endeavors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top