4 ms·
Perhaps because it's complete speculation with no evidence backing it.
by mdoms 5y ago
Perhaps because it's complete speculation with no evidence backing it.
- manuelabeledo 5y agoPerhaps, but it is plausible. Of course, there are always toxic managers dumb enough to leave a clear and permanent paper trail.
- Mikeb85 5y agoA lack of evidence doesn't indicate anything. Witness SAC getting shut down. Or the Libor scandal. And many other scandals involving the financial sector. Now, does GS specifically engage in such practices? Maybe, maybe not. But it's more than plausible.
- throwaway2037 5y agoSorry, S.A.C. Capital Advisors didn't shutdown. Rather, it repaid outside investors, and then was reborn with insider-only money as Point72 Asset Management. (Yes, I know that a few employees of SAC were found guilty of financial crimes.)
- Mikeb85 5y agoThey were shut down as part of the plea deal with the government (in which they plead guilty I might add). Not accepting outside money is a de-facto end to the business. A family office isn't the same thing...
- pcthrowaway 5y agoKind of the point isn't it? The existence of people preferring in-person communication because it absolves them of a paper trail is necessarily something that can only be established anecdotally.
- thunkshift1 5y agoFor other companies, maybe. Knowing GS…Probably not!
- krageon 5y ago> with no evidence backing it. Nobody that is asked to do illegal (or grey area) things or that gets threatened in person will yield to your demand for "evidence". To ask for it in this context is not very humane of you, it's not hard to imagine why it isn't there.