This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Goldman Sachs - What makes it so special?

Scroll to see replies

um no..

goldman sachs pay the most... but you work the hardest..

where citigroup have 10 people working on a deal.. goldman only need 5 and will have it done much quicker than the 10 at citigroup..thats the difference

Reply 41

Drogue

No. Citigroup, like all IBs, are a top employer. But the bulge bracket are a bit special, and GS even moreso. It's like looking at McKinsey and Deloitte. Deloitte are a bigger firm, but McKinsey are that bit more elite.

Reply 42

Tortle

Econ4m1t

where citigroup have 10 people working on a deal.. goldman only need 5 and will have it done much quicker than the 10 at citigroup..thats the difference

I don't know where you're getting this information from.

Reply 43

Tortle

The way I see it, with GS you're part of a large investment bank. With Citigroup you can be part of a large investment bank, but you're also part of something much bigger, an integrated financial services giant.

Reply 44

Econ4m1t

trust me(wel u can if you want..your not going to if you obviously dont believe me)...the information is true...especially for the opps dept..

Reply 45

Tortle

I found something interesting, the career placement statistics for Wharton MBAs in 2005: http://mycareer.wharton.upenn.edu/report/hirers_2.cfm

28 to Goldman
22 to Citigroup

They both seem to hire a lot from Wharton. I wonder, if you wanted to work in London, would it be better to get your MBA at LBS, or Wharton? Are all the Wharton MBAs expected to work in the US?

Looking at the 2005 LBS placement statistics : http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/PDF/2005_Employment_Report.pdf

3 to Goldman
7 to Citigroup

That's a huge difference to Wharton. So, I am wondering, if you want to work in London, is it still a good idea to go to Wharton?

Reply 46

President_Ben

Pffft - the best people out of top business schools go to Hedge Funds/Private Equity...

Goldman are not vastly more efficient than any other investment bank. They happen to have the key players to make the deals in M&A (where they lead) but they are by no means leaders in everything or even most things. It's just that on the Street (and in the City), prestige (and still quite a lot of money) comes from doing corporate advisory (M&A etc.) in the USA. But there's a lot of business outside of it.

Reply 47

Wil

I did a weeks work experience for Goldman Sachs in London in june 2005.
Was quite an amazing place, the people are very motivated and dedicated.
One of the great things i found about the company was how diverse it was, you could choose to work in any major city in the world for them.

Hoping to do another weeks work experience this year, looks great on my CV, especially as its such a rarity for them to offer it.

Reply 48

JrW

Wil

Wow..did you get that work experience through contacts or just by contacting them?

Reply 49

Wil

AlphaX

Wow..did you get that work experience through contacts or just by contacting them?

A friend of a friend had contacts kind of thing.
A group of 4 of us did it, all from the same college, we were the first to get it, but it would be well worth enquiring to see if they would try it again.

Reply 50

Brown Patrick Bateman

Econ4m1t

where citigroup have 10 people working on a deal.. goldman only need 5 and will have it done much quicker than the 10 at citigroup..thats the difference

The amount of unbelievable junk on this forum sometimes... especially from first year students who probably have no experience of what they're asserting.

Reply 51

President_Ben

Chassez

The amount of unbelievable junk on this forum sometimes... especially from first year students who probably have no experience of what they're asserting.

Testimony to the power of skillful elitist marketing and jazzy videos made by Saatchi and Saatchi :wink:

Reply 52

Drogue

I quite liked the new recruitment campaign... :wink:

Reply 53

President_Ben

Drogue

I quite liked the new recruitment campaign... :wink:

The folks down at Saatchi and Saatchi earned their cheds* with that one.

(*cheds - cheddar - cheese - money, increasingly realise south London originating patois isn't as universal as I had hoped... even if the link isn't that obscure)

As a more general point regarding Goldman... will they stay at the top for that much longer? Just seems to me, from what little I know, that they have been caught napping when it comes to the lucrative derivatives stuff compared to others and their balance sheet doesn't seem to handle the kind of large bridge loans etc that you can see others pulling off...

While size isn't everything, otherwise Citigroup would have cleaned up by now, maybe Goldman are verging on being too small (looking ahead) to still be at the top?

Reply 54

kahler_potential

Well, once upon a time, Salomon Brothers was probably the most powerful bank on Wall Street. Seems that Goldman in some ways has quite a similar profile to that of Salomon in the mid 80's.

Reply 55

President_Ben

Olek

Well, once upon a time, Salomon Brothers was probably the most powerful bank on Wall Street. Seems that Goldman in some ways has quite a similar profile to that of Salomon in the mid 80's.

Care to elaborate? :smile:

Reply 56

kahler_potential

Warning, this is the impression I got from reading Liar's Poker and my personal impression of the culture surrounding Goldman Sachs. It could all be complete s**t. But if Michael Lewis isn't talking rubbish, then much of this could be quite true.

Both of them decided to demutualise their partnerships and in reality were not the millionaire factories they once were. Both of them were basically *the* place that people wanted to work, because everyone saw how rich all of the now ex-partners had become. Salomon wound up essentially riding on their reputation, something Goldman may well be in danger of doing. I'm inclined to agree with you that Goldman not being on the ball for top notch derivatives products is not a good sign, somewhat similar to how Salomon lost out on the junk bond craze, and then lost their grip on mortgage bonds too when they stopped paying their people so much. All Goldman need to do is stop paying their best upcoming graduates as well as the rest of the street because they believe "Goldman made that money, not you, and you should be grateful to have Goldman on your CV", rumours are abound that this is already happening. Salomon did it, and wound up with a huge churn of what should have been their upcoming VPs. Their best staff all defected to other banks, leaving them with an ageing top level staff (the guys they were paying well because they were afraid to lose them) and a bunch of graduates that were all defecting if they were any good, and staying if they turned out to be s**t. Salmon came to be seen as a great place to *have* worked. In many ways, a lot of people who want to work for Goldman Sachs now see it as an amazing brand for the CV, which is exactly that, a great place to *have* worked. I don't know how well they pay their 3rd year analysts and assosciates compared to the rest of the street, but if it isn't competitive, they could find themselves with the same erosion of culture that Salomon had, i.e. a huge churn rate and a fast ageing (and therefore retiring) old guard.

I could be totally wrong, I'm just interested to see whether Goldman is still top dog in 5 years time.

Reply 57

President_Ben

Quality stuff there Olek :smile:

Reply 58

Tortle

You almost always hear about investment bankers trying to "close a deal". Can someone explain what a "deal" means in that context?

Reply 59

President_Ben

Tortle

You almost always hear about investment bankers trying to "close a deal". Can someone explain what a "deal" means in that context?

In IBD? I believe it related to when there is a bidding 'contest' to 'do' a deal.

Once you are executing it, close is when it is 'done' (ie. the IBD event - say a merger - has been completed). This is important to them because once it is done, they get the whole of their fee.

edit: to close a position is to be neutral in that security (ie. if you had 'gone long' by buying something, you close the position when you sell off all the holding)