Goldman Sachs reviews

This is really good. If I had to generalize (cause I'm lazy). Investment banks can (and do) do two things (1) help companies raise money by developing investment rounds (think IPOs) for investors (2) advise companies on mergers and acquisitions (when 2 companies become one) Their job wrt these two things is two fold essentially. (1) figure out how much this company is worth and how much people are willing to pay for share. This part is valuation. (2) help execute by consolidating lawyers, bringing together investors, and doing all that process stuff. Now I think the biggest misconception out there is that investment banks actually do this. The big guys (i.e., Goldman) got smart somewhere down the line and realized "hey we understand finance better than anyone, we have awesome lawyers to structure complex products, and we have access to CEOs and senior leadership across the board. so why don't we use that knowledge to invest our money". And so "prop trading" grew... huge. Big investment shops have access to information that you and I just don't. For example, I can't just raise some money and sit down with the CEO of an oil services company and do on-site due diligence before I buy them. Look at Goldman's 10-k (annual report). 3/4 of profit comes from prop trading and there's barely a note about what they actually invested in. Goldman isn't necessarily corrupt here - and it's dangerous to just assume that Goldman is simply evil (although people who work there might be greedy, sure) cause it misses the point that there is an inherent problem in the system. The problem is the corporate sytem in america is outdated tax payers are responsible for the downside risk of corporate investment. If Goldman goes bankrupt (and them being too big to fail is another problem altogether) they can only lose when they put in. furthermore, management can't lost anyting but a bonus. Essentially the world over is subsidizing banks to make high-risk investments. Oh yah, and analysts make models etc, but the reality is that these models are just made as evidence for a decision that was already more or less made :p

Our developers are paid based off what their software produces, if it sucks they get no money if it rapes they get a *** ton. I share a few of your concerns but I dont really need too, Im more organic than anything. Strategies get passed around by our true genius is in the fact that we are always developing new ones. I guess there is a few, I dont do development personally so I cant help you there. Sue, win your money, work on a contract based platform.

By being the best at their jobs. I explain complex investments that are usually brought to their eyes in one of two ways: They ask for a way to do something and we produce it for them, or, we suggest it to them. If a client disagrees its not going to happen. My most memorable deal has been a little old lady who goes to church every sunday telling me in graphic detail about her fantasy murders of her competitors. The worst deal was some old *** man who wanted me to break everything down to his 12 year old son for his input. I like everything about it, best perk is probably the office space though, I have a couch and table plus a conference room down the hall.

I think one of the things that's lost (and that we sorta chuckle at) is that Goldman doesn't really do direct loans to individuals to, say, buy a house. So when Lloyd is getting grilled about "starting up lending again" by a congressperson, who is clearly referring to individual mortgages, I get the feeling like we are being misunderstood. I think that we provide legitimate services, but they are complex. Here's an example - an energy delivery company E may be in the business of buying energy from company X and delivering its customers. * E needs some sense of certainty in what money it outlays to obtain the energy from X. But, as we know, energy markets can be volatile. * Goldman comes in to guarantee a price of a unit of energy from E to X. * If we guarantee too low a price, and the cost of energy goes up, we take a loss, because we guaranteed that low price to X. * Conversely, if the price of the energy goes down, X is required to pay us the agreed to price, and we make money. So, we might enter this transaction with some view on where energy is going, but it provides certainty and comfort to the delivery company.

average is probably 12-20 hours/week. The work is technically difficult for someone without a technical background, yes. But it's not incredibly difficult. There's about 4 models you need to understand (M&A, LBO, etc) in excel and be able to build from scratch and adapt to industries. It takes a smart person 1-3 months to get good at that. After that, you need one of two things to succeed. (1) you understand finance better than others. I don't mean take finance courses, but really understand how value is created and understand theory to know when assumptions (and you make a lot) make sense. The other is to be good at politics and have everyone like you. Not much different from most jobs in that respect, I guess.

The leadership by aknowledging clients, the process would be very important in terms of my development in work-space.

Lack of communication and stability without improvment.

Meetings/parties with co-workers

Benefits and challenges, benefits, compensation,

No work life balance , very demanding

401k

Versatility of equipment to work with.

Silos. All groups are in silos and not allowed to cross them. Which leads to no cross training.

Insurance benefits, 401k

People here are really friendly and want to help in a professional way

Long working hours and performance ratings

The teammates and work process

work-life balance since some time I used to work till 12 hours.

learning different skills, team meetings and acknowledging the work progress through team work

They pay us very well

It's very stressful job , working hours are more

Health care

Interviewing and following up with individual clients to meet their life insurance needs in a timely manner.

No upward

Remote Work

Challenging work; smart coworkers; abundant opportunities to learn

absolutely no work/life balance

strong benefits package; lots of PTO (minimum 18 vacation + 9 sick days)

I love my co-workers. The job is difficult and the company is picky about who they hire, so the people you work with are good, hard-working people.

The hours are long and the resources to complete the work assigned to you is often lacking.

You set your own hours, which is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, no one's stopping you from working long hours, and the pressure to do so is real. But on the up side, if I ever needed to leave work early for an emergency, or if I had an appointment I needed to go to, I knew that I had the flexibility in my schedule to do so.

Great benefits

They controlled my life. No path to progress my career wise and no rewards for months of excellent services. Get saying things will hapen that never did.

Flat organization, focus on teamwork, great learning experience

Increasingly regulatory focused

Competitive, decisions can be made quickly, challenging

That being senior entitles you to treat others poorly

Smart motivated people, a place where you can be rewarded for hard work and excelling in your field.

Not always meritocracy as they say, teamwork can sometimes feel more like competition.

Wellness programs, onsite health center

Challenging growth oriented firm. Goldman Sachs encourages and supports entrepreneurial efforts. I manage a diverse team that has the resources and support to be successful.

Limited ESPP. Could have a more robust retirement program

Firm has good benefits, and flexible time off. Theu strongly encourgage a healthy work / life balance.

Pay and benefits, learning, support, career advancement

Office Politics, bureaucracy

401k

Intelligent co workers, smart people around, loads of learning opportunities

Relocation bonus

Nope, not on our end at least. Clients are either stressed beyond belief or chill, no inbetweeners.

By being the best at their jobs. I explain complex investments that are usually brought to their eyes in one of two ways: They ask for a way to do something and we produce it for them, or, we suggest it to them. If a client disagrees its not going to happen. My most memorable deal has been a little old lady who goes to church every sunday telling me in graphic detail about her fantasy murders of her competitors. The worst deal was some old *** man who wanted me to break everything down to his 12 year old son for his input. I like everything about it, best perk is probably the office space though, I have a couch and table plus a conference room down the hall.

A lot, I havent got paid yet. I dont do commission, I work off of performance results. (*** security, *** pay check) Im looking at an 80 hour work week or so. Read info about the stuff were selling. Talk to clients whenever I am needed to explain complex stuff in English. Not that stressful so far. Got paid more, got paid more.

By showing us youre Goldman Quality.

Im always interested in it, but the priority I place on it is more or less lukewarm compared to my work. As a general rule in my field you leave a majority of your compensation at your firm which is what I have been doing until I can take it out. In my case my old compensation was inaccessible when I left so Goldman said it will make up the difference if I pull my weight.

Pretty good actually, my boss seems to care for me as a human being, I have a career path laid out for me, I understand exactly what is expected of me and I know how I can excel in my current position. How is your work?

> do they just giggle at it, or does it hurt? I'm going to guess their fantabulous salaries help assuage any "hurt" Mr. Stewart may inflict.

It's hard to answer "did they have souls?" Money attracts a lot of scumbags - yes. But banking attracts smarter scumbags. There's scumbags everywhere - these ones just happen to make money. What percentage of Americans despise bankers cause they wish they could be one? Probably higher - and if given the chance, they'd do the same. The industry is broken, yes, but "soulless" people are everywhere and always will be. Banks get a lot of attention for what's happened recently, but have any of you met sales people? Some of the worst people I've met are in sales.

ALL were in it for the money. Some just hated it less than other. I was a summer, so I got no bonus...

I spent ~80% of my time in front of a word document or excel spreadsheet. You spend A LOT of time reading annual reports (10k, 10q filings). You send your work to a senior person, they review it, give back usually useless comments (line spacing etc) or things are impossible to get (breaking down financial data into components where no publically available data exists), and repeat. You also review lawyer documents and do some due diligence from time to time (e.g., visit a factory, interview management, etc)

average is probably 12-20 hours/week. The work is technically difficult for someone without a technical background, yes. But it's not incredibly difficult. There's about 4 models you need to understand (M&A, LBO, etc) in excel and be able to build from scratch and adapt to industries. It takes a smart person 1-3 months to get good at that. After that, you need one of two things to succeed. (1) you understand finance better than others. I don't mean take finance courses, but really understand how value is created and understand theory to know when assumptions (and you make a lot) make sense. The other is to be good at politics and have everyone like you. Not much different from most jobs in that respect, I guess.

At junior levels, bonuses are decided just like pretty much any other industry: how much you work and how much people like you. The range in bonuses is really small at that level. Higher up, bonuses are more-or-less based on how much money you bring in. It becomes a sales job at that level (at least in IBD).

It's very tough to get into. I consider myself lucky in getting an interview a few years ago. I used every resource I had at university to work on some connections and networking. Went to as many of GS' recruiting events as possible. Got my name and face out there.

You'll be thrown right into the fray. They won't expect knowledge off the bat, but you should pick it up quickly. Hours will be varied based on the size of your project(s). The time you spend there will really depend on the day. They do a lot of learning events for interns, as well as mixers. Absorb as much as you can and meet lots of people.

Yes, right now we get beat up a lot. But it's always what's hot at the moment. Remember when everyone was talking about windfall taxes for energy companies when Oil ran up to the mid $100/barrel range? And the compensation story you're referring to isn't really that different (with the exception of the longer vesting period) than how it was in the past. The comp was very aligned with risk, even in the boom years.

I think one of the things that's lost (and that we sorta chuckle at) is that Goldman doesn't really do direct loans to individuals to, say, buy a house. So when Lloyd is getting grilled about "starting up lending again" by a congressperson, who is clearly referring to individual mortgages, I get the feeling like we are being misunderstood. I think that we provide legitimate services, but they are complex. Here's an example - an energy delivery company E may be in the business of buying energy from company X and delivering its customers. * E needs some sense of certainty in what money it outlays to obtain the energy from X. But, as we know, energy markets can be volatile. * Goldman comes in to guarantee a price of a unit of energy from E to X. * If we guarantee too low a price, and the cost of energy goes up, we take a loss, because we guaranteed that low price to X. * Conversely, if the price of the energy goes down, X is required to pay us the agreed to price, and we make money. So, we might enter this transaction with some view on where energy is going, but it provides certainty and comfort to the delivery company.

Year end discretionary comp for 2009 won't get paid til early 2010. I'd say all but a few are privy to what people are being paid (and how). Do I feel good about it? Depends I guess on what it is I'm "doing". I work in Technology for a big bank. I'm happy about being able to learn a lot at a pretty fast pace. Could you maybe clarify the second question?

Hiring seems to be picking back up a bit. They're strict about using the public site to apply gs.com/careers