????格雷格?史密斯最近刊登在《紐約時報》（New York Times）專欄版上那篇轟動一時的文章痛斥了高盛（Goldman Sachs）的貪婪本性，但這并不是什么新鮮事，這些年來很多人都一直都在這么說。我最大的疑惑是“他為什么選在現(xiàn)在這個節(jié)骨眼開口？”（當(dāng)然，可能是因為現(xiàn)在史密斯的獎金已經(jīng)到手了。）

????高盛被冠以“吸血鬼烏賊”（vampire squid）的稱號之前，很長時間以來坊間一直盛傳高盛為了賺一塊錢，都可以把客戶的眼珠子挖出來。不信？差不多兩年前，美國證券交易委員會（Securities and Exchange Commission）根據(jù)按揭債券Abacus對高盛的指控明明白白地顯示，高盛會犧牲一部分客戶的利益，達到為其他客戶和高盛自己賺錢的目的。任何高盛交易員稱之為 “不穩(wěn)定”的交易，高盛總部的人絕不會參與。

????那么，究竟發(fā)生了什么事，終于讓格雷格?史密斯拍案而起，開始對高盛開炮，甚至不惜搭上自己在華爾街的職業(yè)生涯？我給華爾街人士打電話詢問有關(guān)史密斯高調(diào)“離開”高盛一事時提出了這個問題。大多數(shù)受訪者稱，他們已經(jīng)看了那篇文章，所有人都在議論這件事，接到我的電話也不奇怪。公平起見，很多人都不同意史密斯的觀點。對沖基金經(jīng)理惠特尼?托爾森稱，他是高盛的客戶，他對高盛的服務(wù)“非常滿意”。我采訪的另一個人了解高盛近期進行的、長達一年的內(nèi)部調(diào)查，此人表示沒有任何證據(jù)表明，高盛員工一貫將公司利益凌駕于客戶之上。

????不過，我得到的最好回答是高盛的確變了，但不是像史密斯所說的那樣。過去幾年里，高盛開始越來越多地啟用外來者填補職位空缺。最突出的例子是大衛(wèi)?所羅門，他的職業(yè)生涯始于貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns），如今已升至高盛投資銀行部門的聯(lián)席負(fù)責(zé)人，而且有傳言稱他是勞埃德?布蘭克費恩職位的有力競爭者。十年前，史密斯進入高盛時，像這樣的職位只能屬于高盛的嫡系部隊，就像史密斯這樣從實習(xí)生一步步爬上來的人。

????金融危機之后，有報道稱高盛的交易員和投資銀行家之間文化沖突不斷。這些投資銀行家為了自身利益，一直謀求用自己的人取代布蘭克費恩。迄今為止，主要來自交易部門的布蘭克費恩和他的副手們一直占據(jù)著上風(fēng)。但事實上，還有第二種文化沖突，存在于那些從高盛起步并預(yù)計將在高盛養(yǎng)老的人以及半路才加盟的之間。過去，這種沖突可能影響不大。因為那時候，高盛有大把的機會，財源滾滾。但如今，投資銀行的利潤減少。多德-弗蘭克法案和其對自營交易的打擊意味著，高盛過去賺錢的很多方式已經(jīng)成為過去。因此，越來越多像格雷格?史密斯這樣的員工將被他們曾經(jīng)熱愛的公司拋棄。

????當(dāng)然，這并不是說高盛不曾像“操縱木偶”一樣對待客戶，把公司最差的交易硬塞給客戶，還要收取傭金。變化是，高盛這家公司不再有太多空間留給史密斯這樣的人了。

????譯者：早稻米

????The biggest question I have when it comes to the now famous New York Times Greg Smith Op-ed where he accuses Goldman Sachs (GS) of doing what everyone else has been saying about the firm for years is "Why now?" (Besides, of course, the fact that he probably recently cashed his bonus check.)

????Well before Goldman was called a vampire squid, it's been long understood that Goldman would "rip the eyeballs" out of its clients in order to make a buck. And if you had any doubts, nearly two years ago the Securities and Exchange Commission's case against Goldman based on the mortgage bond Abacus made it clear that the firm will sacrifice some clients in order to make money for others and Goldman itself. When Goldman traders call something a sh**y deal, the people they are going to get to step in it don't work at GS HQ.

????So the question is what has finally gotten Greg Smith fed up enough to blaze the firm and most likely his Wall Street career today? That's the question I posed to Wall Streeters today when I called to ask about the Smith public "outing"of Goldman. Most of the people called said they had read the Op-ed. Everyone said it was the thing people are talking about. No one was surprised I was calling. And to be fair a number of the people didn't agree with Smith. Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson said that he is a client of Goldman and has been "universally pleased" with his experience. Another person I talked to with knowledge of Goldman's recent year-long internal investigation produced no evidence of the firm's employees routinely putting Goldman's interests ahead of its clients.

????Still, the best answer I got was that things have indeed changed at Wall Street but not in the way Smith explains. For the past few years Goldman has been filing more and more of its positions with people who started their careers elsewhere. The most prominent example of this is David Solomon, who started his career at Bear Stearns and has risen to be the co-head of investment banking at Goldman, and a rumored contender for CEO Lloyd Blankfein's job. A decade ago when Smith started, a position like that would have gone to a Goldman lifer, a person like Smith, who had started at Goldman as an intern and work his way up.

????In the wake of the financial crisis, there had reportedly been a culture clash going on at Goldman between traders and investment bankers. The I-bankers have been angling for one their own to replace Blankfein. So far it appears that Blankfein and his lieutenants, who mostly come from the world of traders, have been winning. But there is actually a second culture clash going on. And that is between the people who have been at Goldman their entire careers and expected to be at the firm their entire careers and the people who have more recently showed up. In the past that may not have mattered. There was a lot of opportunity at Goldman and a lot of profits to go around. But there are less profits in investment banking these days. And Dodd-Frank and its crackdown on proprietary trading means that much of Goldman used to do to make money is going away. As a result, more Greg Smiths are going to be scorned by a firm they formerly loved.

????That's not to say that Goldman doesn't treat its clients like "muppets," jamming their mouth's open, force feeding them the firm's worst deals and getting them to hand over commissions for doing so. But what has also changed is that Goldman is no longer a firm that has room for as many Smiths as it once was.