Ethics Test - Sharing Secret Documents

I can't imagine how bringing these documents in would do anything but put yourself and everyone around you in harm's way. What's the upside to bringing them in secretly? To hope your team is okay with it and subsequently acts upon it illegally to profit a bit, increase their bonus slightly, and hope they aren't caught and tarnished for life? This is especially stupid as a junior banker. The easy decision is to just tell compliance and ask them what to do.

He didn't bring the confidential information along because it could great benefit the firm, he brought it along because it could greatly benefit himself.

Idiots. GS is making way too much money to deal with small time illegal arbitrage like this. Should've sold them to a smaller firm if you're going to be illegal about it.

Also, you don't bring the thing to do a show and tell with your banker friends.

These kids ruined their careers before they even got started.

“We are reviewing our policies regarding any hiring from governmental institutions to ensure that they are appropriately effective and robust.”

This is hilarious considering GS is a revolving door at the higher levels for government employees. You think they'll retroactively apply this to Hank Paulson bailing his old firm out and letting Lehman die?

What was the benefit this junior Banker was going to get? Guys a fool. It's one thing to inside trade, but this was tantamount to a dog bringing it's master a bone.

They're throwing some low level grunts against the wall to make an example out of them and also for the sake of good press. Also, I suspect that there's more to the story, most likely along the lines of what Marcus pointed out; they were trying to use them to peddle influence. All fine and well and lots of people do it (I myself do not), but this is the kind of thing you don't do if you can't avoid getting caught....and don't bring such things into the office, ever.

I love how everyone on here is assuming that this Fed hired into Goldman was a trader in some kind of front office capacity... Why the heck would GS hire someone from the Fed to the front office and then put that inexperienced person into a seat where they have no actual capabilities for Trading or moving markets.. it's simple, you don't. They are quoted as being "bankers" because they worked at a bank, but that doesn't mean they were in any seat to move markets right? Need more color around this so we can actually evaluate the actions GS took and what the heck this fired ex-Fed kid was thinking..

And plus, I've heard of Fed people getting hired into banks, but not Front Office.. more middle and back office type roles... or maybe fixed income or economic research if they are lucky.

I understand that what he did was very very wrong but, how secret were the documents? ( I know you don't know what the documents were about just an example), what information should they contain to be classified as secret? Companies information, financial statements, IPOs...?

"Medley Global Advisors delivers accurate, unbiased intelligence on macroeconomic and political events by cultivating relationships with senior policymakers around the globe. Our network includes central banks, finance ministries, regulatory and intelligence agencies, and international finance and trade organizations. In addition to our written reports, clients gain value from the constant dialogue they have with our analysts, and the ability to make contact at any time with individual market specialists. Use the arrows to the right to scroll through some of our most recent offerings."

I'm not a lawyer or a specialist on the definition of insider trading, but something about this smells fishy to me. This is a firm with 2 main products. One product is an economic analysis of varying countries and economic sectors. Fair enough, they have a great deal of experience in analyzing and predicting trends on these topics. The other service is an "insiders view" into the thinking, thought process, and content of future statements to be made public, by government officials, ranging from FED and ECB central bankers to Treasury officials and other government employees. This "other service" is the real service. Hedge funds and investment banks pay big money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for this inside information. I'm just wondering, what makes this "inside information" different from "SEC classified inside information" about a company before it too is made public knowledge.

Statements by public government officials regarding economic policy are classified as "material non-public information" before they are made public. For this reason, wouldn't prior knowledge of these statements not only preclude persons from trading on the information, but also preclude persons from disseminating the information to others? Wouldn't the government officials who "leak" this "material non-public information" be accountable to some legal ramifications for their actions? Would selling this information to 3rd parties who then trade on this information be considered "insider trading?" I don't know the legal answers to these questions but the question is worth asking.