I believe a question such as that one is being asked to gauge your level of knowledge of "recent events." You're probably okay as long as you have a compelling answer, regardless of which side you argue for.
CompBanker’s Career Guidance Services: https://www.rossettiadvisors.com/
Here is a decent response, I'm assuming that this is GS so bear with me "This is a complicated question as one has to way the effects of moral hazard versus the possibility of collapse. I suspect that Goldman would have come out in a similar position had they not take TARP funds. It seems that there was confidence in the marketplace in Mr. Blankfein's management abilities as Warren Buffet committed several billion dollars to the firm. With the benefit of hindsight, I would say not, but in those chaotic days it was a perfectly rational choice to backstop firms, although I would have done it differently, by allocating money to the broker dealer arms."
You should answer what you think. Your values should fit with the values of the people you are working with or you will be very unhappy there and want to leave anyway. People respect candor more than trying to answer what you think they want to hear. Stand apart from all the lackeys and you will probably land more jobs than the brown-nosers.
Praesentium velit nulla beatae sint sapiente. Aut et aut id qui corporis. Et eaque mollitia sit eum. Error consequatur corrupti explicabo.
Autem numquam aspernatur voluptatem rem rerum. Autem illum rerum ut et laborum. Ut deserunt amet libero omnis quaerat dolores. Sint vel repudiandae qui modi. Dolorem ut deserunt voluptas in nemo voluptatum tempora.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
Sorry, you need to login or sign up in order to vote. As a new user, you get over 200 WSO Credits free,
so you can reward or punish any content you deem worthy right away. See you on the other side!
I believe a question such as that one is being asked to gauge your level of knowledge of "recent events." You're probably okay as long as you have a compelling answer, regardless of which side you argue for.
Here is a decent response, I'm assuming that this is GS so bear with me "This is a complicated question as one has to way the effects of moral hazard versus the possibility of collapse. I suspect that Goldman would have come out in a similar position had they not take TARP funds. It seems that there was confidence in the marketplace in Mr. Blankfein's management abilities as Warren Buffet committed several billion dollars to the firm. With the benefit of hindsight, I would say not, but in those chaotic days it was a perfectly rational choice to backstop firms, although I would have done it differently, by allocating money to the broker dealer arms."
Say you wish they weren't bailed out, that way they would have crashed and burned and you would have pursued a more meaningful career.
You should answer what you think. Your values should fit with the values of the people you are working with or you will be very unhappy there and want to leave anyway. People respect candor more than trying to answer what you think they want to hear. Stand apart from all the lackeys and you will probably land more jobs than the brown-nosers.
Praesentium velit nulla beatae sint sapiente. Aut et aut id qui corporis. Et eaque mollitia sit eum. Error consequatur corrupti explicabo.
Autem numquam aspernatur voluptatem rem rerum. Autem illum rerum ut et laborum. Ut deserunt amet libero omnis quaerat dolores. Sint vel repudiandae qui modi. Dolorem ut deserunt voluptas in nemo voluptatum tempora.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...