Goldman Sachs Won't IPO Un-Woke Firms
hello mostly non-professional finance enthusiasts. just saw it on the inter-news that GS won't IPO any firm that doesn't have at least 1 diverse board member. link to fucken bloomberg article.
i'm not sure that this is a good move by dj d-sol, especially given his banks floundering performance since he took office (goldman sachs more like goldman sucks amirite haha). can't help but picture jamie dimon and james gorman popping significant boners (picture it) at the prospect of eating goldman's lunch. fuck, maybe even moynihan will be foaming at the mouth over this.
what do you guys think? is this some kind of under-the-hood pr magic that i'm too simple to understand? or is this just plain-jane fucken terrible business strategy?
well that's a ripperoni pepperoni
thank for your objective opinion, diverse analyst at gs
No problemo, I really try to apply myself without bias.
goldman should focus on having more diverse summer programmes
the fastest way to accelerate your career at goldman sachs is by selling coke on the trading floor
bump
Technically that photo's diverse by GS standards--- there's a girl in it
What's their intake of people not coming from upper class background?
IPO fees are borderline trash at this point. Not a bad move for publicity.
fees is fees is fees man. surely bad to spurn the ipo revenue stream while marcus (wew) is still in its teething phase.
Another instance of SJW's running amok on Wall Street. What is the benefit of this besides GS feeling good about themselves?
I'd be very surprised if companies with diverse boards suddenly flock to GS for their IPOs solely because of a policy from which they derive no benefit. The likely outcome is that the all white male boards will just choose MS or another competitor.
it's PR. there's not a single S&P 500 company with an all male board
so yeah, maybe dimon and gorman have boners, but jamie's is because he's gonna make $30 milly a year, and gorman's is because the stock is now approaching its 2 year high (0% return for 2y)
kek
Username checks out
Lol yup. Not as if GS will be passing up any IPOs because of this. To the extent they even have potential clients with no boardroom diversity, I'm sure they're already advising a change before going public.
I swear they were trying to suck off the Saudi prince's cock the other day for the Aramco IPO
Ah, you must have missed the cliff notes where dogshit dictatorships are exempt.
That’s why this is limited to Europe and the US, allows Asia & Middle East to be conveniently exempt
wack.
what's the benefit for GS here? I don't get it.
There's a brand benefit. Not only makes the firm look progressive (something they've always worked hard to do) but more importantly it's the occasional reminder that GS is the leader. Always ahead of the pack,seeing the future before others. Jamie Dimon does the same shit with his frequent comments on policy.
This all may sound minor, but consider how minor the costs are. How many IPOs in the pipeline lack a single female or minority, and are unwilling to simply add one? I suspect very few. Furthermore, any bank will tell them they should probably add a diverse member anyway before IPO, to appease the PC mafia that controls a lot of the narrative.
So rather than sacrificing, I think DJ is actually doing the opposite: trying to create the appearance of sacrifice where there is none.
I mean GS' bread and butter is M&A. Unless GS implement "woke" policies for M&A transactions, GS should be fine. From an IPO standpoint, most companies have at least one "diverse board member" taking the broadest description (referring to what @amonkey_1" said) so it really is just good PR
Agreed. It's kinda like a vegetarian saying they won't eat meat unless it is organic. They aren't fucking going to in the first place anyway.
Oh well I don’t think it’ll work out, by summer someone will be complaining that these companies are just doing the bare minimum.
these companies are just doing the bare minimum!
Goldman is a big enough bank that can set the trend. There are a whole lot of companies (run by confused millennials) that hate banks, old white boomers and the system as a whole. If GS continue to market this properly all that junk might go public with them.
ironically, mr j meriwether, it was the collapse of a certain long term capital management that delayed goldman going public in the first place. jon corzine sends his regards.
I saw the news and just have a couple of thoughts: 1. Progressive doesn’t equal to correctness. 2. GS attitude is pretty conceited. It thinks it has the leverage over its potential clients, but I believe it’s the clients who made GS what it is today, not the other way around. It is not the only firm who knows how to do an IPO. Companies will just go to others.
everyone here is missing the point. this is like saying you won't IPO people that fund concentration camps. the likelihood of a company going public at a size that would interest goldman without a female or minority on the board is slim to none. this is nothing more than posturing, it changes nothing.
How is this equal opportunity? Refusing to do business with an all white male BOD simply because they are white is a form of discrimination is it not?
Occaecati fuga accusantium sed deserunt quo quasi. Beatae quam ut porro iure assumenda aliquam. At alias magnam labore exercitationem nostrum. Autem maxime aut voluptatem cumque aspernatur. Nam sint quas corporis sunt doloribus.
Laboriosam nostrum et deserunt et itaque vero aut voluptate. Dolores libero et rerum ut illo quia blanditiis. Laudantium velit qui nam impedit blanditiis est. Occaecati sit fuga accusantium dolor architecto. Ea illo ipsam sapiente tenetur eos. Quo qui facilis esse ut explicabo.
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...
Minus quis eveniet nam mollitia sint. Excepturi occaecati itaque at blanditiis molestias placeat. Qui doloremque commodi sit.