Yesterday's New York Times had an interesting but somewhat problematic
about Goldman Sachs' habit of
betting against its own clients
—a strategy the firm calls "embracing conflicts." As in, conflicts of interest.
Guess
was among the many that got screwed by Goldman?
Seeming to lay some blame for the Santa Fe company's collapse on Goldman's machinations, the Times story concludes:
The problem with this story is that
Goldman had a point
:
Thornburg's products weren't as valuable as the company wanted investors to believe
.
Besides which, granting anonymity to presumably high-level employees at a firm whose executives have a
long history of alleged deception
—merely so they can trash another firm—is a
pretty questionable journalistic decision on the Times' part
.
To be clear, the evidence has piled up that Goldman is indeed the terrible "
" it's been branded. But that doesn't mean the firm's old clients should get a pass just because they've gone broke, and are now willing to trash a former business partner.
