Why I Will Read Greg Smith's Goldman Sachs Tell-All
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Former Goldman Sachs(GS) executive Greg Smith has scored his big payday in the publishing world, nabbing what the New York Post reported to be a mind-boggling $1.5 million book deal for the hatchet job he did on the bank with a unit of Hachette Book Group.
Smith shot to sudden fame earlier this month with the vitriolic op-ed he penned for The New York Times, titled Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs, and calling out the current heads of the firm as masterminds of a toxic and destructive capitalist culture.
While the Post suggests with its "mind-boggling" description of the price tag for the book deal that the publishers are being treated by Smith like Goldman treats its clients, you don't have to be a Muppet to want to read Smith's Goldman tell-all.
The publishers may have overpaid, but anyone among the 99% that's interested in whether Smith can back up his claims should want to read this book.
Smith's op-ed was a broad brushstroke that anyone who lived through the financial crash could have assumed to be the truth about Goldman, so now it's time for details.
The peanut gallery has certainly been divided over whether Smith is a defender of a higher order of capitalism, a Wall Street version of the tobacco industry whistle-blower, a hypocrite, or just a disgruntled employee.
The most damning, and most quoted, piece of evidence in the Smith op-ed was the fact that Goldman executives referred to clients as "Muppets." Which Goldman executives? Does Smith have emails sent by Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein with the subject line: How to fleece the Muppets?
Anyone who has spent more than 90 seconds with an investment banker learns pretty quick that it's a high-priced, well-heeled version of a locker room, with the combatants beating their chests and often engaging in foul-mouthed master-of-the-universe rhetoric.
So who exactly called who a "Muppet" and where is the trail of evidence proving that the "Muppet" philosophy was institutionalized at Goldman, handed on down from the top?
There's plenty of reason to suspect Smith is right, but suspicion doesn't cut it. On the other hand, there's no way that anyone should allow the embarrassing argumentthat Goldman is in the business of making money decide the case against Smith either. That's the kind of simple-minded defense of capitalism that is as broad and unconvincing as the Smith op-ed.