| ▲ | cactca 9 hours ago |
| The most interesting part of this announcement is the timing. GS is leading Anthropic's IPO, what motivated them to announce this a few weeks before trading starts? |
|
| ▲ | pdpi 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other. It's actually kind of depressing that we (and I include myself in that) assume otherwise by default. |
| |
| ▲ | aljgz 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have bad news: most large corporations are successful because they know how to make money. Often, the internal operations, are disappointingly bad, just not bad enough to kill the corp fast. Source: I've worked in and with many successful organizations, and worked at one place with proper internal processes, so I know what's possible | | |
| ▲ | maxnevermind 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have observed that also. Though I'm still not sure whether: 1) there are some small pockets where important decisions are made, innovation happens and the needle is moved, and dysfunction I see is just justified bloat of the company 2) it is the entire corporation like that but it somehow works at the end. | | |
| ▲ | eddythompson80 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The way I would describe large companies is similar to that joke "Mandatory scheduled fun events" just with innovation. Most large organizations cannot innovate, instead they execute well. Look at all the major large organizations, they primarily distinguish themselves on execution, not innovation. A startup that's hobbled together by passionate soft drink makers (or whatever) aren't gonna come close to full business efficiency of Coke Inc. The manufacturing capacity, distribution channels, the logistics, the brand management and awareness, the brand integration and cross promotion, and other things that come from economy of scale. The rigid structure is not a place for innovation to grow. |
| |
| ▲ | freejazz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I have bad news: most large corporations are successful because they know how to make money. Who is they? Do you have any idea what its like working at an org the size of GS, that you actually think these two completely different departments discussed the matter with each other? |
| |
| ▲ | piker 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm no longer in that industry, but as I recall there are actually rules imposing independence from investment banking and research arms, for example. Dates back to the Dot Com era where research analysts were touting IPOs for the investment banking division. | | |
| ▲ | oblio 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fairly sure they tore those down last year or a bit before. |
| |
| ▲ | trvz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In this case, both decisions are weighty enough that they should be made at the very top, by the same people. | | |
| ▲ | freejazz 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Really? You think executives at GS waste their time debating where software should be installed on trading desk computers? They have entire departments dedicated to handling those issues... | | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | sgt101 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think that if this wasn't sanctioned by someone at the top then there would be a round of public hanging, drawings and quarterings in the IT department. What is the Investment Bank version of "flogging round the fleet"? |
|
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > In an honest, well-functioning org, those are decisions made by completely different groups that do not (and should not) report to each other. I don't agree at all. Different groups should be supporting each other and the overall bottom line instead of their parochial, narrow self-interests - the latter is a poorly functioning org. If by group A delaying its $100M cost-cutting, group B can add $1B to the bottom line, it would be a corporate and group management failure for group A not to cooperate. | |
| ▲ | lukan 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A well functioning org happens regularly. A well-functioning world is far more difficult. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well functioning by what metrics? To make money? No doubt Goldman sachs does that. But making money often has the incentive of ignoring ethics .. which is what this thread was about. Would they ignore ethics to make more money? So here, would they synchronize announcing big things in relation to the hottest and most risky investment there is right now? "what motivated them to announce this a few weeks before trading starts?" |
| |
| ▲ | otterley 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What was the point of this comment? | | | |
| ▲ | markerz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy Also what’s your point? Goldman Sachs shouldn’t pull Claude Code because there’s no point in trying in this world and we should all give up on everything? | |
| ▲ | DrudgeCorporate 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Kind of an odd strawman | |
| ▲ | elmer2 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ericbarrett 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This wasn't announced, it was an internal leak reported by Bloomberg. Perhaps they should have known it would leak, but there doesn't seem to be any grand strategy. |
|
| ▲ | lg5689 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At a large bank like this, the people responsible for cybersecurity have a completely separate reporting chain and incentives than the ibanking side. If there was a security risk identified, it'd be completely inappropriate to wait a few weeks. |
| |
| ▲ | etiennebausson 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because it would be surprising for GS to make inappropriate choices? Google put 'scandal' in the autocomplete choices after their name, that tell me enough. | | |
| ▲ | lg5689 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Large banks are far more conservative about these risks than the media portrays. Reputation and regulation are huge, if not existential, risks, and the senior management treats it this way. | |
| ▲ | freejazz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Tired of this kind of discussion here. It's so insubstantial. Do you have an actual point to make? I'm sure everyone here is aware that an investment bank the size of GS has been involved in scandal. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sgt101 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Goldman wants to lead the IPO, and have a successful IPO, because Anthropic and Anthropics investors will give Goldman more business if it does that. However, if Anthropic is overvaluing itself then Goldman may not be filling the book on the offer. This story may drive down the value that investors give to Goldman when it does its research, enabling a lower price on the IPO which will then generate more institutional interest and make the IPO a success. |
|
| ▲ | jayd16 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Probably easier to bury it in election cycle news and current downturn than worry about it closer to the IPO, no? |
|
| ▲ | yipinwong 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Conflict of interest? Might as well cover their ass before IPO to claim the underwriting was fair |
|
| ▲ | hackernewds 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| this is an extremely interesting point |
|
| ▲ | rglover 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Plausible deniability. |
|
| ▲ | kogasa240p 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A drug dealer never consumes. |
| |
| ▲ | dataviz1000 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > A drug dealer never consumes That is: > Number four, I know you heard this before > Never get high on your own supply Nonetheless, I think the advice being applied here is number 3 > Number three, never trust nobody |
|
|
| ▲ | badgersnake 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Strats still have access. They probably want the traders to focus on trading and then strats to do this stuff. YTMYTS. |
