Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by rayiner on Thursday April 21, 2016 @09:32PM
(#11546498)
Sure, but it's a zero sum game. The change in reputation of one bank won't affect the overall demand for banking services. From the point of view of the regulator trying to snag a private sector job, it doesn't matter. The same amount of banking business will continue to be done--if Bank A takes a hit Bank B will have more work and more jobs.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by Uhhrrr on Friday April 22, 2016 @05:23AM
(#11547970)
Consider that the OP is about Abacus, a financial product created by Goldman Sachs at the request of a speculator. If more exotic products like that are tainted by evidence of systemic corruption and the possibility of having to spend time in court, then customers may well choose to park their money in boring stock or bond index funds, which give the banks a much smaller cut. So it's not a zero sum game.