[jyl]

Goldman used to be primarily a corporate advisory firm, earning fees for mergers and acquisitions, corporate financings, etc. This is a long-term relationship business and putting the client's interest first is vital.

As is well known, over the past decade or so, more and more of Goldman's revenue came from proprietary trading, capital markets sales/trading, include derivatives in that. And Goldman's leaders increasingly came from those businesses. That is not long-term client relationship-driven business. So over time, I think it is inevitable that the firm's culture would change.

Note also that the standards for conflict of interest in the investment banking side of financial services is very loose, at least compared to what I was used to in the legal profession or what I see on the investment management side of financial services. Goldman and other investment banks will commonly be found on multiple sides of a transaction, or advising clients to purchase securities on which Goldman will profit. It is rather hard for me to understand why it is okay, but perhaps the answer is related to the large political influence that these firms have.