Goldman Sachs CEO: We won't take you public unless you have a one diverse board member

#26
#26
NurseGoodVol said:
You might want to have female input on the sexy angle. You can hire a focus group for that. Don't have to have female board members. How bout we stick to who's best at doing the job and not focus on diversity for the sake of just being diverse.
Click to expand...

Who says that's why they're doing it? They likely believe diversity is a means to an end. I hope and assume they did a cost/benefit analysis on this policy. Maybe they think the good appointments brought about by this quota outweigh the bad. Or they could be doing it simply because they think the PR benefit outweighs the cost. I highly doubt it's just for the sake of diversity, and if it is, I agree that it's dumb.
 
#27
#27
n_huffhines said:
Would we have a thread if GS had made a questionable rule change to their vacation policy? None of this affects us but there is a thread about it because people are threatened by it and feel compelled to voice opposition to it.

Diversity is good. It's as if we think these boards are already made up of the best candidates. There is a lot of nepotism and other BS going on and a very minor diversity measure can help with that. I wish my executive team had more diversity, specifically executive experience elsewhere. All Mormon men. 3 of them are brothers. All came up thru the company and don't know what it's like elsewhere. I'd like some fresh blood. If we had a quota for a female exec, we'd have to look externally because we don't have women that we're even trying to groom for upper mgmt.
Click to expand...

vacation policy vs which IPOs they'll underwrite - yeah that's equivalent.

diversity via gender for the sake of having more than one gender does nothing to get "fresh blood" or "viewpoint". seems like PR virtue signaling to me.

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying people are threatened by it just because they voice opposition to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#28
#28
These companies are already diverse. I done seen it everyday on those TV commercials.
 
#29
#29
Bigun said:
What I will never understand about companies like Goldman Sachs and Chic Fil A. No matter how much you pander to the leftists it is never enough and makes zero difference to them.
Click to expand...
Chick Fil A panders to the left? Maybe you misspelled 'Starbucks'
 
#32
#32
Bigun said:
CFA's recent decision to stop giving to those hateful groups like the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes is where I got that from.
Click to expand...
Compared to what we see from the left, that's bush league pandering however, but I guess you have a point.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
vacation policy vs which IPOs they'll underwrite - yeah that's equivalent.

diversity via gender for the sake of having more than one gender does nothing to get "fresh blood" or "viewpoint". seems like PR virtue signaling to me.

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying people are threatened by it just because they voice opposition to it.
Click to expand...

OK, you're not threatened but you care enough to oppose it for some inexplicable reason. If it is PR virtue signaling, why do you care this time? Businesses do this all the time.

Why are you assuming it's for the sake of diversity or it's just PR? What if it's actually a good policy, on the net?
 
#36
#36
n_huffhines said:
OK, you're not threatened but you care enough to oppose it for some inexplicable reason. If it is PR virtue signaling, why do you care this time? Businesses do this all the time.

Why are you assuming it's for the sake of diversity or it's just PR? What if it's actually a good policy, on the net?
Click to expand...

It's not an inexplicable reason - I explicced it just fine. Besides I don't "oppose" it. They can do whatever they want. I am critiquing the decision; questioning the logic of it.

Show me the compelling evidence that having at least one female on the board makes IPO's more successful and I'll consider that it's good policy. The suggested power of diversity comes from viewpoint diversity - using gender as a proxy is quite a crude way to achieve that goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, hog88 and Bigun
#37
#37
volinbham said:
It's not an inexplicable reason - I explicced it just fine. Besides I don't "oppose" it. They can do whatever they want. I am critiquing the decision; questioning the logic of it.

Show me the compelling evidence that having at least one female on the board makes IPO's more successful and I'll consider that it's good policy. The suggested power of diversity comes from viewpoint diversity - using gender as a proxy is quite a crude way to achieve that goal.
Click to expand...

The rule is they need one diverse board member, not specifically a female board member.

You literally can't think of a single reason why this rule would be beneficial? You need me to compel you?

How about this...if any given board is 100% white male, it's not necessarily a problem....but when (say) 90% of boards are all white male, then I can promise you that it means the system is flawed. No system is perfect. GS may be fixing a bigger flaw with a smaller flaw, and that's OK. This may be a "crude" way to ensure diversity of opinion, but how else do you do it? It's effective in that there is no subjectivity. You're either a white male or you're not. Other measures might have a better relationship with diversity of opinion, but they're subjective and impossible to enforce.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#38
#38
n_huffhines said:
The rule is they need one diverse board member, not specifically a female board member.

You literally can't think of a single reason why this rule would be beneficial? You need me to compel you?

How about this...if any given board is 100% white male, it's not necessarily a problem....but when (say) 90% of boards are all white male, then I can promise you that it means the system is flawed. No system is perfect. GS may be fixing a bigger flaw with a smaller flaw, and that's OK. This may be a "crude" way to ensure diversity of opinion, but how else do you do it? It's effective in that there is no subjectivity. You're either a white male or you're not. Other measures might have a better relationship with diversity of opinion, but they're subjective and impossible to enforce.
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming it’s flawed? Is it impossible to think the most qualified could be predominantly white males? This is simply a ploy to bring in less qualified members based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
#40
#40
C-south said:
Why are you assuming it’s flawed? Is it impossible to think the most qualified could be predominantly white males? This is simply a ploy to bring in less qualified members based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
There is no f***ing way that this country became the best, richest, most powerful country in the world with nothing but white men at the top. No way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNVOLNAVY, C-south and SpaceCoastVol
#41
#41
n_huffhines said:
The rule is they need one diverse board member, not specifically a female board member.

You literally can't think of a single reason why this rule would be beneficial? You need me to compel you?

How about this...if any given board is 100% white male, it's not necessarily a problem....but when (say) 90% of boards are all white male, then I can promise you that it means the system is flawed. No system is perfect. GS may be fixing a bigger flaw with a smaller flaw, and that's OK. This may be a "crude" way to ensure diversity of opinion, but how else do you do it? It's effective in that there is no subjectivity. You're either a white male or you're not. Other measures might have a better relationship with diversity of opinion, but they're subjective and impossible to enforce.
Click to expand...

I think in business this type of rule is unnecessarily constraining. They can aim to work with more diverse; prioritize or whatever but making a hard rule doesn't make sense to me.

Disagree about the objective/subjective. If all they care about is skin color/gender diversity then yes they can point to that but that doesn't come close to guaranteeing viewpoint diversity. On the other hand they can learn about each board member (which the certainly do prior to an underwriting campaign) to determine if viewpoint diversity exists.
 
#42
#42
So why doesn’t GS make the statement that they won’t be accepting any IPO clients without a thorough investigation of the “fitness” of the board? Having “diversity” for the sake of diversity is just a guarantee of a bloated E suite.
This is just another opportunity for boards to be even more overloaded at the expense of shareholder and employees.
I bet GS has a full portfolio of candidates available to fill these “required” roles
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#43
#43
n_huffhines said:
Who says that's why they're doing it? They likely believe diversity is a means to an end. I hope and assume they did a cost/benefit analysis on this policy. Maybe they think the good appointments brought about by this quota outweigh the bad. Or they could be doing it simply because they think the PR benefit outweighs the cost. I highly doubt it's just for the sake of diversity, and if it is, I agree that it's dumb.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Don’t know why the title article didn’t come up , The article states GS new diversity rule doesn’t not include Asian markets . The link is good and will take you to the article .
 
#44
#44
C-south said:
Why are you assuming it’s flawed? Is it impossible to think the most qualified could be predominantly white males? This is simply a ploy to bring in less qualified members based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

You're thinking is straight out of the 1960s. Women now are a majority of the American workforce. They represent a significant portion of the investment market. Women own businesses, are finance and legal professionals and occupy a large number of executive/c-level positions; these qualifications make them ideal candidates to be good board members. Having women on your board also shows a commitment to diversity and that you do not discriminate.
 
Last edited:
#45
#45
Purple Tiger said:
You're thinking is straight out of the 1960s. Women now are a majority of the American workforce. They represent a significant portion of the investment market. Women own businesses, are finance and legal professionals and occupy a large number of executive/c-level positions; these qualifications make them ideal candidate to be good board members. Having women on your board also shows a commitment to diversity and that you do not discriminate.
Click to expand...

If a woman is the most qualified applicant I’m 100% for it. I am however against affirmative action or ANY kind of extortion of forced diversity. For the life of me I can’t understand all the mf’ers crying about equality and then laying out special rules to give them a leg up. If your experience, skills, and merits are the the best and what someone is looking for that’s all that should matter. No team in the NFL draft takes a white guy with the #1 pick because they have too many black guys on their team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#46
#46
0nelilreb said:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Don’t know why the title article didn’t come up , The article states GS new diversity rule doesn’t not include Asian markets . The link is good and will take you to the article .
Click to expand...

They probably did this because there is next to zero diversity in Asian markets. Here you can pass a rule like this and end up with better boards. Asian markets don't have/groom the female/minority talent that we do.
 
#48
#48
C-south said:
If a woman is the most qualified applicant I’m 100% for it. I am however against affirmative action or ANY kind of extortion of forced diversity. For the life of me I can’t understand all the mf’ers crying about equality and then laying out special rules to give them a leg up. If your experience, skills, and merits are the the best and what someone is looking for that’s all that should matter. No team in the NFL draft takes a white guy with the #1 pick because they have too many black guys on their team.
Click to expand...
I put women on a pedestal...…………………………………..


........................but only so I can look up their dress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol
#50
#50
n_huffhines said:
They probably did this because there is next to zero diversity in Asian markets. Here you can pass a rule like this and end up with better boards. Asian markets don't have/groom the female/minority talent that we do.
Click to expand...
The issue for Asia is not the female, that there is no one that’s equal to or better than the asians
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top