Where does one even possibly start with this: from the WSJ [9]: "Morgan Stanley’s CEO James Gorman this morning criticized an op-ed written by a former Goldman Sachs Group employee, saying “I didn’t think it was fair.” Gorman, at a breakfast sponsored by Fortune Magazine in New York, said that he told the operating committee of his New York firm, not to try to take advantage of the criticisms of Goldman in the op-ed, which described a toxic culture in which profits come before client service."...“I don’t really care what one employee said,” said Gorman, who became CEO of Morgan Stanley at the beginning of 2010. “At any point, someone is unhappy… To pick a random employee, I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think its balanced.” That's funny - Gorman is only the second CEO after Jamie Dimon [10]to "not take advantage of the criticisms" and we wonder why? Could it have something to do with the fact that every single bank is in the same position, and both Dimon and Gorman know very they are both just one disgruntled employee away from having the truth about their own sinking ships exposed to the world? Could it also be that both of them also realize that with Wall Street compensation packages now effectively downshifted for good, that the incidence of precisely such "whistleblowing" Op-Eds will soar astronomically? Finally, could Mr. Gorman perhaps comment on the allegations of yet another whistleblower who emerged right here on Zero Hedge [11], who alleges that it was none other than Morgan Stanley who influenced the CBO in its "conclusions" over the implications of the robosigning scandal? We would be delighted in posting Mr. Gorman's view. Alternatively, we would be just as delighted in posting the views of his employees, whether happy or unhappy. Or at least those employees who are not fired in retribution for emailing Zero Hedge... wink wink Morgan Stanely - and now you know that we know that you know that we know.
The farce continues:
Talking about the recent government stress test, Gorman said they were tougher than the 2009 tests and that what mattered most is that Morgan Stanley passed. “We’re in much better shape than the market is giving us credit for,” he added.
Wait, does Morgan Stanley's "European second derivative" stability maybe have something to do with the $1.3 trillion liquidity injection by the ECB in the past 3 months? No? Ok, never mind.
J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon also told his staff not to “take advantage” of any problems Goldman was facing this week because of the op-ed.
“We respect our competitors, and our focus should be on doing the best we can to continually strengthen our own standards,” Dimon had written.
Etc.