@TechnoDestructo: oh God, the whole non-profit industry is just that: an industry. It's full of scams, from an obscene percentage cut for "processing" and "administration" to the uncontrolled business of hassling people for donations. I'd be completely unsurprised that brokerages take advantage of unsophisticated or unconcerned clientel.

fallacious? Ben, please stop fallatating us. We've had enough of your fallatio already.

I wonder why?

I know for a fact that they routinely do things that are not in their clients' best interests if it is more profitable for themselves. So I call B.S. on this one.

@concordia: I second that. I worked a store-level gig at a Starbucks that happened to be located directly next to their regional corporate office. I knew some people in said office, both PR and not, and I'd say you're right.

@mugsywwiii:
I think Ben could've easily taken the comments from the insider in a completely different direction. At the very least he could've called for a boycott. Instead he provided a pretty fair description of why this sort of thing could happen and what we should do to protect ourselves from it. There wasn't much lingering on Goldman as a company, but the industry in general.

I've learned a lot from this site over the past year and I think Ben is doing a fine job.

Thank you for making my bleak, sarcastic day! Even if you're just an idiot rather than a full-on shill, I feel that I owe you for that.

I've worked for non-profits for YEARS (I'm a development manager)and have had the pleasure of meeting many Goldman employees. Their commitment to giving back to their local communities through volunteerism, contributions, professional guidance, and other assistance is greatly appreciated (and a tremendous asset!).

If one ass-hat tried to or even succeeded in ripping off what is most likely a fledgling non-profit... very new and unfamiliar with how certain things work... that is one thing. Goldman, as a whole, certainly does not support such actions and if they were ever to become aware of something like this I'm POSITIVE that they would take proper disciplinary action.

(Notice how I wrote "fledgling non-profit". Yeah, not to pat myself on the back, but me and my n.p.o. crew are pretty darn intelligent and tough cookies too! A lot of us migrated from places like the financial industry, the wide world of marketing, etc. after being struck by some divine... or other... inspiration that made us stop and say "hey, I want to give back - try to fix something". SO, yeah... saying that we're easy targets is a load of bull.)

- The End -

You don't see anything dishonest about freecreditreport.com not being free?

I didn't know there were *three* GW Bush calibre type folks on the planet [the other being Palin who also says 'noo'-'kyoo'-'lar'].

Fallacious is the new nuclear. Mark my words.

Ben, for the record, ONE Consumerist article [like this one] is worth *nine* vacuous io9 ones. Or a couple Paul Boutox 'wag ones.

Seriously. Need to work on that !Paul script.

You know, the in-house Merrill and Bear guys were also among the most sophisticated investors. Look where it got them. Heck, they screwed themselves to make a profit.

If they'd do that to each other, why would anyone thing that they wouldn't do this to a small (or large) non-profit? Those aren't even in the family.

In other news...she sounds an awful lot like a Palin ex-staffer would...

Then again, If I was tasked with being the VP of Corporate Communications for an investment firm that invested itself and any associated with it into the ground I'd be a little perturbed as well.

Don't worry Melissa you're in good hands now... OUR hands.

He didn't extrapolate to all of Goldman, he extrapolated to all consumers/organizations not to count on getting a fair shake just because.

ZOMG RTA. Like /. in here. ;)

I think the way to confirm would be to find a few non-profits who use Goldman's services, and a few for-profit or private individuals who do, and compare what they're paying.

And it isn't even too late to do that.

All that being said, Ms. Daly could have provided more specifics and facts rather than just harsh statements (even if those statements involved words such as "fallacious"). She is in a position to not only refute Ben's original post, but to make her company look good in the process. She bothered with neither, which makes me think that Ben's whistle-blower got more than a little of his story correct.

I am glad I pulled my investments out of Goldman Sachs before the market crashed. After seeing the obnoxious intimidation and arrogance exhibited in that response they won't be getting any of that money back. All they are doing is reinforcing that image of Wall Street banks as being amoral a-holes.

(grumpy editor speaking here....)

Funny haha, not funny sad.

One thing Ms. Daly has going for her is that it's true that large charities usually have their own investment analysts, which is a pretty big hole that I was wondering about even in the original story. However, that says nothing about the small local non-profits that would be less-sophisticated. I have to say that without specific claims from the self-claimed "whistle-blower", I have to give the benefit of the doubt to GS. Right now it's just a rumor.

An absolutely reasonable thing to do. Companies are responsible for the behavior of their employees. If fee-gouging non-profits isn't part of Goldman's policies, then it is their responsibility to shut down this rogue agent, treat their employees well enough that they won't be motivated to behave this way, and to screen rogue agents out before hiring them in the first place.

Ms. Daly replied with an ad hominem attack, rather than explaining what structural steps Goldman takes when dealing with not-for-profit, small institutional investors. Because they have none - they're seen as chum, not clients needing special handling because of their lack of sophistication while being in control of large-ish pools of capital.

So, yeah, Goldman doesn't look credible in this situation.

As for GS and NPs, well, of course they're going to eat non-profits alive with fees. These guys are animals.

Some evidence would be nice.

As a communications employee for a nonprofit, I'm required to know that.

Grow up. You can't charge high fees for a service thats ubiquitous all across investment banking. It is just not possible. Not even in this market. Also, pretty much noone gets a quote from a single firm.

The only explanation of the story I can imagine is that the person 'spilling' the info is some low-level dickhead who overcharged some small client once and how hopes it gets him crazy rich instead of being fired whenever someone finds out during audit.

Please, do a bit of research before posting crazy allegations.

Firstly, the comments you attribute ...

The rest of the paragraph apparently goes to support this started list.

Where is "secondly", "thirdly", and/or "finally" ?

Of course, it must be properly done. "I SUE YOU FOR ALL YOU OWN AND WILL GET YOU IN JAIL AS A PEDOPHILE BECAUSE YOU SPOKE BAD OF ME COMPANY!!111!!11!!eleven!" isn't the way to go.

A simple letter (from your attorney!) tersely requesting an action be taken, with the notification that if they fail to comply within a certain period legal action will be taken can work wonders. It could save a lot of time and potentially money.

[finance.yahoo.com]

@dorianh49: "their", argh!

Google Cache Link [74.125.95.104]

A company's employees may not reflect the belief of upper management or VPs of Corporate Communicaiton, but hey, most of the time it's not upper mgmt or PR flaks who're actually out there doing the legwork. If you really want to know how a place works, as the people who are actually doing the work.

My favorite part is how this Goldman PR woman got OH so offended. Maybe rather than taking her anger out on Ben, she should have had a talk about communication responsibility with her lower-level workers.

Forgot to mention, I'm not accusing either Melissa OR Consumerist of giving false information, I'm just saying that if it's untrue, she has every reason to be upset.

Also, last time I checked, bloggers don't have to cite 2 references. This isn't the Wall St Journal.

@XianZhuXuande: I'm thinking strongly of joining the credit union down the street. In fact, they're slogan is, "No Firstborn-Sacrificing Here!" This sounds good, especially since I just found out my wife and I are actually going to have - surprise - a firstborn in about 8 months!

Why shouldn't Melissa be offended? If untrue things (especially negative untrue statements that can greatly decrease business and fuel further rumors) were said about a company I was presiding over, I would be deeply offended as well; especially if I found out that a prestigious website read by thousands daily was running rumors they heard from a source without any proof to back it up. I think her reply was very professional and well written. She didn't exactly make outrageous remarks and threaten to sue everyone's pants off, did she?

You assume that because she was upset, she's covering for something. That's a childish view to have. It's not the same as if someone calls you a name and if you get upset people assume the whole, "it must be because it's true" crap. Your mother's advice of "ignore it and it'll go away" doesn't work in the business world.

@mugsywwiii: Common practice here. One incident at one retail location becomes "[Retailer] Will [Incident] To You," implying that this occurance happens to every customer company-wide.

Oh, and I just heard that zibby likes to club baby seals! To say anything to the contrary means it's true!

And she must be reading this as she's removed her LinkedIn profile.

Personally, I often find that a company's employees are better informed and more forthright about the actions a company is taking compared to a talking head PR-type.

@savvy9999: She also apparently ditched the class on the Streisand Effect - she probably hated "A Star Is Born".

What the mouthpiece says is never even close to how the worker bees operate.

@savvy9999: At least she didn't call him Fellatious. That would have sucked.

Too often blogs like this one find one instance of bad customer service (like one McDonald's drive through posting no free water) and then somehow extrapolate that to mean the board of directors of McDonald's has issued a fiat that no store worldwide will offer free water. Journalism with hard evidence has been replaced by junior high playground gossip. Next time someone lays a deuce in a Pizza Hut bathroom, take a picture, send it to a blog as evidence of "good Pizza Hut hygiene" and the stock will drop 10% the next day.

Ms. Daly needs to understand that if they aren't completely transparent about how they handle this then we're going to speculate. It's human nature.

@ADismalScience: Give it up, pal, the mob has spoken. A retort to an accusation is (naturally) a pretty sure indication that said accusation is true, you probably work for Goldman, I am TEH MAD at those greedy fatcats so it's true, etc. etc. etc. Sorry, but you might as well dig a hole in the ground and talk to that.

PAID SHILL.

Next year she will write a book on how true this was along with other juicy tidbits.

Their jobs as apologists for their corporation are best served by a plausible ignorance of what is actually transpiring 'in the trenches'.

While it is likely that large foundations are well protected from outrageous fees by teams of professionals, I think the non-profits discussed in the first article would more fit the profile of small to mid-sized metro or regional non-profits who are looking to invest their money to build their endowment.

I would be surprised if Melissa really knew anything that was happening outside of the senior management circle at GS, especially after four months and particularly after pursuing such a career that bundles lies and calls them truth.

One of the great things about this website is that it present news as conversation. Often times I learn more from user comments than from the original post. I know Ben may not adhere to the highest journalism standards, but his posting are great at starting a discussion (I have a feeling Ben would make a terrific dinner guest).

If you are looking for responsible journalism, NYTimes might suit you better. But if you're looking for off-the-track news that you won't find anywhere else, consumerist is the place. Don't take everything on here at face value, but if some article strikes your fancy, see other user comments, explore it and research it and then inform the rest of us.

@gibbersome:

Because the headline was insulting! I'd be furious if I worked for GS. I would send an angry rebuke to such a story out of personal pride, to say nothing of a corporation founded on trust having a lot to lose if its reputation is tarnished publicly.

I hope they audit domestic non-profit accounts, find out who they have in NY advising them, audit their fee income, and find out who's "ladling."

oh Snap!

I agree that the original post was a little suspicious. Who was this Goldman Sachs insider and why did he choose to speak up...to consumerist.com of all places? Perhaps his comments were more personal than factual.

Whatever the case, I had put the story out of my mind until Ms. Daly's acerbic response. Why stoke the fumes of a dying story? Unless...she has something to hide!

@gibbersome: I think we just saw it in action.

@mugsywwiii: I think we found Ms. Daly's username.

Expertise includes strategic profile raising, M&A and crisis communications for private equity, asset management and hedge funds."

So what is "strategic profile raising"?

Which is a reasonable observation.

She may well have the ability to get up to speed pretty quickly and the snide remark by Ben just makes him sound petty and weakens his argument.

@KyleOrton: Hey, times are tough. Whatever it takes to get by.

It's a blog. Nobody comes to blogs because they heard how bloggers are paragons of journalistic integrity. Heck, admit it- we're here because we want to catch "The Man" with his pants down. If Consumerist ran a headline with "Major Bank CEO Sends Email Demanding Sacrifice of Customers' Firstborn To Open Account," we'd read it, nod our heads sagaciously, and then post a comment about how if OUR bank made us sacrifice a child, we'd go find a new bank.

Truth? What use is the truth when you're looking for a little vicarious outrage?

journalist = fail. Journalist ethics- rofl. right.

Her responding was way stupid. You would think a large company would choose to just let it die. You posting her email just gave her a chance to defend her company and deny. This shows your integrity and makes this site better then a 1 shot view like a newspaper. Plus we get to say we don't beleive you and know that most all financial companies are profit whores and would do anything short of breaking the law for a profit. We under stand the diff. between ethical and legal and that is what large corps need to learn.

@ADismalScience: Agreed.

There's a big difference in ripping off a client and not waving various fees they usually waive. When I read the original article, I really don't find any issue with what he's saying because I think I'm interpreting it from the financial field perspective.

I could say "Bank xyz totally rips off small businesses...I personally do it all the time!" when all I'm really conveying is that I don't waive fees for the small businesses that I waive for larger companies with more leverage.

I don't think the response was as well articulated as it could have been, but exactly the same amount of evidence was provided as the original story, which is to say zero. And at least she's backing it with her name and title.

@savvy9999: That obviously was not directed at you...damn lack of edit button!

I struggle with keeping your blog on my list. You have some good info, but then you make idiotic posts over stuff like freecreditreport.com which clearly states it is a service you are charged for; but you encourage stupidity by acting like they are doing something wrong other than running a legit business.

This is another example I need to consider when it comes to deciding if I will spend time reading this blog.

@savvy9999: The non-profit that I work at has an endowment of more than $120 million...we DO NOT have a huge team of people figuring out our investments. Perhaps Harvard and their multi-billion dollar endowment can afford to do so, but to assume that they all do is simply ignorant.

@K0MMIE: You took the words right out of my mouth, literally! Hahahaha.

Ben, seriously though, do you have even a shred of evidence that this is true?

I'll believe that you know a guy from Goldman. Hell, you probably know several. I'll even believe that he said this to you.

But can he - or you - put absolutely any evidence around this at all? And if not, don't you have a responsiblity to know more before you accuse a company of corruption and theft? I understand you run a blog, but this runs deeper than questions about journalistic ethics. Do you even care if you make a good argument?

oh snap. OH SNAP!

@mugsywwii Uhh, dude.... He's been on TV giving the news more than most bloggers. You lose.

I was expecting her to provide much more detail about how they treat non-profits et al the right way...but this letter was basically "you're wrong shame on you...*picks up thesaurus*...fallacious."

She really improved my opinion of Goldman-Sachs.

And by "really" I mean "in no way".

I like the image of Goldman Sachs executives being "hopping mad." A bunch of greedy f****s hopping around their offices like the toads they are.

@TemporaryError:

Neither did the original post.

Ben has absolutely no evidence of "ladling on fees" beyond an anonymous conversation with someone who purported to be a GS "trader."

Considering Ben didn't use the appropriate terminology in the item for an advisor, broker, or associate that would handle such an account and make sales decisions I question it too. It was a story constructed out of spit and glue, and should be considered rumor unless Mr Popken or his so-called "trader" friend has any evidence to substantiate the claim.

@mugsywwiii: I've always found those pesky ethics just get in the way of a good story. I'm pretty sure Gawker's been sued before.

The comments were about the entire company, though. They weren't about a department, or a single person. How should someone take them? They are what they are. The Consumerist didn't put words in the whistleblower's mouth.

A real journalist writes about what they learn, whether it is from an inside source on an exciting day, or something glaringly obvious (like CC going bankrupt) on a boring day.

Yep, I'm pretty sure that is the official definition of "blogger".

These are the NP clients that are getting rung up on fees, who do not know better. I am on the board of such an org, and we have great difficulty finding banks/anyone who won't f*** us over every chance they get.

What else is new-- the little guy gets screwed. Ms. Daly conveniently ignores this wee fact, provides no evidence to the contrary, thus boosting the argument.

@mugsywwiii: Work for Goldman?

You know, last I checked, when an insider reveals dirty dealings about your company, the LAST THING you wanna do is get upset and send a nasty letter to the person who posted around the spilled info. I mean, isn't this just going to lend credence to the story and encourage the Consumerist (and others) to pass the story around even more?

Nah. Throw big words around instead.

Congrats Ben, it's not every day you get called offensive and fallacious in the same sentence!