She doesn't really offer any evidence to the contrary, or examples does she?

Remember what they say; If you can say anything nice, just tell the truth. Keep up the good work guys.

Ms. Daly could have provided a detailed analysis of how (on average) fees are pretty much the same between all of Sach's N-P/F-P clients... but...

Nah. Throw big words around instead.

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

Hey, that's great!! Goldman, Sachs & Co. executives read this column. Well, since we can't get help via phone or e-mail, let me discuss how I feel about your company on the only place where it may be read by someone who actually matters in the company... GO F--K YOURSELVES. You, Melissa, are fallacious and offensive. The fact that you are offended by this site leads me to believe that they are on to something.

She has a point. You extrapolated the comments of one employee and applied them to the entire company. You have no concept of journalistic ethics, and one of these days it'll get you sued. You're not a real journalist, but you pretend to be one on the Internet.

It's very telling that she doesn't demand a retraction or threaten legal action.

What she says is definitely true. Big non-profits, like universities, have teams of 25 or more managing multiple billions of dollars. To think a company like Goldman Sachs would risk not getting their hands on a piece of that kind of action by hiking fees is ridiculous.

@mugsywwiii: I'll take those as compliments.

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?

@mugsywwiii: Work for Goldman?

@MissTicklebritches: That's cause you can't retract the truth.

@MissTicklebritches: Truth.

@zigziggityzoo: But the point of the original article was not focused on "big non-profits". Small non profits with endowments in the small $millions do NOT have teams of finance gurus. l

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.

@MissTicklebritches: Heh- yeah. The best she can do is say the headline is fallacious and offensive. Yikes.

@mugsywwiii: I've learned a lot from the consumerist, so I guess the dissemination of information is working pretty well.

Fallacious with a total stranger?! How desperate are they?!

@mugsywwiii:
"You're not a real journalist, but you pretend to be one on the Internet."

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

@mugsywwiii:

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.

Despite Ms Daly's hurt feelings, the truth hurts.

@mugsywwiii: If you don't want to read this site, don't read it. But bashing the people who do and the people who write for it is unwarranted and immature.

@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.

@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.

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.

"fallacious" sounds so naughty...

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".

@Ben Popken: lawl.

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

For someone with years of "media relation" experience like herself, I would think Melissa would have a much better understanding of tact. It would have gone over better if she'd taken the stance of "I regret an employee may have relayed information like this to you as it's not in-line with any of the values that we strive to instill in our employees." and left out all the bull crap about how you have no experience in the field so you can't comment on it. That one line accepts responsibility on some level, and determination to make it right. Taking the hardline that this would never happen inside a company as large as Goldman is to be daft.

Not a very convincing denial. She calls you a liar twice, points up the irrelevant fact that some charities have their own in-house investors, calls you ignorant for supposedly not knowing this irrelevant fact, and finishes up with an insult. Somewhere in there are a few words saying that your interviewee's claims don't "reflect" the way GS does business. Nothing about "such practices are strictly against GS policy" or anything like that.

"You know, for someone who's only been on the job four months, she sounds very sure of how the ground troops operate."

oh snap. OH SNAP!

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?

@savvy9999: What big words? It's high school reading level. The only thing that bugs me is the lack of a terminal comma.

@incognit000: Ms. Daly obviously slept through the we're taking these allegations very seriously! lecture in Public Relations 201.

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

@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.

I think her letter to you deserved a little more respect than you gave. You are quoting unnamed sources, after all. And just because an anonymous source says something you cannot attribute that to the entire company.

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

It may be that large non-profits have their own investment staff, but the majority of non-profits, are small organizations like churches, PTAs and community groups, which do not.

Melissa: FAIL

It sounded like she said this: "It really hurt our feelings when you posted that article and it's actually the exact opposite of what was said. We treat all our other customers to our worst investors and give only our best to endowments, foundations, charities and non-profit organizations."

@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.

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.

@mugsywwiii: You have a point about the previous article. As far journalist ethics and what not - lol - seriously? Did you see the "journalist" in action during the election.

journalist = fail. Journalist ethics- rofl. right.

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?

oh boohoo. whiners.

Sounds like: "the people we deal with are savvy, so we *have* to try and ream them!"

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

Why did she call you fellatio?

Shallow and Pedantic.

@K0MMIE: The woman's CV shows over 12 years experience in Media Relations and Corporate Communications, considerably more experience than anyone I know of at The Consumerist.

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.

@savvy9999: ROFL, that's awesome.