次金融危机中，还有哪家公司比高盛集团（Goldman Sachs Group）遭受了更多的诟病呢？
被 《滚石》杂志（Rolling Stone）冠以“吸血乌贼”恶名的高盛被牵扯进了多宗涉嫌非法的阴谋：涉嫌伙同其前任主席、美国财长亨利•保尔森（Henry Paulson）拯救美国国际集团（American International Group），并从中获利；拿着纳税人的钱给员工支付高额奖金；据信高盛还帮助希腊政府隐瞒真实的赤字情况，导致欧洲陷入债务危机；卷入了盖伦 （Galleon）内幕交易丑闻；对房贷泡沫以及最终泡沫的破裂难辞其咎；在国会被人指责“贪得无厌”。
一句话，高盛已经成了华尔街放纵的代名词。
值 得一提的是，虽然有这么多骂名在身，高盛却几乎没有遭到过正儿八经的指控。最后，还是公司不到30岁的VP法布里斯•图尔（Fabrice Tourre）和他那些轻率却够直率的邮件引发了真正的指控：高盛未能向一桩基于抵押贷款支持证券的问题投资项目的买家披露实质性的信息，该投资项目的推 出刚好是在房地产泡沫破灭之前。高盛方面拒绝向本专栏发表相关评论。
我对高盛在此项交 易中所扮演的角色也是持批评的态度，4月份我曾经撰文表示，姑且不论这种交易合法与否，至少“它未能达到诚信和专业这两个更高的标准，目前高盛的当务之急 便是重新找回昔日的诚信和专业。”如今高盛已与证券交易委员会（Securities and Exchange Commission）就此项指控达成和解，同意支付在华尔街创纪录的5.5亿美元的和解费用，并改变部分证券的销售模式。高盛对指控本身既不承认也不否 认，不过还是做出了一个少有的举动，承认公司在该交易中提供的材料“不完整”，表示不应当隐瞒亿万富翁约翰•鲍尔森（John Paulson）的对冲基金在此次交易中参与选定抵押贷款种类这一事实。
也许在任何一个置身华尔街之外的人看来，真相从一开始便已昭然若 揭。但是高盛拥有大批的辩护者，声名显赫的沃伦•巴菲特（Warren Buffett）便是其中之一。巴菲特是高盛的主要投资者之一，其立场自然很难不受影响。他的偏见应当是源于他在抵押贷款支持证券领域摸爬滚打了太长的时 间，图尔早前便很有先见之明地用“超现实”这个词来形容过这个领域。高盛坚称自己没有做错，或者至少没有违反华尔街的现行标准。高盛能够忍气吞声做出和 解，还是值得肯定的。首席财务长戴维•维尼亚（David Viniar）周二表示，“我们承认自己有过失，并为此深感愧疚。我们深知此事于己不利，所以会郑重应对。”
高盛表示，公司有关抵押贷款 的业务种类繁多，目前只此一宗接受了调查，这一点也值得关注。如果牵扯到鲍尔森的此次交易是唯一一次高盛管理层人员涉入的不非法但缺乏职业操守的行为，那 么就不应当将此次事件同整体割裂开来看待。（至于图尔，他还将面临民事指控，证券交易委员会会尽快对其做出妥善处置。值得一提的是，他还算有一定的道德意 识，认识到某些地方出了偏差。如果他没有其他的隐瞒事项，那么对这么一位年轻有为、级别相对较低的从业人员，今后如果禁止他从事证券交易，那还真是有些不 太公平。）
同华尔街其他银行一样，高盛在促成那些势必有人赚有人赔的交易时，也面临着或现实或潜在的利益冲突。即便不是所有、至少也是有 相当一部分的金融衍生品，其资金总值是不会增加的。这可不像包销公开招股，如果股市上涨，则皆大欢喜，人人都可获利。高盛曾经扬言可以应对此种冲突，国会 也决定对高盛及其他大银行的此类业务不予禁止。不过在此次和解之后，高盛必须要时刻向世人展示公司有能力应对此类冲突，这也就意味着，今后交易信息必须完 全公开，要对所有客户一视同仁，不可为了迎合鲍尔森之类的大客户而作弊。
不过高盛新近表现出来的低姿态令人感觉耳目一新同时也很振奋人心。金融改革法案的通过对于高盛（以及其他银行）也是一个利好，此项法案终结了监管环境不明朗的局面。
周 二，高盛公布的二季度业绩显示，当期盈利极低，除了此次和解所需费用之外，很大一部分原因是二季度的交易亏损，包括毁灭性的“闪电崩盘”和欧洲债务危机引 发市场急剧下滑等因素。此消息一出，高盛的股价随即上扬，我认为投资者能这样把目光放长远是明智的。毕竟，高盛拥有令人艳羡的规模，而且其业务性质也决定 了他们能够得到比多数投资者更权威的资讯。
4月份的时候，我说在我对高盛诚信度的信心恢复之前，我是不会考虑购入高盛股票的。他们现在已经做出了和解和承诺，那么我相信这个时刻已经来到了。
Has any firm been more vilified in the financial crisis than Goldman Sachs Group?
Infamously branded a 'vampire squid' by Rolling Stone magazine, Goldman has figured in so many alleged nefarious plots, it's hard to keep track. There was the alleged conspiracy between Goldman and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, its former chairman, to save American International Group in order to enrich Goldman. Goldman took taxpayer money and used it to pay huge bonuses. It supposedly helped Greece hide its precarious finances and caused the European debt crisis. It has been linked to the Galleon insider-trading scandal, blamed for the mortgage bubble and its collapse and accused in Congress of 'unbridled greed.'
In short, Goldman Sachs has become the public face of Wall Street excess.
It's remarkable how little wrongdoing by Goldman Sachs has actually emerged from the swirl of allegations. It took Fabrice Tourre, a 30-something vice president, and his candid if indiscreet emails to finally generate some charges that stuck: that Goldman failed to disclose material information to buyers of a toxic investment based on mortgage-backed securities just before the real-estate bubble collapsed. Goldman declined to comment for this column.
I was among the critics of Goldman's role in that deal, writing in April that, regardless of the deal's legality, 'it fails the higher standards of honesty and professionalism that Goldman once embodied and urgently needs to restore.' Now Goldman has settled the Securities and Exchange Commission's charges related to the deal, agreeing to pay $550 million, a record for a Wall Street firm, and change the way it markets some securities. It didn't admit or deny wrongdoing, but in a rare move, conceded that offering materials in the deal were 'incomplete' and that it should have disclosed that billionaire John Paulson's hedge fund helped choose the mortgages at the heart of the deal.
Perhaps to anyone not tied to Wall Street, this should have seemed self-evident from the start. But Goldman had a chorus of defenders, notably Warren Buffett, one of its major investors and hardly a disinterested party. His blind spot must have been the result of too much time in the trenches of mortgage-backed securities, a world Mr. Tourre presciently characterized as 'surreal.' Goldman insisted it had done nothing wrong, or at least nothing wrong by the prevailing standards of Wall Street. Goldman deserves credit for swallowing hard and settling the case. 'We acknowledge we made a mistake, we regret it, we know it was not good for us and take it very seriously,' Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said Tuesday.
Goldman said it knows of no other mortgage deals still under investigation, which is pretty remarkable considering the number of deals Goldman did. If Mr. Paulson's deal is the only one where Goldman officials crossed a line of unethical if not illegal behavior, it deserves to be put in context. (As for Mr. Tourre, who still faces civil charges, the SEC should speedily reach an appropriate settlement with him. To his credit, he had the moral compass to recognize something was amiss. Unless there are still-undisclosed facts, it doesn't seem fair to ban such a young and relatively low-level employee from the securities business.)
Like other Wall Street banks, Goldman faces the reality of actual or potential conflicts of interest whenever it acts as the middleman in deals in which there will always be winners and losers. Many, if not all, derivatives transactions are zero-sum games. This isn't like underwriting a public offering where, if the stock goes up, everyone feels good. Goldman has said it can manage such conflicts, and Congress has decided not to ban it and other big banks from such activities. But in the wake of its settlement, Goldman needs to demonstrate that day in and day out. That means full disclosure and treating all clients fairly, not stacking the deck in favor of big spenders like Mr. Paulson.
But Goldman's newfound humility is both refreshing and encouraging. Also working in its favor (and that of other banks) is passage of the financial-overhaul bill, which ends uncertainty about the regulatory environment.
Goldman reported weak earnings Tuesday apart from the costs of the settlement, largely due to trading losses in the most recent quarter, which included the disruptive 'flash crash' and a sharp market decline tied to the European debt crisis. Its stock climbed after the news, and I think investors are right to look beyond the quarter. Goldman has an enviable franchise, and by the nature of its business will always have access to better information than most investors.
In April I said I wouldn't want to own Goldman shares until my confidence in the firm's integrity was restored. With the firm's settlement and pledges to do better, I believe that time has come.