Hacker News Reader

> I believe, to some extent, outsiders want to see prestigious organizations fail

Or perhaps the 99% doesn't like these "prestigious" organizations live above the law?

Which law do you think has been broken?

maybe these elite institutions actually don't deserve the prestige when it just slick marketing and as many ivy league graduates money can buy

This isn't a flame piece. This is what journalism looks like. This sort of elbow-throwing happens at every level of reporting, from local ordinances on garbage collection to international politics.

> 100's of millions of dollars is pretty small in McKinseys organization, and there really is no evidence of a systemic problem here, just a small anomaly/mistake that a few partners called the shot on.

Take a moment and think about what you wrote here.

If you were a partner at McKinsey, is this what you'd tell yourself?

If you were a non-partner employee at McKinsey, how would you feel about your own retirement funds being invested in MIO, given its performance?

Don’t have too much to add, but there is a non-partner commenter on the parent that doesn’t seem too concerned by the articles content

Non-partner employee here. Same poster as elsewhere on a different throwaway.

The benefits are very strong. I had not heard of this issue previously, and don’t especially care. I’m not clear on if you mean the performance is too high or too low because the article kind of implied both. I don’t think the amount was particularly material nor do I think it’s especially bad if the firm gives preferential treatment to partners because... it’s a privately owned firm... by the partners... and in general it treats its employees very well.

I’m not sure I’m communicating this well because the underlying facts feel vague. But I would give my employer an A+ based on my experience so far. The possibility that a percentage point of returns was lost on my 401k is bottom of the barrel priority. I can’t tell from the article what happened, but it would be really hard to outweigh the visible, conscious investment in its people that the firm does.

I recognize this sounds like I’m drinking the Kool Aid here, but frankly, very few companies invest much into their employees. The best case scenario is often lame office perks for tech workers. But tech workers get shitty non competes. McKinsey, for example, gives you weeks of fully compensated time off to find your next job elsewhere. I think it’s a remarkably healthy culture.

> I believe, to some extent, outsiders want to see prestigious organizations fail,

That certainly appears to be the case in recent years at the very least. Thinkng of finance, tech, consulting, etc

>100's of millions of dollars is pretty small in McKinseys organization

I see their business somewhat differently, in that the trust behind those dollars was far more precious. They would almost certainly give back just about any sum to retain the trust of clients they have worked with for literally generations in some cases. Which is why this panoply of stories is so frustrating for them, and also so tempting to speculate on (is it a trend? Have ethical standards lapsed? Is Marvin Bower turning over in his grave? )

For the TL;DR, as someone asked, there are a few big stories bouncing around but only on a few themes.

1. Corruption/pro-autocratic assignments in the developing world (Large fees for small amounts of work in what would become a political earthquake stemming from fraud in South Africa, social media suppression enabling research in Saudi, work with Chinese SOEs)

2. Poor disclosure around a very uncommon investment structure where partners invested in a proprietary hedge fund run by other (theoretically firewalled) partners. This bit them hard in their distressed advisory business as the hedge fund owned paper that was profoundly affected by negotiations they advised on as a firm. Distressed world also has the most strict disclosure requirments around, and they were notorious for handing in comically thin disclosure documents while others wrote books.

This also pissed off one Jay Alix, a brilliant and bulldog-like man who is the eponymous founder of distressed advisor Alix partners, though he no longer works there. It also called into question just about every case they advised on, which is a big chunk of everything period. Because distressed world is super small, and recent years have been very thin on work (the msot counter-cyclical business around by definition.)

I don't think I can over-emphasize how uncommon the core structure was/is, or how susprising it was when it became more widely known.

3. Shitty idiosyncratic seeming events (unless of course, well you get it) like their former CEO (technically head partner) being the guy who was tipping off Raj Rajaratnam of Galleon insider trading fame using his prveledged position as a board member at Goldman Sachs. Being on the wrong side of hitory it increasingly looks like as it regards to pharma corps' liabilities for things that were one step removed.

Bonus for making it to the botton - the hedge fund that was being tipped off by the former head partner, Galleon, they had a pop/hip-hop song (as their anthem?) that is catchy as all hell. Listen to it here:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/galleon-rap-song_n_4789970