"'There are a couple of things out of place. 1) This guy has been at firm for 12 years and is only a VP…a pissant of sorts. He should have been an MD-light by now, so clearly he has been running in place for some time. 2) He was in U.S. equity derivatives in London…sort of like equities in Dallas…more confirmation he is a lightweight. Somewhere along the line he has had sand kicked in his face…and is not as good as he thinks he is. That happens to a lot of high achievers there.'"
Still, his lack of success within Goldman doesn't take away from what he has to say. This is basically an ad hominem attack - instead of refuting what he has to say, GS (or it's supporters) attempt to tarnish this guy's image.
Given what it takes to be admitted to the firm, let alone stay in it for 12 years, I wouldn't consider him "pissant". That time guarantees he's survived and gone above probably 100K other bright hires over the years. Can't say that for most companies.
My take, it's just the press milking the point/counterpoint style of argument to attract more eyeballs and ad dollars.
"'There are a couple of things out of place. 1) This guy has been at firm for 12 years and is only a VP…a pissant of sorts. He should have been an MD-light by now, so clearly he has been running in place for some time. 2) He was in U.S. equity derivatives in London…sort of like equities in Dallas…more confirmation he is a lightweight. Somewhere along the line he has had sand kicked in his face…and is not as good as he thinks he is. That happens to a lot of high achievers there.'"