[C1sc0cat]

I checked that and I don't see that requirement for Goldman Sachs or any other partnership set up - the potential for corruption and nepotism is huge if its pay to play.

Some form of coops Mondragon for example do but that is a very different type of employment.

[vikramkr]

Goldman sachs isn't a partnership, and the potential for corruption and nepotism is always huge in any structure. That's why they extend loans to new partners, but the whole point is that partners no longer take salaries, they are equity holders in the actual firm, and they're obviously not going to let just anyone become a partner because they have money. What exactly do you see as the difference here between having to buy your way into the partnership after the other partners vote and then taking equity versus being promoted to partner after the other partners vote and then taking a salary? Who exactly is supposed to own the law firm in the second case if not the partners?

[qwhelan]

Goldman Sachs hasn't been a partnership since they IPO'd. They just use "partner" as a title for legacy reasons.

In general, a partnership is a collection of equity owners ("the partners"). To become a partner you have to buy equity, usually sold by a retiring partner.

Sometimes "new partners" are created by diluting the stock; this is generally avoided unless the person is expected to grow the business by at least that much.

[phyalow]

Goldman's partnership today is that in name only. Prior to the firms IPO new partners did indeed have to buy their way in (via loans!).

[C1sc0cat]

The full value? GS was huge even before the IPO no individual could ever expect to buy the value of their share surly?

[phyalow]

I think anecdotally it was around 6-800k USD, which could be covered no problem with a few years of contributions from salaries and bonuses. Basically its just company equity that you are buying. The amount can be token but you are still a "partner".