I don't agree with the arguments/opinions, that Mr Smith was opportunistic concerning his profession for the whole of 12 years and later chose to leave his office citing reasons of ethical breaches and selectively allowed himself to forego those lucrative sums for a promoted status of moral virtuousness . I believe, had it been the case otherwise , that would have reaped him more benefits . In fact there is an under water tide that he could sense which are not very apparent in big 4 firms like GS ,although there are a bunch of IB firms who hardly work in lines of moral conformity and so have nothing to lose unlike GS which has bigger stature than the rest and is endowed with the responsibility of pumping blood into a financial system pretty much like INTEL or GOOGLE which are more than just mere profit making corporate. So here , by the under current I mean to say there could be looming policy changes , priority reversals or for that matter any of political shifts which not only would have spoiled the position GS presently holds in future but also could have created detrimental effects to the economical soundness , so he felt wise to disocciate himself from a position of utmost importance to save himself from shouldering the upcoming challenges or any ensuing setbacks. So I think neither it is a case of sacrifice of monetary compensation or a showcase of righteousness but a well calculated step to wash his hands off a staggering reputation that might deteriorate with time.
