'Self-reviews' provide an insight into the competitive, arrogant, distorted bubble that is Goldman Sachs, writes LUCY KELLAWAY

IS FABRICE Tourre one of the most boastful men in the world? Or is the Goldman Sachs trader a man who looks dispassionately at himself and is well aware of his weaknesses?

From reading the e-mails he sent his girlfriend – in which he gloatingly refers to himself as “Fabulous Fab” – one might think the former. But there was another piece of evidence put before last week’s Senate subcommittee that has attracted rather less comment but which paints a different picture of the young trader.

Buried in the middle of the 901 pages of exhibits are four “self-reviews”. These are the reports that the Goldman bankers wrote about themselves for the year 2007 in which they listed their strengths and weaknesses.

If you can be bothered to download the document and print out pages 227 to 246 you will be amply rewarded. The four reports are fascinating in what they say about each of the men and about the competitive, arrogant, utterly distorted bubble that is Goldman Sachs.

And as a bonus, they contain two rare gifts to collectors of business jargon.

The first to hoist himself on his own petard is Daniel Sparks: “I delivered the best performance of my career this year . . . we didn’t just survive – we excelled.”

Michael Swenson picks up the theme: “On the leadership front, I performed exceptionally well over the past year.”

Joshua Birnbaum concludes: “I believe I will be a very compelling partner candidate for 2008.”

All three pay lip service to teamwork while making clear the bulk of the success was due to them. Swenson writes: “I am extremely proud of the traders that I have developed under my leadership,” noting that many of them weren’t top performers until they had the good fortune to work for him.

But what about weakness? Goldman bankers, it seems, don’t have any. They don’t even have “opportunities for improvement”.

Instead, there is a box for “development needs” and even more euphemistically, “unfulfilled accomplishments”, which is surely a contradiction in terms.

Most of them cite obscure and minor shortcomings such as a “need to leverage the firm” – whatever that might entail.

Birnbaum deftly makes his weaknesses strengths in disguise: “I command considerable respect from younger members of the department based on my experience and market impact. I need to spend more time converting their respect into a comfort and trust.”

In other words: I’m so great my underlings understandably view me like a god.

By contrast, Fabulous Fab makes no special attempt to blow his trumpet and when he gets to the box labelled unfulfilled accomplishments, he lets rip. “Team work needs to be improved. Need to delegate. Have to stop double checking work done by others. Leadership skills need more focus. Sometimes need to be more patient with team members. Need to do a better job at recruiting.”

Suddenly we see Fabulous Fab attacking himself with a carving knife, each stab deeper than the one before. What he is saying is: I’m bad with people. I know that and I’m going to try to get better.

The difference between Fabrice and the others is partly one of nationality: the Americans were taught to boast on their mother’s knees and the French weren’t.

But it goes deeper than that. The self-reports were never meant to be made public. They were written to ensure that the men got bonuses as stratospheric as their self-belief.

The easy conclusion is that the arrogance of the three Americans is frightening. But I wonder if the Frenchman’s self-knowledge is more frightening still. A man who understands that he needs to get better is even more dangerous than those who complacently think they are there already. Back in 2007, Fabulous Fab, it seems, was planning on becoming a lot more fabulous still.

And finally, the two linguistic gifts. First, an early sighting of a now popular phrase. Birnbaum, in talking about shorting mortgage-backed securities, says he “socialised the idea” – he told people about it. This was 2007, and Birnbaum was proving that even if he wasn’t a “thought leader” (as he claimed) he was at least a jargon leader.

Second, a new phrase. Fabrice’s assertions that he must try harder to be a “firm culture carrier”.

I predict this will take off. It suggests that one can carry the Goldman culture in the same way one can carry a sexually transmitted disease.