Comments on: Felix Salmon smackdown watch, banking-conflicts edition http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: gospel http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-52301 Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:52:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-52301 Some really quality posts on this web site , saved to fav.

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36718 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:52:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36718 Sprizouse, so your concern is that there are handful of idiots at board level across the world?

]]>
By: Sprizouse http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36678 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:17:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36678 @CDN_Rebel at least I’m an oafish dolt who can read. Once again, I’ll quote from the post:

“…ALMOST ALL of these clients are extremely sophisticated individuals who know exactly what they’re paying for.”

Did you notice the relevant part? I put it in all caps for you. And yes, perhaps reading a certain Rolling Stone writer’s work may not be the same as knowing a damn thing, but not being able to read ANYTHING is the very definition of not knowing a damn thing. Thanks for playing CDN, kthxbai!

]]>
By: SelenesMom http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36666 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:05:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36666 I was on board with this commenter right up until the end, and thinking that many of the friends I most respect from business school might have argued the same. However here we have a blooper:

“None of this is to excuse the Goldman MD for not revealing his holdings in Kinder or to say that Goldman is always above board with all of its clients. Nor is it to pretend that there aren’t often principal-agent issues between boards, management teams, advisors and shareholders, especially in large public companies.”

It’s one thing if your firm — whether it’s Goldman or Podunk Brothers of Podunksville — has a conflict of interest, and your client should or should not have been aware of it, and whatever steps were or were not taken with regard to the client. But hello — you personally have socked away a few shares? Of course that’s a whole nother issue.

]]>
By: CDN_Rebel http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36657 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:04:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36657 @Sprizouse So you’ve heard of board appointments that you don’t think are deserved and suddenly that means EVERY board appointment is a political move of an undeserving plutocrat? When you finally learn something about the business of finance come back and post a comment. Or better yet, apply to B-school and graduate, afterwards telling us what an oafish dolt you are for accomplishing that. Reading a certain Rolling Stone writer’s work is not the same as knowing a damn thing

]]>
By: Sprizouse http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36654 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:44:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36654 I’ll follow up Kid Dyanamite’s note of a great quote by mentioning that Felix’s loyal reader also added this just a few words later:

“…almost all of these clients are extremely sophisticated individuals who know exactly what they’re paying for.”

That’s a very Rand-ian fantasy world Mr. Loyal Reader is living in, isn’t it? Unless of course, he’s right and it’s simply not possible to be on the board of company (or in the executive suite) without being a walking genius who earned his way to a board seat through hard work and intelligence, not through cronyism or the fact that he’s rich, or the fact that he’s a plant, strategically put on the board to vote a certain way or or or or or…

But no, Loyal Reader is probably right, because I’ve certainly never heard of any such thing happening on any company’s board. Ever.

]]>
By: chris9059 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36642 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:13:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36642 The argument presented by your reader appears to be somewhat incoherent. He acknowledges that corporate officers and directors should not, and in fact don’t, trust Goldman et al:

…”sophisticated directors of El Paso’s board knew full well that the decision was their’s to make and that Goldman’s advice should be taken with a grain (or block) of salt.”
“I would posit that Goldman’s clients do not in fact trust Goldman to provide “impartial advice in their own best interest”.

Yet he then goes on to argue that clients retain Goldman because they Goldman has behaved in such a way so as to establish relationships of trust which can used to the client’s benefit:

“What clients are buying from bankers is access to this type of trust that can only be gained through repeated transactions between parties.”

How is it that Goldman has established these relationships of trust when, as your reader acknowledges, Goldman’s clients don’t and shouldn’t trust them?

]]>
By: amateurediteur http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36640 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:39:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36640 TL; DR. Seriously now, what’s with the War and Peace rant?

]]>
By: StoneStAdvisors http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36637 Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:44:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36637 I would posit that the similar if not same holds not just for M&A bankers, but all sorts of bankers/traders as well. Paulson went to GS for ABACUS (etc) because they could get the deal done i.e. not just structure but sell it. As for IKB/ACA, they seemed to be ridiculously naive in that they allegedly presumed any/all conflicts would be disclosed in all-caps size 48 font or something, when they – and anyone with half a brain – should have walked in expecting conflicts.

]]>
By: KidDynamite http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/07/felix-salmon-smackdown-watch-banking-conflicts-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-36635 Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:23:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=12372#comment-36635 “”conflicts of interest are a core piece of an M&A banker’s value proposition to its clients”

fantastic quote.

]]>