<p>there are still smaller investment banks, waiting for the room to rise.</p>
<p>i expect houlihan, lazard, greenhill, even jefferies to start competing for the bigger deals.</p>
<p>===
Banker</a> Times
news by bankers, for bankers</p>
<p>"Meanwhile, most jobs on Wall Street will continue. Those not prone to panic have made a small fortune in the market in days picking up stocks temporarily devalued by irrational panic. And so it goes......"</p>
<p>Buffet. Damn, he got a good deal. I guess that's what happens when you have that much money to invest, huge clout, and a band of Buffet-copiers. His investments certainly do have an extra added value from this halo effect. I'm surprised Goldman even went down as much as it did (Down 50% i believe). They haven't even posted a quarterly loss yet. Speculation again, I suppose - again, Buffet certainly did cash in.</p>
<p>@ Boutique Banks
Is that necessarily true? There are still a lot of big players left - JP Morgan, Citi, etc. Most of the smaller banks are really specialized (just a wild guess) and a slower economy would result in fewer deals, right?</p>
<p>"a slower economy would result in fewer deals, right"</p>
<p>Bingo. That and a lack of access to new capital. How long will it take the big overseas investors to get over this debacle? A year, two years? More? I'd start at over two years and go from there. Fewer deals = fewer fees=fewer bankers. The fallout has not yet begun to hit. 20%, 30%, 50%--who knows right now. We have already gone past the 10% mark.</p>
<p>Barrons, with all due respect, you have an ax to grind and no knowledge.</p>
<p>When it comes to barrons, I'm 100% with gellino:</p>
<p>
The vast majority of people working in investment banks were not involved in the areas that have been the cause of the economic demise and think it's simplistic to cast them all as equal villains; gleefully rooting for their ruin like you're somehow better than them.
</p>
<p>barrons, people are losing jobs and you end your sentences with smiley faces? What are you, 4 years old?</p>
<p>I have had direct contacts with most major firms on WS. I have toured some of them around cities from Cinci to Seattle looking at deals. I have hired them to sell assets. GS, Morgan Stanley, ML, Lehman etc etc. </p>
<p>If you think I'm happy/angry go talk the average person on Main Street. They'd shoot some WS folks on sight just for fun. Do you even watch the news? I'm mild. Why should I not be angry when one sector of the economy has the potential for many 100 thousands of people losing their jobs. I'm supposed to feel sorry for them. Not in this lifetime. The rules of the game and motivation and enabling came from the very top of the firms in question. That makes the entire firm at fault in my eyes.</p>
<p>For all of you considering banking, Barrons is the typical American. You'll need to accept that if you want to be in the business.</p>
<p>I doubt the typical American has ever even met a banker let alone spent days with several.</p>
<p>The problem Barrons is that you simply don't get it. Bankers are responsible for all of the potential woes of this recession? Why, because they don't have the credit available to bail every industry out?</p>
<p>Here's what I've seen over time. The most resentful people are the ones who have been up close. Most clients, most lawyers working the deals, most people who deal directly with WS bankers want in. It's human nature because the life looks awfully good from the just outside. At the end of every deal we are contacted by nearly everyone involved to see if there may be an opportunity for them......</p>
<p>I understand because I wanted in too as a college student after sitting in on one recruiting session. People actually got to imagine corporate entities, raise the money and put it all together? And get paid a ton of money for doing it?</p>
<p>Enough about the current woes. What shenanigans made me turn on WS and much of what it stands for. Here's a little sliver. There are many stories like this--they just don't always get caught. See I have been around the track a few times and have a long memory. </p>
<p>frontline:</a> the wall street fix: worldcom: the players | PBS</p>
<p>Want in? Never crossed my mind. I'm a simple person with simple needs. I have three houses and six cars. That's enough to keep me busy and happy. I had a boat once but it was a PITA so I sold it.</p>
<p>lol that's funny. I bet bankers dont even come out of their offices to meet 'typical Americans' either</p>
<p>===
Banker</a> Times
news for bankers, by bankers</p>
<p>Then we can go back a bit--the old junk bond days. That was fun too.</p>
<p>A</a> FINANCIAL CRISIS MAY FORCE DREXEL TO SEEK A MERGER - New York Times</p>
<p>John, is that you?</p>
<p>I don't understand the point of your link, barrons.</p>
<p>That was for the younger folks who missed the WS 80's screw-up and following recession. My point was that WS has been throwing the US economy into the crapper about every decade since I started working for a living. I know we need them for a few things but they should be banned from doing anything but straight equity and debt issues. We'd all be better off in the long run.</p>
<p>The EC is looking at putting them in a much smaller box</p>
<p>FT.com</a> / World - US ?will lose financial superpower status?</p>
<p>LOL do you even read the links you post, barrons? Obviously not.</p>
<p>What are you laughing at--the loss of world financial leadership or the dollar going in the toilet? Maybe you need reading lessons</p>
<p>"Mr Steinbrück’s proposals include a ban on “purely speculative short selling”; a crackdown on variable pay for bank managers, which had encouraged reckless risk-taking; a ban on banks securitising more than 80 per cent of the debt they hold; international standards making bank managers personally responsible for the consequences of their trades; and increased co-operation between European super*visors.</p>
<p>Following a meeting with Christine Lagarde, his French counterpart, in Berlin, he said France and Germany would set up a working group of treasury, central bank and supervisory authority officials that would consider tougher regulation of short selling."</p>
<p>Amen. If you follow the news Barrons, you will learn that it was all but criminal short selling that caused the demise of Lehman and forced GS and MS to run for cover. All of WS welcomes regulations on short selling.</p>
<p>The investment banking industry is dead. Most Americans want to see investment bankers fall b/c for the most part, investment bankers are arrogant, snooty jerks who think they are above everybody else. Their unmitigated greed and corruption have ruined the financial industry. Bankers think that their fancy Ivy League credentials can more than make up for their actual lack of job skills as a banker. </p>
<p>Most Americans are angry at bankers b/c these bankers took millions in compensation while destroying the economy. We, the people, are also angry at this bailout proposal because these bankers and corporate criminals will not learn a d@mn thing from this economic debacle. Bankers will repeat the same mistakes. Greed corrupts. Greed kills. Bankers are about to receive their coemuppance. </p>
<p>Yes, i'm one of millions of Americans who would love to see bankers lose their jobs and begging on the street. Why? Because this way, they will understand the pain and misery they caused all of us. </p>
<p>Bankers always act like they are on top of the world. Watch the banker's world crumble. You guys are dead (not literally, just saying that your industry is dead and obsolete).</p>
<p>investment banker is a perfect career option for snooty Ivy League graduates who don't want (or don't have the grades) to go to medical/law/PhD programs but want to make a lot of money and earn a lot of prestige. Unlike "real" jobs like accounting, engineering, science, you don't need any discernible job skills to be an investment banker b/c, oh yeah, Ivy League schools don't teach actual real life job skills, they're suppose to teach you analytical and critical thinking and $hit.</p>
<p>Well said.</p>