Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:02PM

Can I get an update on the Spatula Rebellion outside of Goldman?

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:04PM

Just in case we forget, Jesse Jackson is also one of Hope Pope's inner circle (or entourage, or gang, whatever...)

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:09PM

Just in case we forget, Jesse Jackson is also one of Hope Pope's inner circle (or entourage, or gang, whatever...)

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:13PM

If Bill O'Reilly tomorrow claimed that more than 50% of NBA viewership is white so at least 50% of the players have to be white, how fast would the liberals be hitting the ceiling?

Why then is this person, with a 30 year + history of racism av active and vocal member of the Democratic Party? Why is is he one of the most prominent member's of Barack Obama's post-partisan on-the-road-to-heaven unity gig?

I am waiting for the references to PAt Robertson / Jerry Fallwell but hey - liberals leave no stone unturned to label others as racist / bigoted and everything else. But if this is what they are, then what is the difference?

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:19PM

why can't the underwriting duties simply go to the bank(s) who will do the best job? that's how it should work.

nevermind this affirmative action strategy, which is just plain horsesh*t.

the best way to combat prejudice is not to segregate and divide the spoils along color lines, but rather divide the spoils with a color-blind eye.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:26PM

@5:19 Its not so simple. In an underwriting the fee allocation is complex and is not based as much as you think on the amount of work or value or capital that each of the banks provides. Allocating fees based on minority status is just one of many ways that the pie gets sliced. Some (non-minority) banks for example get a piece of the action for having provided capital in say last year's revolving credit arrangement. Why do you think banks like Sun Trust and Wachovia rank at all on league table? Cause they can underwrite?

Before you all jump on me, note that I'm not defending the system here, just explaining.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:31PM

JC - this post should have been accompanied by the cartoon featuring Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton trying to get on stage with Obama, played during this weeks SNL. It would be perfect for this post.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:37PM

The only minority owned bank on the street is Goldman! Something tells me that merit will allow them to participate (and by participate I mean lead) this deal.
MOT

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:39PM

Is JJ's action anything like Dick Cheney shaking down the nation for Halliburton/KBR's benefit? Anyone?

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:45PM

@ 5:39, rhetorical, eh?

Ok lets see. So as per your logic, lets say Jesse Jackson and Dick Cheney are similar shakedown artists.

So the liberal you hates to guts of all people associated even remotely with Cheney (including McCain).

Given that Jesse Jackson = Cheney, and Obama and Jackson seem to be joined at the hip these days, does it imply Obama = Cheney? And similarly entire Democratic party = Cheney?

If so, that should mean that you hate the guts of Obama / Clinton / (insert other joker). Do you?

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:51PM

@5:45.....Just say " touche' " You can't type for shit when you're angry.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 5:58PM

@5:39 Bad analogy, and no one hates Cheney more than me. What's going on here is the typical EEO argument which goes like this: When it comes down to the last few candidates for anything (a job, an underwriting, an asset management assignment) there are only subtle differences. You're fooling yourself if you say that you've determined that one is truly better, smarter, more likely to succeed than the others. So under the circumstances make a conscious effort to toss a favor to the minority among the group, give them a boost. No different than making a call to get your old college roommate's son a summer internship.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2008 7:10PM

So all the old white jews that usually get the business somehow earned it?

No, they got it because they've been underwriting deals since they owned my people. Don't get all pissed over a little pay back.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 12:22AM

@7:10pm - Warmed-over anti-Semitism to justify an attempt to steer business. Really persuasive.

Note to other commenters: Not all Democrats like Jesse Jackson's tactics or rhetoric.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 12:28AM

@7:10, let's not forget the thousands of years they too were owned

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 7:52AM

It's JJ's son, not JJ himself, who is an important adviser to Obama.

JJ's son, BTW, is a congressman from chicago.

dad's the shakedown artist, not the son.

I know, i know, all these black dudes look alike so you white boys are easily confused.

but try to read carefully enough to figure out which jackson is doing what.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 9:47AM

Warmed over anti-Semitism? no just the facts. I have no problem with jews.

Like brothers in the NBA & prison, that's a fact too.

You shouldn't ignore reality.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 10:02AM

Why are the 'black' banks not coming out an denouncing JJ's statement instead of sitting quietly and hoping that some business can be forced their way? Does this mean that they are in bed with JJ on this shakedown scheme?

We need to keep an eye out in the future for these shameless banks.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 10:19AM

@10:02 You call it a shakedown scheme, but a minority bank would otherwise not get any business.

See 5:24 and 5:26 for how the game is played. In an underwriting only a few banks do the heavy lifting. Many others do very little work but get allocated fees for one reason or another: having done past favors, such as working on an M&A deal that eventually didn't happen or providing capital for another transaction. Another reason to allocate fees is cause the bank is a minority and you're currying favor. See the latest Wal-mart debt offering, which included a few minority banks. The idea is that walmart customers include minorities, so wal mart should give back to that community by allocating to it a part of its financing fees. Another example: City of NY pension fund. Part of the workforce is minority, therefore allocate a portion of investment managment duties to minority firms.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 10:25AM

For the benefit of 7:52,

Don Lemon (CNN) interviewing MIchelle Obama (about Jesse Jackson, from online CNN transcripts):

Lemon: What do you think of this guy? 65?
MO: I love this man. I grew up in this man's house. I've seen it all

Lemon: What do you think of the comparisons between him and your husband?
MO: You know, it's an honor. I mean to be compared - he's done it, right?
Lemon: Right.
MO: We're just sort of learning

Lemon: Yes, any advice you think you'll ask him if he decides to run from this guy because he's done it.
MO: Well, we talk to him as much as we can, so a lot of it is just looking and lostening and watching and making sure we're thinking and doing the right thing. But yes, we will be consulting with him and all the leaders of the community.

....
He is like their INSPIRATION - the shakedown artist is the Obama families inspitation. Need we say more?

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 10:29AM

@10:19 said - "Another reason to allocate fees is cause the bank is a minority and you're currying favor"

I thought people purchased / utilized services because they saw value in doing so. So if VISA does not give out some fees in its IPO to some 100% minority run investment banks, or more to the point if VISA does not give some fees to black banks then black people wont use VISA?

Who are we implying is the racist here?

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 10:30AM

When you think about it, the fees that go to the minority banks are coming out of the hide of the big banks. If a client limited its syndicate to the big boys only - in the Visa example JPM and GS are said to be doing all the work - it would pay the same fees as it would by including secondary banks. Nice system.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 10:34AM

@10:29 You're being too literal here. There's no 1-1 correlation between the fees Visa earns from minorities and the way they allocate their IBanking fees. Its more subtle. Easier to understand in the Walmart example. JJ is saying, hey, my community gives to you, you should give back by taking from the GS's and JPM's of the world. Costs you nothing and you can help us. Simple as that.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 10:47AM

Shakedown apologist @10:34

1) Just because Walmart has given in to the shakedown operation doesn't make shaking-down right!

2) No community 'gives' to Walmart. People go to shop there because of low prices. If someone else came up with bigger stores and lower prices, people would go there. It is a fair 'transactio', not charity.

3) By taking from the GS's???? If someone is earning something LEGALLY, why pressurize others into 'taking it from them'?

4) Why not instead COMPETE legitimately? GS/MER/MS/JP/C are all teeming with non-whites, much in excess to their portion of population. Many of these people will go on to start their own shops and then compete legitimately for business.

Why should black people not aim for the same? If there is a jewish guy running a small shop and a black guy running a small shop, why should we threaten investigation and action by the Congress to steer business to the black guy and not to the jewish guy? Ain't that racism?

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 11:02AM

I have a question for you all - how are you defining "minority bank"?

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 11:07AM

@10:34 here Not apologizing or in fact judging in any way. Just trying to be helpful by telling you how things work.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 11:15AM

re competing legitimately... GS/MER et al could respond to the market by lowering their fees. They instead use their oligopoly power to uniformly maintain fees at a high level. At the same time though they allow customers to direct a portion of those fees to minority banks. Its as if the customer is forced to pay above market fees to maintain the uniformity of the IBanking pricing structure, but gets a rebate in the form of a credit that they can use to purchase goodwill with the minority community. Very weird.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 11:23AM

@11:07

Your helpful 'explanation' draws upon larger themes of big-business vs small-business and then takes it to a racist conclusion.

Yes, small shops will never be able to get big pieces of such large issues and they will have to be thrown a few bones by the big guys. I fully understand how it works.

However, absent from that entire story is WHY the bone throwing should somehow be racially determined. why does a black guy running a 10 person shop deserve prefence over an asian guy running a 10 person shop. Because he is black?

And then you somehow link it to racial quotas - where all aspects of a companies business somehow need to reflect it clientele's racial composition, and not best talent available.

So I guess we should start seeing more whites playing in NFL and NBA. Also maybe a few asian linebacks.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 11:29AM

I guess I am having trouble with the concept of 'purchasing goodwill with the minority community.'

I would have thought that you purchase goodwill with a customer by providing outstanding service and value and not by pandering to that customer's race.

Then again, looks like I was wrong. Let me go and look up which companies pander to my race and then take my business to them.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 11:52AM

Re generating goodwill by providing outstanding service and value, let me repeat the comment I made yesterday re making decisions based on race:

"When it comes down to the last few candidates for anything (a job, an underwriting, an asset management assignment) there are only subtle differences. You're fooling yourself if you say that you've determined that one is truly better, smarter, more likely to succeed than the others."

The implication therefore is that you can let other factors such as race enter into your decision making without compromising the quality of your output.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 12:12PM

Analyst: you haven't been paying attention. You are only partially correct in saying that certain banks get the business because of their skills. In the Visa example that would be JP and GS, who are doing the actual work. The syndicate is then rounded out with a dozen or so banks added as payback for various reasons: minority status, helpfulness in the past, good analyst coverage, etc etc etc. Do you think BB&T Capital in Richmond has distributioin, sales, research or trading? No - but maybe at one point they particiapted in a Visa credit line, so they want and get payback.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 12:17PM

@11:52

"The implication therefore is that you can let other factors such as race enter into your decision making without compromising the quality of your output."

I am not questioning whether allowing race in will compromise the quality of output. I am questioning WHY race should be even considered as a factor AT ALL?

Last I checked considering race, gender (and increasingly sexual orientation) is taken as discriminatory. Why then should it be allowed over here?

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 12:37PM

You're not allowed to penalize based on race etc, but nothing in the law stops you from favoring on that basis.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 2:30PM

@ 2:18, where do you get your information from? SIEU? Teamsters?

Congress did not 'dictate' what consumers could do with their finances. Rather, Congress had earlier dictated 'too-much' in the form of bankruptcy law - which meant that you could go out, borrow money on your credit cards and charge-off but your creditors could not take your house you owned to pay-off those debts.

The bankruptcy law reducted the govt impacts and made it an issue between the borrower and lender so as to what assets could be attached - which means that now you have to be careful of before you borrow too much on your credit card as your house may otherwise get taken away. Essentially the Congress 'un-dictated.'

Get out of the unions and start earning a decent living for yourself instead of shielding yourself behind layers of mediocrity and self-pity.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 2:40PM

What is it with you guys. SIEU members get paid shit wages for emptying bedpans. Yet you are so riled by any attempt they make at leveling the playing field. You should all just keep your mouth shut and heads down and be thankful that the system is working in your favor. Believe me, the fact that you're making big bucks has a lot more to do wih luck than brains.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 3:01PM

Hipster @ 2:40,

So now that you have no point to make and realise all your points are BC, you resort to 'luck.' If only the UAW worker who dropped out of school with shit grades and had 2 kids by 20 were more lucky, he wouldn't be there. Of course.

oh and one more thing. I (or most other people here) can go to London or Singapore or many other places and get paid the same for the same job.

The SEIU/UAW/Teamsters guy meanwhile could sell his body parts in other parts of the world but still could either never get a job or get one which paid even a 100th of the 'shit wages' that are paid here.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 3:14PM

I'm far from a hipster, and wrote only one comment today, the one at 2:40. I reiterate from 12 yrs of experience: success is 85% luck. Be a little kinder to those that get bone tired from working much harder than you can imagine and getting paid much less than most of us here.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 3:26PM

" Be a little kinder to those that get bone tired from working much harder than you can imagine and getting paid much less than most of us here. "

That would be factory workers in China biking 15 miles to work to come back to a shanty. That would be poor farmers in Africa working year round barefoor and bareback and not even getting a pill when they are sick, forget free first-world healthcare. That would be poor children in Asia working on construction site in the sun/rain along with their parents so that the family can have something to eat.

NOT obese union worker living in 300k+ mortgaged houses, flatscreen TVs at home, driving SUVs to work and having access to the best emergency healthcare in the world. And worst of all, instead of being grateful for getting all this inspite of their non-exitent skills and education, they clamout for more!

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 5:59PM

Well I am a citizen of a developing country who now works at a bank and am quite surprised at what liberal politicians define as 'hardship' here.

Till high school, my family of 4 lived in a rented 700 sq foot apartment - where we didnt even have steady water supply. Underground water was dirty so in the summers we had water tankers come by and I remember fighting with others to get a couple of buckets of drinking water. The first new car my family ever owned was one I bought for them after working for a year.

By those standards, 99% of this country is living in unimaginable luxury. Yet every day you hear the likes of Clinton and Obama scream how people are bare alive. Funny, ironical and ridiculous at the same time.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 6:55PM

Why do you think we care how you would define hardship. We have different standards in the US, which presumably is why you're here and not back wherever the fuck you came from. Standards that I might add are in large part the result of keeping corruption out of our political system. If I were you I would shut up and be happy you're not back there.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2008 11:05PM

5:59 here.

Look 6:55, You would care because even after spending upwards of $10,000 annually on public schooling (as some report), after giving free healthcare, after running a zillion welfare schemes - you cannot get 99.5% of your country's population to a level that a person with not a fraction as much 'welfare' or money can get to. Where that person has reached is now the envy of 99.5% of your country. Maybe you should listen to such people - clearly it would be much better than listening to the shake-down artist this thread was originally about.

You also said something about keeping corruption out of the political system. You are a funny man/(woman?) :) Some call them lobbyist fees - some call them bribes. Some call the 'pork-barrel projects', some call them theft. Some get donations from mysterious folks to their 'predidential foundations,' some get slumlords to buy their houses at a discount. Same difference huh?

But then again, why would you even care? As I presume you are of the liberal persuasion, and liberals have already declared that this country is down in the dumps where pregnant women cannot get food and everyone is being exploited and the environment is destroyed and the country is the cause of all misery in the world! I may be happy to be here but looks like it is the you liberals who are not. If anything, it appears that a good majority of you would rather be in Cuba. If I were you, I would be sad that I am not in Cuba, Venezuela or Soviet Russia.