You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Morgan Stanley Being Bought Out By Citic-chinese Company
- Thread starter dsq
- Start date
Quote from pitz:
And that's a problem, why?? If they 'walk', then they won't have to be paid severance. "MS rainmakers", what the f*ck are you talking about? Or wait, are you one of those wall-streeters who thinks his/her job is one-of-a-kind, and irreplaceable? The people who leave will be replaced, in case you haven't noticed, theres tens of thousands of very capable people on Wall Street unemployed right now, and more to come as more banks go under. And colleges keep churning out business grads faster than milk goes sour in Mexican sun.
That's just the stock market, which often doesn't reflect the physical market in goods and services, or even the prevailing discount rate. Remember that the 'stock market' was giving dotcoms without earnings insane valuations just a few years ago. The "stock market" less than 52 weeks ago valued AIG at $72, now its worth $2.
Even the US completely falling off the map won't be much more than a temporary blip in China. And by acquiring a US investment bank, the Chinese have an excellent opportunity to become much 'closer' to their investments than they previously were.
1) People who [genuinely] own the client relationships.
2) If you say so. Now off to bed if you have done all your assignments for school tomorrow.
1) People who [genuinely] own the client relationships.
If Joe leaves (because he's a racist twit who can't work well with the new ownership and management), Dick will just step into his place. Those institutions are large enough that they don't entrust any single person with complete 'ownership' of a client relationship. Its a team of professionals, and if a few of them decide to leave, there are lots of people to pick up the slack. Even if the salary is half of what the 'old guy' was paid.
A Chinese-owned investment bank probably could also offer its clients a lower cost of capital, because of preferred access to offshore (Chinese) money. This would give them a competitive advantage. Why would Chinese investors (ie: the government) provide funding to JPM, BAC, etc., if they could fund a bank that was run in a manner consistent with Chinese values and Chinese business tradition?
2) If you say so. Now off to bed if you have done all your assignments for school tomorrow.
Grow up.
this is really not good-i do not see how this could be good for american little guy in any way?
any pro's to this idea?
not racist or anything but all the info on american consumers-private info on everyone at their finger tips-i would not be worried if they did not treat their own people so badly(those who do not agree with their gov't) -forced labor for all americans?
kinda ominous
REALLY UNCANNY THAT ALL OF THIS TAKES PLACE DURING OPTIONS FRIDAY WEEK????????????????????????????
any pro's to this idea?
not racist or anything but all the info on american consumers-private info on everyone at their finger tips-i would not be worried if they did not treat their own people so badly(those who do not agree with their gov't) -forced labor for all americans?
kinda ominous
REALLY UNCANNY THAT ALL OF THIS TAKES PLACE DURING OPTIONS FRIDAY WEEK????????????????????????????
Quote from mokwit:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Really? You're the one claiming that individual bankers are an irreplaceable part of the business. That is patently false. People do business with MS because of their reputation and their track record and balance sheet to underwrite the deals they enter into. They don't do business with some guy named "Joe" in the office who just happens to work for MS on that particular day.
But if you want to live with the delusion that the world will end at MS if a few (probably overpaid) senior staffers are gone -- be my guest. Life will go on, and having new ownership that is well capitalized gives certainty in a very uncertain world, which, in itself, should be very positive for employee recruitment and retention. I suspect most of the people who work for MS will be kissing the ground anways that they have jobs, because most of their fellow Wall Street bretheren are being laid off as the firms they work for go bankrupt.
Again, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
You sound like some wannabe banker or maybe a wannabe MBA
"Some of Lehman's European-based bankers are attractive because of their strong client relationships."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aftyCmvzaVwI&refer=home
Barclays appeared to recognize that Lehman Brothers was only as good as the employees who make up the firm. If 30 percent or more of Lehmanâs United States and Canadian work force quits before the deal closes, it has the right to walk away from the deal.
Barclays has also identified 200 employees âthat have been designated as key to the success of the business,â according to the filing, along with eight employees designated as âcriticalâ to the firm. Barclays requires a âsubstantial majorityâ of those 200 key employees and all eight of the critical employees to stay on or, again, the deal wonât close.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/whos-getting-what-in-the-lehman-barclays-deal/#comments
You sound like some wannabe banker or maybe a wannabe MBA
"Some of Lehman's European-based bankers are attractive because of their strong client relationships."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aftyCmvzaVwI&refer=home
Barclays appeared to recognize that Lehman Brothers was only as good as the employees who make up the firm. If 30 percent or more of Lehmanâs United States and Canadian work force quits before the deal closes, it has the right to walk away from the deal.
Barclays has also identified 200 employees âthat have been designated as key to the success of the business,â according to the filing, along with eight employees designated as âcriticalâ to the firm. Barclays requires a âsubstantial majorityâ of those 200 key employees and all eight of the critical employees to stay on or, again, the deal wonât close.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/whos-getting-what-in-the-lehman-barclays-deal/#comments
Quote from mokwit:
Again, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
You sound like some wannabe banker or maybe a wannabe MBA
The only person who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about is *you*.
Barclays has also identified 200 employees âthat have been designated as key to the success of the business,â according to the filing, along with eight employees designated as âcriticalâ to the firm. Barclays requires a âsubstantial majorityâ of those 200 key employees and all eight of the critical employees to stay on or, again, the deal wonât close.
Well obviously there are some business continuity concerns, but those bankers are not irreplaceable. They're not worth tens of millions of dollars each. Those bankers are absolutely nothing without the Lehman Brothers (or Morgan Stanley, or whatever the case may be) organization behind them, both in terms of support, and in terms of the balance sheet. In fact, I'd even go as far to call those bankers a net liability to the company, otherwise, the company would not be in the dire straits that it is right now, wouldn't you agree?
If Bloomberg wants to quote a couple deluded people on Wall Street who think they're kings of the world, they're entitled to that -- they're a publication that caters to financial industry employees after all.
And if the MS employees think they can do better by going on their own, raising their own capital, building their own firms' brand, then they would have already done so. But its not as easy as it looks really, and most at the senior level are usually tied into lengthy non-compete agreements anyways.
And anyways, they're professionals, they're not going to throw hissy fits and give up their careers just because their managers are now Chinese. As I pointed out earlier, Chinese firms should have a very large competitive advantage in terms of access to capital, and being able to do capital-intensive deals should be very attractive to bankers and their bonuses.