Goldman Sachs (GS) is in trouble, and it's not just because of questionable remarks by its executives.
CNBC reporter Charlie Gasparino notes that despite big gains from its trading business, the venerable financial titan is getting beat in a critical Wall Street growth area: stock underwriting.
Daily Beast: Goldman’s deal-making machine faces mounting competition from megabank J.P. Morgan, and now from Morgan Stanley, which had been losing ground, but is now, like J.P. Morgan, challenging Goldman in the business of underwriting stocks for major companies, according to the latest “league-table” statistics from a company called Dealogic that tracks such activity.
Gasparino says that such deals are important because banks have been issuing stock in massive numbers to repair toxic-debt-ridden balance sheets and to repay government bailout money. Plus, M&A and IPO activity has been weak.
Of course, Goldman is making a lot of money this year, but its lucrative trading business is underwritten by temporarily cheap money from the Federal Reserve and its tarnished reputation means the bank isn't seen as an important player in every deal like before.
Read the whole thing here.
What's This? xTo embed this post, copy the code below and paste into your website or blog.
600px wide (preview) <iframe src="http://www.businessinsider.com/embed?id=4b13f71100000000008c3558&width=600&height=430" width="600" height="430" border="0" frameborder="0"></iframe> 400px wide (preview) <iframe src="http://www.businessinsider.com/embed?id=4b13f71100000000008c3558&width=400&height=430" width="400" height="430" border="0" frameborder="0"></iframe> 300px wide (preview) <iframe src="http://www.businessinsider.com/embed?id=4b13f71100000000008c3558&width=300&height=430" width="300" height="430" border="0" frameborder="0"></iframe> // setup button event listeners // embed post loadButton('embed-button','embed-info'); loadButton('embed-close','embed-info'); loadButton('button-preview1','embed-preview1', ""); loadButton('button-preview2','embed-preview2', ""); loadButton('button-preview3','embed-preview3', ""); Share: Buzz Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Sponsored Link: See Also: I Retract My Apology And Call For More Regulation Of Goldman Sachs (GS) Goldman Sachs: Here's What Makes Us Awesome (GS) How To Fix Wall Street? Step 1: Break Up Goldman Sachs... Lawrence Delevingne is a writer at The Business Insider. Contact: e-mail: var dw = function(s) { document.write(s); };dw('lde');dw('levi');dw('ngne');dw('@bus');dw('ines');dw('sins');dw('ider');dw('.com');dw('');use contact page Subscribe to his twitter feed Recent Posts Scott Rothstein To Be Arrest... Chinese Journalists Busted F... Hertz Drops Ridiculous Libel... Advertisement Featured Comments Bob Sacamano on Nov 30, 12:38 PM said: J.P. Morgan historically had been a bond house and did not do as much stock underwriting. A few years ago they decided to expand their stock underwriting to give the established underwriters (primarily Goldman and Morgan Stanley) a run for their money. That undertaking is now bearing fruit. Now the interesting thing is that, based on what I heard (if anyone knows otherwise, please correct me), J.P. Morgan did not bring in a lot of new i-bankers to grow the stock business. The growth was primarily internal. So they had a lot of people working on those first few stock offerings, even at the MD level, who had relatively little experience in that area. The key to their growth was not their expertise but their rolodex. The bankers already had a huge client base on the bond side. They just convinced those clients to go with JPM rather than GS/MS for their next stock offerings. Proof again that on Wall Street it's not what you know; it's who you know. Reply 6 Comments Bob Sacamano on Nov 30, 12:38 PM said: 1 3 J.P. Morgan historically had been a bond house and did not do as much stock underwriting. A few years ago they decided to expand their stock underwriting to give the established underwriters (primarily Goldman and Morgan Stanley) a run for their money. That undertaking is now bearing fruit. Now the interesting thing is that, based on what I heard (if anyone knows otherwise, please correct me), J.P. Morgan did not bring in a lot of new i-bankers to grow the stock business. The growth was primarily internal. So they had a lot of people working on those first few stock offerings, even at the MD level, who had relatively little experience in that area. The key to their growth was not their expertise but their rolodex. The bankers already had a huge client base on the bond side. They just convinced those clients to go with JPM rather than GS/MS for their next stock offerings. Proof again that on Wall Street it's not what you know; it's who you know. Reply Guru on Nov 30, 1:59 PM said: 0 1 Second tier? But only after they sell themselves (no indication of that to be clear) at top tier prices! Reply Neil Visnapuu (URL) on Nov 30, 2:00 PM said: 0 3 In this case, at this point, it might be more of a "how many people you know" deal, given the MASSIVE distribution outlets at both JPM and MS. Just thinking about 18k brokers pounding the phones for new Comcast preferred equity is sickening. Reply GAZA on Nov 30, 2:17 PM said: 0 0 one can only hope Reply paul schejtman on Nov 30, 3:36 PM said: 0 0 only after they sell their ownership of the U.S. gov Reply black swan on Nov 30, 4:53 PM said: 1 Read Full Article »