US investment banking business is an even more powerful cartel today

Jan 29, 2012 12:00 AM

by William D. Cohan

Almost 65 years ago, in 1947, the US government sued 17 leading Wall Street investment banks, charging them with effectively colluding in violation of antitrust laws.
In its complaint, the Justice Department alleged that these firms had created “an integrated, overall conspiracy and combination” starting in 1915 “and in continuous operation thereafter, by which” they developed a system “to eliminate competition and monopolise ‘the cream of the business’ of investment banking”.

The US argued that the top Wall Street investment banks -- including Morgan Stanley (the lead defendant) and Goldman Sachs -- had created a cartel by which, among other things, it set the prices charged for underwriting securities and for providing mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advice, while boxing out weaker competitors from breaking into the top tier of the business and getting their fair share of the fees.
The government argued that the big firms placed their partners on their clients’ boards of directors, putting them in the best possible position to know when a piece of business was coming down the pike and to make sure that any competitors were given a very hard time.

The government was spot on: the investment banking business was then a cartel where the biggest and most powerful firms controlled the market and then set the prices for their services, leaving customers with few viable choices for much needed capital, advice or trading counterparties. The same argument can be made today.
Indeed, following the destruction of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and countless smaller and foreign competitors during the financial crisis that began in 2007, the investment banking business is an even more powerful and threatening cartel than it was in 1947.

Today, there are far fewer than 17 firms in control of the investment banking business. The investment banking business is now both much bigger -- in terms of revenue and profits -- and more concentrated than it ever was close to being in 1947.
How could that have happened? In October 1953, Harold Medina, the presiding federal judge in the case, threw the antitrust lawsuit out of court. In an extraordinary 417-page ruling Medina decided that the government’s case rested solely on “circumstantial evidence” and that the banks didn’t violate antitrust laws.

Yet Medina’s ruling also laid bare the extent to which the 17 Wall Street firms would go to defend their turf and prevent other banks from getting access to lucrative, fee-paying clients. It wasn’t a pretty picture.
Today, while there is no inkling of an antitrust lawsuit against Wall Street, its cartel-like behaviour is very much in evidence. The remaining banks have increased their hold over the marketplace and continue to collude when it comes to pricing their services. Every corporate issuer knows the rules: initial public offerings (IPO) are priced at a 7 % fee; high-yield debt underwriting is priced at 3 %; loan syndications are priced at about 1 %.

There was a moment, in August 2004, when things might have changed, during the high profile IPO of Google. The old guard on Wall Street was worried that W.R. Hambrecht, the architect of the so-called auction IPO, might upset the pricing cartel after it successfully arranged for the IPO of Google to operate in a way that benefited Google and its investors.
But after the initial hoopla, the promise of what Hambrecht was trying to do largely faded.

The renewed power of the Wall Street cartel may be the worst consequence of the 2008 decision to rescue Wall Street rather than let it collapse. Sure, the corporations are struggling a bit now, but when the economy returns to full strength the iron grip of the remaining Wall Street powerhouses will be readily apparent.
In a rare show of backbone toward Wall Street, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department flexed its muscles last year when it sued to block the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA, causing it to be scuttled. The administration should build on that success. Sixty-five years late, let’s break up the Wall Street cartel and re-establish the integrity of the capital markets.

William D. Cohan, a former investment banker and the author of Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World, is a Bloomberg View columnist.

Market Research

The International Affairs Institute (IAI) and OCP Policy Center recently launched a new book: The Future of Natural Gas. Markets and Geopolitics.


The book is an in-depth analysis of some of the fastest moving gas markets, attempting to define the trends of a resource that will have a decisive role in shaping the global economy and modelling the geopolitical dynamics in the next decades.

Some of the top scholars in the energy sector have contributed to this volume such as Gonzalo Escribano, Director Energy and Climate Change Programme, Elcano Royal Institute, Madrid, Coby van der Linde, Director Clingendael International Energy Programme, The Hague and Houda Ben Jannet Allal, General Director Observatoire Méditerranéen de l’Energie (OME), Paris.

For only €32.50 you have your own copy of The Future of Natural Gas. Markets and Geopolitics. Click here to order now!


Upcoming Conferences
« May 2019 »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Register to announce Your Event

View All Events