In April 2003, ten of the largest Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs, paid a total of
in penalties and disgorgements to the
Securities and Exchange Commission
as a result of alleged conflicts between research reports for investors and fee-seeking investment banking activities.
The SEC enforcement action alleged that Wall Street research was inappropriately influenced by investment bankers within firms seeking M&A and IPO related fees from C-Suites, thereby creating conflicted instead of objective analysis.
As part of the settlement, big name analysts like Henry Blodget and Jack Grubman were barred from the industry and banks were forced to build so-called "Chinese walls" to minimize conflict-inducing communication between research analysts and bankers, among a host of reforms. [In the settlement, the banks did not admit wrongdoing]
The fact that Goldman's research analysts now appear to be stealing defeat from the jaws of victory on the company's advisory work for J&J seems to indicate that a "Chinese Wall" does in fact exist within the ranks of its plush headquarters on 200 West Street.
"Our research is completely independent from our investment banking operations," said Leslie Shribman, a spokesperson for Goldman's research unit, in a statement to
responding to questions on the bank's advisory work and its 'sell' rating on J&J shares. "Our analysts set their ratings based on their objective projections and models," adds Shribman.
For those who think Wall Street cannot be reformed in spite of legislation or SEC enforcement actions, there's reason to be skeptical of Goldman's work on J&J, even if the firm's advisory and research efforts indicate independence.
Just as M&A efforts generate investment banking fees, so do spinoffs and asset sales. A cynic might say that after advising on efforts at conglomeration, Goldman may stand to benefit most were J&J to begin to trim its corporate structure, as Rubin advises. [J&J has shown no inclination to do so]. Meanwhile, many Wall Street insiders like Carl Icahn and Barry Rosenstein of Jana Partners continue to openly question the objectivity of Wall Street research and M&A advice.
Earlier in October, Rosenstein of Jana Partners lambasted Morgan Stanley's M&A advisory work and its published research on agricultural giant
, a company the activist hedge fund says should be
In the case of Pfizer, Rubin's bold breakup calls presaged greater clarity on the company's spinoff and asset sale efforts. In April, Pfizer
sold its baby nutrition unit
for $11.85 billion and in August, the company filed an
IPO of its animal health unit
, to be called Zoetis. Still, Goldman's bankers weren't hired on either fee-generating divestiture, losing out to Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan and Bank of America for investment banking work, among others.
For those keeping score of whether Wall Street has changed, watch to see whether J&J heeds Goldman's research advice and decides to streamline its sprawling operations. Were the New Brunswick, N.J.-based healthcare conglomerate to decide on divesting non-drugs assets and hire Goldman, skeptics may yet have reason to be cynical of Wall Street research.
For more on Goldman Sachs, see why the firm is readying for a
on its M&A advisory work and why the bank is
cutting its PE future by half
. For more on Goldman's shares, see why the bank may
grow by shrinking
-- Written by Antoine Gara in New York