In April 2003, ten of the largest Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs, paid a total of $875 million 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.
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 TheStreet 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.