Talk:Boutique investment bank

April 2013

After reviewing the Boutique investment bank entry, I noticed a number of quite odd things. One of the companies, Capital Group Companies, is in Investment management, as is noted in its description and which I have confirmed elsewhere. It is not an investment bank, boutique or otherwise. For those that understand the financial sector, this is a huge difference. An investment manager manages money for third parties. An investment bank or Boutique investment bank (size being the difference) brings two parties together in either mergers and acquisitions or capital raising. As an example, the public offering of Facebook was lead by Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley wasn't managing anyone's investments. It was bringing public stockholders (party A) to Facebook and its existing stockholders (party B). It was a transaction. Investment management is ongoing. So, Capital Group Companies isn't even in the right place. Second, the degree of neutrality between the listed Boutique investment bank runs the spectrum, as do the tags. Some are clearly advertisements with no tags, and some have tags and appear by all aspects to be neutral.

I reviewed what appears to be the two most credible sources of lists of boutique investment banks: http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/resources_services/career_services/current_students/career_resources/documents/InvestmentBankingBoutiqueFirms.pdf http://equity-research.com/list-of-top-200-investment-banks-and-boutiques/.

I compared the two lists and found any boutique firms on both lists. Of the seven firms currently listed in Boutique investment bank, only two were in both lists: Piper Jaffray and Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions. I then found other firms that were on both lists. There were six that were on both lists. I then compared these six to entries in Wikipedia. There were only three matches: the two firms already on the list and one other, Mesirow Financial. My action was to take larger boutiques be segregate them. Piper Jaffray is the only firm currently in this article that is a “Prestigious Boutique Investment Bank” as defined by one of the articles, and which I would agree with. I would add to that list Brown Brothers Harriman, The Blackstone Group, and William Blair & Company, all of which were in the two lists and which have Wikipedia entries.

When we get to the smaller boutiques, we run into a problem. Only one of the boutiques currently listed is also listed in our two most definitive lists: Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions. As a result, my action was to (1) list Piper Jaffray, Brown Brothers Harriman, The Blackstone Group, and William Blair & Company as larger prestigious boutiques, and add C. K. Cooper & Company, Dresner Partners, Mesirow Financial,and Sperry, Mitchell & Company. I will create entries and make appropriate edits for this list where either no page exists or the existing page needs work. As for the other firms listed, given that there is no reference in Columbia University's list, or in the work of Equity Research, my action was to remove them. Generalusgrant (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

David and Goliath

The reference to David versus Goliath is secular as pointed out in the entry on Goliath "Modern usage of "David and Goliath", to wit:

"In recent usage, the phrase "David and Goliath" has taken on a secular meaning, denoting an underdog situation, a contest where a smaller, weaker opponent faces a much bigger, stronger adversary; if successful, the underdog may win in an unusual or surprising way.[3][28] It is arguably the most famous underdog story.[29] Theology professor Leonard Greenspoon, in his essay, "David vs. Goliath in the Sports Pages", explains that "most writers use the story for its underdog overtones (the little guy wins) ... Less likely to show up in newsprint is the contrast that was most important to the biblical authors: David’s victory shows the power of his God, while Goliath’s defeat reveals the weakness of the Philistine deities."[30] The phrase is widely used in news media, to succinctly characterize underdog situations in every conceivable context, without religious overtones. Recent headlines include: sports ("Haye relishes underdog role in 'David and Goliath' fight with Nikolai Valuev"—The Guardian[31]); business ("On Internet, David-and-Goliath Battle Over Instant Messages"—The New York Times[32]); entertainment and the arts ("David and Goliath, With a Soapy Spin"—The Washington Post[33]); politics ("Dissent in Cuba: David and Goliath"—The Economist[34]); social justice ("David-and-Goliath Saga Brings Cable to Skid Row"—Los Angeles Times[35])." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.10.230 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Another important quote comes from WP:IDIOM which states: "clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions". For that reason I removed the "David versus Goliath" idiom and replaced it with "weak opponent beating a stronger one". Magnolia677 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mergers and Inquisitions

Mergersandinquisitions.com, which is Brian DeChesare's a blog, is not a reliable source per WP:SPS and general reliable source guidelines. It also appears to be highly promotional of DeChesare's products and services, making this a WP:SPAM issue. Nothing in this article should be supported by such an unreliable source. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding Allen & Co

Adding them to the article, and I'm suspecting the person who deleted it before an employee of the clandestine organization Allen & Co. This isn't spam. Its a relevant link.Conrad Kilroy (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)