| Topic Name: |
Lots of misinformation |
| Message Name: |
to: mr. ubs
cc: all |
| Date Posted: |
05/05/2000 |
| In Reply To: |
I know, I know. It's just that I couldn't get over the fact that the article was so eager to paint Deutsche as the top dog in investment banking. If you were the subject of the article's scrutiny, wouldn't you feel offended by it's tone, especially the bit about fired once, fired again? Anyway, having been through a merger myself, I can only be thankful that it was with Warburg and not Deutsche. I personally think they're the worst possible merger partner in the financial world. I should know. I saw plenty of my friends leave Morgan Grenfell heartbroken just before Deutsche steamrollered it, leaving nothing behind...not even a name. They squeezed the life out of that dear place. In case you're wondering why I'm so worked up about it, my first job was with Morgan Grenfell...hopped just after the Deutsche mugging.
Mr UBS |
| Message: |
to: mr. ubs
cc: all interested in db
fyi, i posted the message with an excerpt from the article about db.
you khow what? i completely understand you because i know a lot of morgan grenfell people through both work and social and aware of the issues.
i agree, the article does give an impression that db is the top dog which is not true if the global top dogs are assumed gs and particularly msdw, which is an extremely well-rounded bank. however, the article is factually accurate throughout and specifically when db's bond business is referred to as 'the dog'. this is the truth as is that wdr and ml are the dogs in equities, and db...shall i say very competitive.
db's weakness is m&a but there is a reason. as i am sure most knowledgeable people agree, m&a is a different business from trading mainly because it is almost exclusively peoples business. we both know who the dogs are in the big ticket uk m&a, wdr is there and db is not even close. but, as i said in the previous posting, uk and even european m&a is very important but not the end of the world we live in today (ie 'do not mention the war' may still be funny but not quite in the same way it used to). in this context think about what happened with with morgan grenfell. when db came in they were not really crashing everything in the beginning. admit that there was an huge intrinsic conflict in this acquisition: germans dreamt of a global bank and had to somehow control a premier uk player from the position of ib incompetence. some would say they should have given control to mg people, but did mg people want it and were they really qualified to take dmg beyond uk and build a global business? i think not. otherwise morgan grenfell would not have sold itself in the first place. this fundamental conflict resulted in the row and exodus of a group of top mg people who were the blood of the uk market for corporate control. btw, they were holding db to ransom as they were walking out of the door. this whole affair is the main reason why db's reputation in the city has historically been rather low.
the point i am driving to is that things have changed at db a great deal. although building a global bank at such pace can not be a smooth sailing by definition, i do not know anyone who would dispute that they are firmly on course. wdr may still have an overall edge in Europe, however dbab far ahead in the us. without throwing dirt on anyone, db appears to already have the global platform, which puts them in a top league by fundamentals. can they execute to actually be at the top? - remains to be seen and it will take a while.
london banker
|
|
