NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -
One thing is clear about Jack Grubman: Almost nobody, other than Jack, feels sorry for him. The mood of the public is sour, and stocks gently rising in the dog days of summer aren't making folks who've lost money feel better.
How do I know? Because even the nice readers seemed to hate my piece here Friday that (sort of) defended the discredited Salomon Smith Barney analyst who resigned late last week amid controversy over several telecom-stock picks gone bad.
"Your conclusion that those who followed Mr. Grubman's advice...have only themselves to blame, overlooks the fact that Salomon Smith Barney brokers across the country used Mr. Grubman's research," writes Culver V. Halliday. "These clients were often individuals with relatively little sophistication...they had every right to rely on that advice...they were not 'greedy, stupid and cynical.' They were duped."
What's more, responses to a CNN/Money poll are telling. The question was, "Do you agree with Grubman that he has been unfairly singled out for criticism?" The results? Of more than 24,000 responses, 74 percent said No. (You can weigh in here.)
Grubman was bad, but...
To use the double negative, I don't disagree with all the backlash. And my heart goes out to the non-professionals who simply listened to their brokers' advice.
Two points, though. They're the same people who were giddy as the market rose. The advice they were getting then from their brokers wasn't any better during the boom time than during the bust. It just worked out better until mid-2000.
My second point is that I never intended to exonerate Grubman. I merely argued for spreading the blame to his superiors who let this behavior happen in the first place. Their business will pay the price now, of course.
It's interesting to me how many readers see this in good-versus-evil terms, like Manny Goldman, who wrote that "Jack is a smart guy who has been around the block a few times and who probably knew full well that he was, in a sense, selling his soul to investment banking. He made his 20 million dollar a year deal with the devil and now he has to live with it."
| |
Recently by Adam Lashinsky
| |
| | |
| | |
|
Or Ryan M. VanOsdol, who laments that "if this is really why you think Grubman is in trouble then I have to tell you, you're not seeing things the same way the rest of the world does. He's evil. Can't you see that? Because out here in the real world, we see that all too clearly."
Here's what I see clearly: Wall Street is all about making money. Pure and simple. All this talk about integrity and honesty has always been something of a sham.
Wall Streeters operate on the principle of negative reinforcement. Lying and cheating will be punished, so don't lie or cheat. But I'm guessing the collective mindset on Wall Street would lie and cheat if it could.
During the boom, it had gotten a lot easier to do so. Now the checks and balances largely are back in place.
Another reader observes: "Maybe Mary Meeker is the luckiest analyst ever....she's been low, low profile lately."
Prediction: Even the low-profile analysts won't stay that way for much longer.
If one is punished, we want to know, who else went to board meetings? Who else made their bankers money while losing it for brokerage clients? As I said at the end of my column the other day, the competition for worst analyst ever isn't exactly over.
Adam Lashinsky is a senior writer for Fortune magazine. Send e-mail to Adam at lashinskysbottomline@yahoo.com.
Sign up to receive The Bottom Line by e-mail.
|
