Talk:Bulge bracket/Archive 1

Who is or is not in the bulge bracket
Who keeps adding UBS to the bulge bracket list? UBS is not bulge bracket. The only people who consider UBS bulge bracket are people who work there.

Saying that J.P. Morgan is undisputably in the bulge bracket is probably inaccurate. Until the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, they were limited to being a commercial bank and generally did not underwrite the offering of securities in the United States.

What about Banc of America Securities? Investment banking services are increasingly tied to providing credit, so banks with large balance sheets are winning investment banking business over traditional players.

I would also say that Bear Stearns, although a highly respected independent investment bank, is not really a bulge bracket bank, because it does not have a significant presence in a number of key investment banking markets.

Cbmccarthy 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) - Maybe it should read, "Current" and not undisputable. GS, MS, JPM are current top 3 in M&A according Thomason. Someone needs to change it who knows for sure.

www.thomson.com/solutions/financial/investbank/leaguetable_home/#func1


 * Difficult topic anyways, very controversial, I propose deleting the list of bulge brackets from the introduction. Wikitigresito (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wells Fargo Securities
I think Wells Fargo should be added as the 10th "arguable" Bulge Bracket due to its strong current growth and earnings as well as its placement as 7th in U.S. M&A on the 3Q 2009 League Tables with Top 10 in Debt as well as Equity. This beats out some bulge brackets such as Credit Suisse and UBS in all 3 categories as well as many other bulge brackets in one or two or these areas.

Source: http://online.thomsonreuters.com/DealsIntelligence/

Wells Fargo - Not Bulge Bracket
Wells Fargo should not be listed as a bulge bracket bank. While it has had some progress breaking into the Top 10-15 of the League Tables of some financial products (#12 US Investment Grade Debt - 2010), it does not have a strong enough presence in debt, equity, and mergers and acquisitions to be considered a bulge bracket investment bank. For instance, the firm was not in the Top 25 for both Global and US announced M&A deals for 2010 while much smaller middle market firms made the list.

Thus, Wells Fargo is still an American commercial banking giant instead of a bulge bracket investment bank.

Source: Thomson Reuters Deal Intelligence

Leverage2 (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

RBS
I saw that RBS showed up on the list of current bulge bracket banks. Again, similar to my post about Wells Fargo above, RBS does not fit into the bulge bracket bank description. RBS does a lot of lending/debt in Europe, but is otherwise not a player in most products or regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leverage2 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bulge bracket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203233720/http://www.yourdictionary.com:80/finance/bulge-bracket to http://www.yourdictionary.com/finance/bulge-bracket

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Wells Fargo Securities Revisited
I think Wells Fargo Securities should definitely be considered a bulge bracket bank by this point. It's one of the biggest banks in the world by market cap and total assets, became a primary dealer for US Treasuries, over the last year ranked 9th globally for bond underwriting (above Credit Suisse) and 4th globally for loan bookrunning according to Thomson Reuters, 9th globally for overall global IB revenue (above UBS) according to FT, and has offices globally in London, Toronto, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Tokyo.Winnerdude (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the major factor here is simple: Can you find a reliable source which specifically says it's bulge bracket? Otherwise it's original research, which won't work. The source that was previously used was from Mergersandinquisitions.com, but that's not a reliable source so I removed it. It looks like a very aggressively spammy blog. It was arguably better than nothing, and much better than allowing banks to add themselves, which is why it was added, but something better is needed either way. Grayfell (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like there's any reliable source that specifically lists bulge bracket banks; it seems like all of them are blog-type sites like Mergersandinquisitions.com. However, going by the Financial Times league table (http://markets.ft.com/investmentBanking/tablesAndTrends.asp) and the WSJ Dealogic Global IB Ranking league table for overall Investment Banking Revenue (https://wsjapp.dealogic.com/scorecard#ibTab), Wells Fargo's investment bank ranks above UBS which I suppose is better than Mergersandinquisitions.com.Winnerdude (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the table code, as it's using a formatting trick to suggest this is official, when it clearly is not. My inclination is to remove the lists outright, but I'm not going to go that far without more feedback. The current wording: "The following banks are generally considered to be part of the bulge bracket ranks." That's... kind of a WP:WEASEL. "Generally" is a cop out. Who actually considers them such? We don't necessarily need a single source for the whole list (although that would be nice). Sources per entry would also be acceptable, as long as they are reliable and independent of the banks. Right now the article is listing banks without any WP:V at all, which is too messy. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Removing the table code is fair, however I removed the headquarters since it doesn't really seem necessary to include that information in the first place and it looks a little awkward in list form.Winnerdude (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that makes sense. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed list
Per above, I've gone ahead and removed the list. Unsourced material which is repeatedly challenged should generally be removed, per WP:V and commons sense. The list was implying a level of confidence and accuracy that is unsupported by sources. It also caused a constant trickle of edit-warring and looks too much like WP:OR based on personal familiarity. This should be supported by a reliable source instead of blogs (anonymous commercial blogs are still blogs). Revert if necessary, but only with reliable sources, please. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bulge bracket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yourdictionary.com/finance/bulge-bracket
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113123731/http://www.thomsonreuters.com/business_units/financial/league_tables/ to http://www.thomsonreuters.com/business_units/financial/league_tables/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)