News Focus
News Focus
icon url

BTH

01/14/12 10:00 AM

#135051 RE: DewDiligence #135046

that there are too many freaking investment bankers taking too large a cut of the pie.



They cant make money off of mortgages anymore. nor can they in trading...... look at jpm numbers.

i guess i-banking is their last hope.
icon url

Rocky3

01/14/12 12:01 PM

#135058 RE: DewDiligence #135046

The real takeaway from the BMY-INHX filing, IMO, is that there are too many freaking investment bankers taking too large a cut of the pie.



Really? Doesn't seem to be a lot different than any other competitive bidding process in the public markets to me. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but that it is how deals get done. Gives a lot of protection in litigation too. And the lawyers always make lots of money too (and never have to disclose how much, or if they have "bonus" compensation).

The whole discussion is interesting (as most takeover discussions are). The most interesting to me was the descrition of the other bidder, the exclusivity period, and the discussion around the negotiation about "adverse" events to the drug. The final days before a deal are always extremely interesting. I will try to read the whole thing when I have a chance.

One of the most interesting ones that I have read was the BRK-LZ deal. Negotiating with Buffet on the othter side would be very interesting.
icon url

poorgradstudent

01/14/12 12:39 PM

#135068 RE: DewDiligence #135046

The real takeaway from the BMY-INHX filing, IMO, is that there are too many freaking investment bankers taking too large a cut of the pie.



Given:

- the recent shenanigans of the banking industry in general

and

- the intentionally suggestive yet ambiguous ways that companies (especially biotech) describe what they have in hand,


then what assurance does a bidder have that the banker is being completely truthful about the intent and degree of seriousness of competing bidders? This area seems ripe for a little bit of abuse.