JetBlue CFO hot over J.P. Morgan share sale

Rhino

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
308
0
Interesting. CFOs never talk like this about their investment banker. Either this CFO was caught in an unguarded moment, or he's got Gordon's calm manner.
 

Farley

Advanced
Aug 21, 2002
190
0
Or, perhaps a third possibility. The said banker is part of the IPO team, then later issues a downgrade of the stock (that they helped bring on the market), and finally the same banker unloads millions of shares as the 180 day lockup expires, trashing the stock price. Yes, that would piss anyone off.
 

Busdrvr

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,217
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/19/2002 9:29:04 AM Farley wrote:

Or, perhaps a third possibility. The said banker is part of the IPO team, then later issues a downgrade of the stock (that they helped bring on the market), and finally the same banker unloads millions of shares as the 180 day lockup expires, trashing the stock price. Yes, that would piss anyone off.
----------------
[/blockquote]


So the investment bank should lie about it's true feelings about the worth of the stock to prop up your stock options at the expense of the little guy (small investor)? They have special federal prisons for that type of banker. Yes, they helped to bring it to market, but like your own management, they had no idea it would be bid up beyond reasonable levels. It is their fiduciary DUTY to be as acurate and unbiased as possible when rating a stock.
 

Busdrvr

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,217
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/19/2002 10:16:50 AM Farley wrote:

Busdrvr,
do you think analysts were honest and unbiased when they were touting Yahoo at over $130 per share? Want to guess how much money the little guy investor lost? Are those analysts in your special Federal Prison? I agree with your statements about fiduciary responsiblity, but the track record isn't good, so it's a little dubious to cite this behavior as fiduciary responsibility.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Actually, I think there were some indictments concerning the tech bubble. the more important point is that people ARE noticing now. in football, it's never the guy who throws the first punch that gets the flag.
 

Farley

Advanced
Aug 21, 2002
190
0
Busdrvr,
do you think analysts were honest and unbiased when they were touting Yahoo at over $130 per share? Want to guess how much money the little guy investor lost? Are those analysts in your special Federal Prison? I agree with your statements about fiduciary responsiblity, but the track record isn't good, so it's a little dubious to cite this behavior as fiduciary responsibility.
 

Black Wind

Member
Sep 21, 2002
33
0
www.usaviation.com
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/19/2002 9:36:46 AM Busdrvr wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/19/2002 9:29:04 AM Farley wrote: [BR][BR]Or, perhaps a third possibility. The said banker is part of the IPO team, then later issues a downgrade of the stock (that they helped bring on the market), and finally the same banker unloads millions of shares as the 180 day lockup expires, trashing the stock price. Yes, that would piss anyone off.[BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR]So the investment bank should lie about it's true feelings about the worth of the stock to prop up your stock options at the expense of the little guy (small investor)? They have special federal prisons for that type of banker. Yes, they helped to bring it to market, but like your own management, they had no idea it would be bid up beyond reasonable levels. It is their fiduciary DUTY to be as acurate and unbiased as possible when rating a stock.[BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][FONT face=Comic Sans MS][/FONT][/P][FONT face=Comic Sans MS size=3]tell that to grubman[/FONT]
 
Nice try at conspiracies, but the analyst who issues a rating on the stock is independent of the team who decides to participate in investing in startups who later IPO, and the team who decides when to unload shares held as a result of participating in an IPO.

Advising people to buy a stock as a way of increasing the firm's profits would be nothing short of conflict of interest.

Likewise, failing to take a profit on a stock which is in the portfolio managers' opinion overvalued would be a poor business decision and violate the bank's primary reason for existance -- to generate profits for itself and its shareholders.

Neeleman and friends might not like it, but JP Morgan made a nice little profit by selling Jetblue stock when they did. Perhaps they need to remember that this was why JP Morgan funded Jetblue in the first place.