Talk:Investment banking

message: I've put back Strategy in Front Office. Don't know who moved that to Middle Office, or why, but these guys are definitely salespeople in sheep's clothing. In fact, this whole organisational structure thing is probably the least well written or appropriate part of the article. Investment banks come in many forms and shapes. This is an encyclopedia, and it should generalize principles as much as possible. Giving the current flavor of the day of how an investment bank is organized is probably not the most general approach to defining and describing what an investment bank is. This is wikipedia, not career vault. Generally speaking, the distinguishing feature of an investment bank is its implication in advising corporate clients in raising and structuring their capital base. As a support function to that, it also has to create a market in the securities issued to raise capital. The capital raising and structuring process is facilitated by the investment bank that works as a conduit for both liquidity and information on those markets. It is a reputational business in which the value of a capital security is contingent to the fact that the investment bank will keep making a market and providing information about this security. The sales, secondary trading, research & strategy functions of an investment bank are all secondary activities whose purpose is to facilitate liquidity and information diffusion. Investment banks are by definition registered as securities dealers. Investment management and securities custody are not necessarily part of an investment bank's activities. Even though this is common, it's a general trend in the industry that could eventually disappear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.145.181 (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree. The entire section needs to be tightened, generalized or (my personal preference) scrapped entirely. It's way to insider-y, gets lost in the weeds multiple times, and worst of all is almost entirely unsourced. Looking back at the history, the front, back, and middle office paradigm around which this section is organized seems to be a remnant of some very early edits from back before a consensus had matured as to appropriate tone, structure, and level of discourse on Wikipedia. What began as a misguided idea has since gotten bloated beyond belief by thousands of edits over the course of a decade, when a wholesale structural revamping was more called for. I'm not even so certain that it represents the industry accurately, though not being an expert I can't say definitively. Accurate or not, it shouldn't be the main framing device for the bulk of a general article. I'm hesitant to delete the section wholesale, because it does present some helpful, relevant concepts. However, unless someone with real expertise in finance is willing to come in and perform some aggressive pruning, the best thing might be to abandon the Organizational structure section altogether. Grifter84 (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisational structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Investment banking. 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://markets.ft.com/investmentBanking/tablesAndTrends.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Officially in 2008, the largest IBs put away their IB status. Deutsche Bank has never been an IB by the way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.41.235.19 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most banks mentioned in here are no Investment Banks (anymore) 

message: If anyone wants to add an image to the lead of this article, let's put four or five options in a gallery and do a request for comments. One Factor (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an image to the lead 

message: It's generally quite worrying how much contradicting information there is on the internet on the finance industry. With this article in particular, there seems to be quite a bit of contradiction with other popular resources. Namely that investment banks include "buy-side" firms, even though most resources consider investment banks to be only sell-side (Reference: https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/sell-side-vs-buy-side/ and various other guides I've read that aren't publicly available). Apologies if there is a misunderstanding on my part, as I'm not an expert. Regardless, I think a conversation needs to be had on the organization and internal consistency of finance-industry information on Wikipedia.
TealMartlet (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting information 

message: — Assignment last updated by XiaoyuChennyu (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu