Talk:History of investment banking in the United States

Early history of investment banking

This one-sentence section needs expansion and clarification. What is meant, in this context, by 'private banking'? Why is the Civil War a dividing point? WCCasey (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good questions... I don't have a good answer for you regarding the Civil War as a dividing point. My guess is that there is a sense that the end of the Civil War is considered the beginning of a period known as the Gilded Age during which the pace of industrialization picked up dramatically after the Civil War and that private banking transformed into investment banking as the need for capital exploded. However, I haven't seen a source that says this explicitly so I will have to do some more research. Here's a source that discusses antebellum private banking. It would appear that the difference being drawn is that "private banks" were those that were not required to be chartered by a state because they did not accept deposits from the public. They had their own source of capital, presumably from investors. I will try to flesh out this section in the coming days. Feel free to pitch in and expand the article text yourself --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My reading of your cited source is that the nature of investment banking changed dramatically following the Civil War, but not that the war itself had much to do with those changes. The 'Gilded Age' did not really pick up steam until the 1870s. There were many chartered banks prior to the Civil War, so that's not it, either (I'm not sure that, in those days, being chartered always meant they were open to the public). For examples, see Bank of Pennsylvania or First Bank of the United States. It seems the major transformation was from family and partnership-based investment houses such as J. P. Morgan and Kidder Peabody to joint-stock or - later - corporate structures. I think your history article needs to start with those early institutions and their competitors from London, such as Barings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WCCasey (talk • contribs)

I grant that there is a lot of work that needs to be done with the section dealing with the early antebellum roots of investment banking. I did find this source which indicates that the reason the Civil War was an important turning point was the federal government's need to raise over a billion dollars to fund the war effort. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK... I've started a section titled "Early precursors" which expands a bit on the "private banking" origins of investment banking but there's more work to be done yet. I haven't begun to address the points that you made in your comment. This will take some time. Thanks for your input. Any further information you can provide would be much appreciated. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jews

Did the German Jews who founded investment banks have any connection with the German-Jewish banking families (like Rotschild), or was it complete coincidence that they started investment banks as well? Would it be common for members of the prominent banking families to emigrate to the states and found branches of their banks there? Also, if Jews settled mostly in the South, than why were there more Jewish Union solders than Confederates?--24.62.109.225 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To much Jew/jewish/anti-semistism...

This text mentions word such as jew, jewish and anti-semitism far too many times. About 30 times if I counted right. --Mats33 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There's also quite a bit about how the role of Jewish people in the development of the Euro-American banking industry led to unfounded attacks against Jews, fueled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and so on. The fact is, Jews were important in the development of investment banking and, though they no longer dominate the industry at all, the conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism that fact fueled survive into the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.137.4.102 (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research, major attention needed, possible deletion candidate

This article reads like a graduate research paper, not an encyclopedia entry. Looking at the history, it appears that the bulk of the article was authored by a single contributor, who hasn't made an edit in almost five years, and displays more than a little of his unique voice. While portions are well researched and informative, it tends to get lost in the weeds, particularly its excessive preoccupation with Jews and anti-semitism. I would propose merging it with Investment banking if that article weren't such a hot mess itself. As such, unless a qualified expert is willing to devote some serious time to completing and cleaning it up, I propose deleting this article. Grifter84 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep the article

The complaints about the article are poorly founded. 1) most major Wikipedia history articles are basically 5 to 10 years old. Complaints about "age" would erase a large chunk of Wikipedia. In this case--an historical article--the great bulk of the solid RS was available to the author. 2) too much about Jews? Yes. I solve that problem by condensing a long section into a short paragraph. 3) the complain about graduate research paper is poorly founded-- that is exactly the quality of thinking that articles like this can use. 4) As for "original research" -- In Wikipedia terms, original research - new ideas that are not in the RS. I did not find any, and the critic is not identified any such problem. 5) The suggestion that the history and investment banking does not deserve its own article is Not in line with the RS. the numerous solid scholarly studies demonstrate the importance of a historical perspective here. 6) I added to the and enlarge the scope of the bibliography. Rjensen (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to this issue. I admit that not all of my criticisms were well founded or articulated, and that I was probably influenced in part by having just read the Investment banking article, which, as you can see for yourself, really has gotten out of control. It was not my intention to suggest that age alone made an article a candidate for deletion. The reason I found it relevant that no major work had been done in so long was that the entry appears to have emerged as the pet project of a single editor, who inserted many idiosyncrasies into its style and structure. Without the originator to help us unpack and clean up the content, I was concerned that the effort would be futile. I would have attempted it myself but for my complete lack of subject-matter expertise, and I was not optimistic that a real expert would be forthcoming given how long the article had remained idle. I am pleased that my comments drew the attention of Rjensen, a real historian, and thank him for his efforts. While I still think there are some major flaws in the article, it is much improved now from its prior form. As such, I withdraw my deletion nomination in the hope that continued work will tighten and refine this article further. Grifter84 (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)