4 ms·

To play devil's advocate... If a vast majority of your hires are still done on merit, you can afford a few hundred "connection" hires. I know it doesn't align

To play devil's advocate... If a vast majority of your hires are still done on merit, you can afford a few hundred "connection" hires. I know it doesn't align with the "meritocracy" mantra capitalist institutions like to boast about but even the most committed capitalist must admit it's in JP Morgan's financial best interest to staff some "princelings" to ensure they're competitive for deals. And, as long as you don't put these hires in charge of anything important, these new hires can't do you any harm. BTW this sort of thing isn't unheard of in the US either -- children of high-ranking politicians get sweet gigs at financial institutions in the US as well. Chelsea Clinton only recently left her Wallstreet gig: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-03/chelsea-clinton-exited-wall-street-to-seek-career-with-meaning http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-03/chelsea-clinton-... And during the 90's Dotcom boom, Startups would sometimes hire family members from some of their VCs, hoping to ensure additional rounds of funding. This is just business as usual.

peteretep 13y ago
It's bribery, and if any UK banks are caught up in it, they face literally unlimited financial penalties and criminal charges against the directors, wherever it happened in the world. The article seemed to suggest US regulators were taking an interest too.
rayiner 13y ago
Yes. Hiring kids of connected people is hardly unheard of in American investment banking. What makes the Chinese situation murkier is the fact that many of these deals are sourced from state-owned enterprises, and the kids being hired are the children of politicians who may have direct influence or oversight over these corporations.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  It's going to be difficult to prove that the hiring is directly connected to some benefit. Often that type of nepotism is done to increase the chance of securing unspecified future business.
mathattack 13y ago
The issue isn't a matter of meritocracy. It's a question of is this bribery or not. It's also most certainly not limited to China. Do top US schools favor the kids of politicians and execs who might be able to impact their funding? Do US companies hire very well connected kids to sell private wealth or banking services?
- theklub 13y ago
  "Its not what you know, its who you know"
  - bonemachine 13y ago
    That plainly is not what the SEC investigation is about. The article makes this very clear. You might want to give it a closer read.
- spamizbad 13y ago
  Yes and yes.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  It's a question of is this bribery or not. And if so, whether anyone will be held accountable for it.
minimax 13y ago
Chelsea Clinton's Wall Street gig was at a hedge fund, not an investment bank.
bonemachine 13y ago
This is just business as usual. No, it's not. It's about attempting to influence a foreign government into doing business with you via corrupt practices. Which makes it subject to regulation by Congress. Which in the SEC's view, JPM may have been in violation of. Please read the article again. It's really quite clear about this.

peteretep 13y ago

It's bribery, and if any UK banks are caught up in it, they face literally unlimited financial penalties and criminal charges against the directors, wherever it happened in the world. The article seemed to suggest US regulators were taking an interest too.

rayiner 13y ago

Yes. Hiring kids of connected people is hardly unheard of in American investment banking. What makes the Chinese situation murkier is the fact that many of these deals are sourced from state-owned enterprises, and the kids being hired are the children of politicians who may have direct influence or oversight over these corporations.

foobarqux 13y ago
It's going to be difficult to prove that the hiring is directly connected to some benefit. Often that type of nepotism is done to increase the chance of securing unspecified future business.

mathattack 13y ago

The issue isn't a matter of meritocracy. It's a question of is this bribery or not. It's also most certainly not limited to China. Do top US schools favor the kids of politicians and execs who might be able to impact their funding? Do US companies hire very well connected kids to sell private wealth or banking services?

theklub 13y ago
"Its not what you know, its who you know"
- bonemachine 13y ago
  That plainly is not what the SEC investigation is about. The article makes this very clear. You might want to give it a closer read.
spamizbad 13y ago
Yes and yes.
bonemachine 13y ago
It's a question of is this bribery or not. And if so, whether anyone will be held accountable for it.

minimax 13y ago

Chelsea Clinton's Wall Street gig was at a hedge fund, not an investment bank.

bonemachine 13y ago

This is just business as usual. No, it's not. It's about attempting to influence a foreign government into doing business with you via corrupt practices. Which makes it subject to regulation by Congress. Which in the SEC's view, JPM may have been in violation of. Please read the article again. It's really quite clear about this.