

On Defensive, JPMorgan Hired China’s Elite - RougeFemme
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/on-defensive-jpmorgan-hired-chinas-elite/?hp&_r=0

======
spamizbad
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-...](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-03/chelsea-clinton-
exited-wall-street-to-seek-career-with-meaning)

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.

~~~
mathattack
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
"Its not what you know, its who you know"

~~~
bonemachine
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.

------
auctiontheory
This is so ridiculous. From the fire station to Harvard to Goldman, hiring and
admissions in the US are overwhelmingly influenced (i.e. it "makes a
difference") by who you know.

What are we trying to prove with this witch hunt in China? That we are such a
pure and law-abiding democracy? After Snowden, you'd be a fool to believe any
of that.

This kind of thing really hurts American companies doing business overseas,
while accomplishing nothing useful.

~~~
bonemachine
_What are we trying to prove with this witch hunt in China?_

It isn't a "witch hunt." There's reason to believe it's a violation of federal
anti-bribery laws, in the SEC's view.

 _That we are such a pure and law-abiding democracy?_

You're changing the subject.

 _This kind of thing really hurts American companies doing business overseas,
while accomplishing nothing useful._

If by "this thing" you're referring to the bribery practice itself, rather
than the investigation of it, then I definitely agree.

~~~
auctiontheory
You are completely (deliberately?) missing my point.

If bribery is the way business is done in China (and many places around the
world), then the anti-bribery regulations serve only to hamstring US
businesses. From everyone I've spoken to who works in these countries, there
is no way to do big business in China, Russia, India, without bribery. Not
allowed to bribe? You hire a contractor (i.e. not an "employee") to do your
bribery for you. Just creates more bureaucracy for US companies relative to
their European competitors.

And if the point of the anti-bribery regulations is to, I don't know, have a
more ethical and law-abiding US, then the US Government should start with
itself. These regulations (see above paragraph) do not reduce bribery overseas
or help to make a better world.

~~~
bonemachine
_If bribery is the way business is done in China, .. then the anti-bribery
regulations serve only to hamstring US businesses._

No, they do not "serve only to hamstring US business."

They exist to prevent private parties from undermining ("with corrupt intent")
foreign policy as dictated by the executive branch, and by congress.

They may (or may not) "hamstring" overseas business practice, as a side
effect. But it is only through very muddled thinking that you can take the
view that is the "only", or the most significant effect of anti-bribery
statutes.

~~~
auctiontheory
Based on your last two responses, you might want to google "begging the
question."

~~~
bonemachine
_you might want to google ..._

If that's all you have to say for yourself at this point, then I rest my case.

------
alimoeeny
With hindsight, it should have been obvious that this will happen, when
countries/economies with corruption (relative) gain momentum, everybody else
(including US) wants to play along, not to lose business, and corruption
begets corruption.

------
Beliavsky
Much of our ruling class graduated from selective universities with legacy
preferences and "development" cases. Making a stink about nepotism in China is
hypocritical.

------
calbear81
I don't really see what's wrong since they're exploiting the way the Chinese
do business. There isn't an implied bribe here, but JPMorgan knows clearly
that Chinese officials (many of whom are corrupt) will steer business to their
children's firms. Put another way, JPMorgan just hacked hiring.

~~~
bonemachine
_I don 't really see what's wrong since they're exploiting the way the Chinese
do business._

What's "wrong" is that it appears they may have been in violation of federal
anti-bribery statutes. In particular this thing known as the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act.

The original article was pretty clear about this point, so it's hard to see
how you don't "see" it.

------
awt
The problem for JP Morgan is that they're in this position in the first place.
If they have so little value to offer as a company that they must rely on
nepotism then they are ultimately doomed one way or another.

~~~
auctiontheory
Wrong-o. At that level (or any level) of business, it's all about the
relationship. You buy from the person you know and trust. That's true in the
US, and even more so in China.

~~~
awt
True but boring. And not a defense against a company with a truly innovative
product. If you have something people really want you should have to make
fewer compromises.

------
brudgers
The phrase "too big for jail' comes to mind.

~~~
wavefunction
The phrase "just right for a hangman's noose" comes to mine.

------
alimoeeny
read the title and thought it is a cyber-security article,

