Eliot Spitzer: Pushing Wall Street to Reform

Rawi  Abdelal; Rafael   Di Tella; Jonathan  Schlefer

Case | HBS Case Collection | March 2008 (Revised April 2009)

Eliot Spitzer: Pushing Wall Street to Reform

by Rawi Abdelal, Rafael Di Tella and Jonathan Schlefer

Abstract

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer faced a decision about how to stop wrongdoing committed by major Wall Street firms during the Internet boom. The equities analysts of Merrill Lynch and other Wall Street firms were charged with objectively advising retail investors whether to buy or sell publicly traded stock. The analysts had rated some stock a strong buy, while at the same time disparaging it in Internet emails as "a piece of junk" or a "powder keg." Spitzer concluded that the analysts sometimes issued such buy ratings on stock of companies because of a conflict of interest: the Wall Street firms the analysts worked for were making handsome fees for underwriting the companies' stock offerings and providing other services. The usual procedure when an enforcement agency such as the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discovered such a situation would be to complete its investigation and negotiate a resolution privately with the financial firm. If it could not resolve the matter, the agency would formally file suit against the firm in court. This option was open to Spitzer, but the 1921 New York statue gave him an alternative. Even before filing suit in court--and while continuing to investigate the firm further--he could broadcast his findings to warn the public and brand the firm with wrongdoing. This case investigates the decision Spitzer made, and its long-term implications for U.S. financial regulation and financial industries.

Keywords: Crime and Corruption; Decisions; Financial Institutions; Stocks; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Laws and Statutes; Lawsuits and Litigation; Conflict of Interests; Internet; Financial Services Industry; United States;

Format: Print

26 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Abdelal, Rawi, Rafael Di Tella, and Jonathan Schlefer. "Eliot Spitzer: Pushing Wall Street to Reform." Harvard Business School Case 708-019, March 2008. (Revised April 2009.)

In late October 2011, after losing 1 billion of dollar reserves in one month, the Argentine government began imposing a series of currency controls, limiting the ability to buy foreign currency. As of October 2011, Argentina's tax collection agency AFIP had been granted the power to approve or reject all requests to buy dollars with pesos in Argentina's banking system. By June 2012, AFIP had removed "saving" as a legitimate explanation. While the official exchange rate was approaching six pesos to the dollar, the black market was demanding almost ten pesos to the dollar—a nearly 65% difference. These were not the first currency restrictions that Argentina had imposed on its citizens.

Case | HBS Case Collection | October 2018 (Revised June 2019)

Everybody Knows: Russia and the Election

Rawi Abdelal, Rafael Di Tella, Galit Goldstein, Rawi Abdelal, Rafael Di Tella and Galit Goldstein

Following a contentious presidential race, Donald Trump’s 2016 election destabilized America’s status quo. Academics, journalists, politicians and the public at large examined why Trump had won. Many Americans, inside and outside the government, asserted that a state-led Russian disinformation campaign had influenced the election’s outcome. The leaders of major social media companies, including Twitter and Facebook, also conceded that state actors had gamed their platforms to influence American politics. Trump himself made conflicting statements, while Russian politicians asserted that American elites had rhetorically weaponized the issue of election interference to justify an unwillingness to work with their country internationally. It was hard to parse where reality ended and political rhetoric began. Post-election, the future of U.S.-Russia relations remained unclear, and the United States grappled with how to regulate cyberspace. Analyzing the 2016 election and its aftershocks helps students confront interrelated questions about business regulation, international relations, cultural identity, strategic communications, political will and the Internet. The case encourages students to consider the boundary between narrative and reality, and examine subjectivity, objectivity and power in the public and private sectors.

Keywords: Strategic industry; strategic alliances (business); Business and Government; business and public policy; business and society; Media Businesses; media content; media slant; media regulation; social media; internet of everything; government policy; politics; political campaigns; political strategy; political turmoil; government; Government Regulation; Security; international business; International Relations; National Security; Political Elections; News; Media; Internet; Rights; Problems and Challenges; Globalization; Business and Community Relations; Business and Government Relations; Government Legislation; Risk and Uncertainty; Cognition and Thinking; Conflict and Resolution; Identity; Civil Society or Community; Culture; Public Opinion; Social Issues; War; Online Technology; Public Administration Industry; United States; Russia;

Citation:

Abdelal, Rawi, Rafael Di Tella, and Galit Goldstein. "Everybody Knows: Russia and the Election." Harvard Business School Case 719-012, October 2018. (Revised June 2019.) View Details

Cite View Details Educators

Faculty & Research

Eliot Spitzer: Pushing Wall Street to Reform

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors