A Very Cheap Shot on the WSJ Editorial Page

The first, last, and only point of  Paul Gigot’s weird anti-Fannie and -Freddie screed  in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, from what I can tell, is to a settle a bunch of personal scores related to a dispute that seems to have gotten under Gigot’s skin way too deeply.

How else to explain Gigot’s snide portrayal of the late Jonathan Gray, who covered Fannie and Freddie for Sanford C. Bernstein until his untimely death last October? I knew Jonathan for many years. He was simply one of the best financial services analysts I’ve seen; no one did better, more independent analytical work. Jonathan was tough and skeptical when he thought circumstances warranted. I recall he was very hard (correctly) on the thrifts in the early 1980s, without falling into the trap of becoming permanently cynical about every company he covered.

Jonathan was talented, upright, and highly respected throughout the industry. Gigot does himself no favors by implying otherwise.

It’s one thing to have an honest investment disagreement. Those happen every day on Wall Street. It’s another to reduce the disagreement to the level of personal hit job—particularly when the object of your attack isn’t around to respond.

Paul Gigot ought to be ashamed of himself.

Comments

[Charlie Str...:]

Tom, you are probably correct, but I never read the WSJ editorials since they are a waste of time.

2008 Jul 27 08:48 AM

[runner:]

talk is cheap. money talks.

let's talk not about WSJ and the analyst and their relationship, but about the 5 TRILLION that the US taxpayer has taken on, fearlessly, without any objections from anyone who is paid to look out for the taxpayer and his currency.

2008 Jul 27 10:46 AM

[I should know:]

I just re-read the WSJ editorial and I think it's right on target. What part is so incorrect that it should be called a "Cheap Shot"?

2008 Jul 27 11:07 AM

[Charlie Str...:]

I should know, it sounds to me like a cheap shot because Jonathan Gray is recently deceased which means we cannot get his current views on the situation. And I agree with runner.

2008 Jul 27 11:52 AM

[300mph:]

Well, what did he say. How about an excerpt or paraphrase. I'm not about to go chase down the WSJ article.

2008 Jul 27 12:31 PM

[jgalt:]

The WSJ article what right on target. No one in government contemplated what would happen when the asset values backing the quasi government backed paper went down. The agencies should be privatized. Gigot is correct when he points out that all the advantages went to investment banks and the horrendously overpaid senior management of the agencies. A scam was perpetrated on taxpayers and another monster contingent liability was created.

2008 Jul 27 01:46 PM

[User 169136:]

Mr. Brown doesn't seem to mind that we, taxpayers, are on the hook for all these mistakes by political hacks working for Fred and Fran.

2008 Jul 27 08:11 PM