Talk:Credit Suisse First Boston

Logo

Isn't this the old logo? F15x28 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First Boston page

Now that Credit Suisse has dropped the First Boston name from its investment banking division, I would propose getting rid of this page. The First Boston page, which covers the history of the First Boston investment bank from its founding in 1932 through the ten years it was known as Credit Suisse First Boston, should be the main page.

If anyone feels strongly about keeping some of the information on this page, it can be moved to Credit Suisse under the heading Investment Banking Division.

Cbmccarthy 22:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it is done.

Cbmccarthy 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is now called Credit Suisse Securities.

They are now called Credit Suisse Securites (USA) LLC. Check out this site: http://www.ny.frb.org/newsevents/news/markets/2006/an060117.html.

Image copyright problem with File:CSFB logo.png

The image File:CSFB logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran fine

I suggest a section re the Iran fine should be included:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417239.stm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BE62Y20091216 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverFox93 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Credit Suisse

Since 2006 Credit Suisse has dropped the First Boston name from its investment banking division. The First Boston page, which covers the history of the First Boston investment bank from its founding in 1932 through the ten years it was known as Credit Suisse First Boston, should cover this topic and/or this content could be moved to Credit Suisse under the heading Investment Banking Division.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I would keep the articles separate. I don't think there is a good place to drop this article into the credit suisse article that maintains the information. This article has the potential to be built out further on its own given nearly 20 years of history that is associated with this name. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding. Let's see if there are any other comments. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep many organizations of this size have separate articles on different divisions and business units. Ideally the Credit Suisse article should have a section on its different divisions that would include a sub-section on First Boston with a short summary and a "See Main Article." I am partial to summary style. User:Corporate Minion 15:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge with First Boston I was surprised to find a separate article on First Boston, which should just be part of the history on the Credit Suisse First Boston article. Corporate 05:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • So you are suggesting that this article CSFB should be merged with First Boston. I have not objection to that along with a redirect from this page so folks get to the page under either search term.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the two pages should be merged. First Boston redirects to the CS page. The period of CSFB was relatively short in the main company's history. The CS page should probably be called Credit Suisse Group, as that's the main parent. But either way it should be merged. Vote strongly for yes. BrillLyle (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"High fliers"

A dispassionate phrasing should be used, not meaningless hypester talk like "high fliers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.52.157 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)