The Curious Case of steady banking fees

Free markets must be vulnerable spot on the map. However visokoplatenata structure that evolved Wall Street for the sale of investment banking services, it seems odd intractable. No matter how damaging to the economic landscape, the fees to take the banks are stable unexplained.
Even in early 2000 when every bank in the world trying to take an initial public offering and to profit from dot-com boom, rates were 7% of the proceeds of the offering. This suggests that investment banks or conspire to profit from such charging structures, or that they really believe that they are masters of the universe.
Customers swallow latter explanation. Why?
One reason is fear of failure. The publicity accompanying fundraising means that most companies would prefer to pay high fees of leading banks such as Goldman Sachs, which have the support network of distribution and sales to ensure the success of a deal than to pay lower fees banks who are trying to emulate the greatest risk as Commerzbank and to incur the wrath of investors.
Another reason the bank accounts. Corporate lending role of business support for a more lucrative investment banking. Companies will pay higher margins for advice on mergers and acquisitions in return for cheap credit lines.
Sometimes these fees are justified. The high cost of capital at the time as meaning that banks can charge companies considering charges of tradable emission rights from an average of 2.5% to 3.5%, reflecting the increased risk to remain with unwanted shares. A year ago they would want most around 2.25 percent.

But these are rather exceptions, not standard. Whenever a company has tried to break the cartel charges, she was severely punished.
Just realized that Google, when taken unorthodox auction format for its initial public offering four years ago.
Internet search engine of the guarantors to pay one third of the usual fee to the belief that in order to sell their shares, it will need five monkeys and a phone.
Unfortunately auction in which price is gradually reduced until a buyer appears, used by Google, to sell their shares, collapsed completely and the banks took advantage of this to be highlighted. They argued that money saved on taxes seem paltry compared with the money that Google has lost, and has set a lower price.
This deter customers to do so, that banks were fighting to reduce their fees.
If this was any other industry, they would intervene to competition authorities. Until then, the bonus funds will continue to be filled.

––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––

Financial Times