177.7K
SOTo be fair — if executed well, this could bring:
✔️ Better global capital inflow
✔️ Stronger IPO valuations
✔️ Modern market infrastructure
But globally, exchanges optimise for shareholder returns, not always for retail investors.
So don’t look at this as “good vs bad.”
Look at it as incentives vs outcomes.
When the same firm advises governments, billionaires, and now the exchange that prices your trades — can it truly be “independent”?
Rothschild calls itself the “adviser of choice for sovereigns” and has worked with 40+ governments globally, while also managing wealth for ultra-rich clients and funds. Now it sits inside the NSE IPO (₹20,000 crore) as an independent advisor.
Here’s the structural tension most people miss:
• Advising states selling assets
• Connected to investors buying those assets
• Now shaping the market (NSE) where pricing happens
Even with firewalls, the same network sits across seller, buyer, and marketplace. That’s not wrongdoing — but it is a systemic conflict of interest.
Globally, this model exists because access = power.
• Sovereign advisory → policy + capital flow insights
• Wealth + funds → capital deployment
• Exchange advisory → market structure + pricing power
The real question isn’t “is this illegal?”
It’s: who benefits when the same ecosystem touches every layer of capital?
[rothschild, nse ipo, india stock market, conflict of interest, sovereign advisory, global finance, capital markets india, investment banking, wealth management, financial systems]
@socho.abhi
