It is hard to believe that investment banks could be able to maintain an operation that spanned the entire globe. However, firms like JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and practically every other major investment banking firm in the United States are global institutions. Or at least that is what their websites, flyers, brochures, analysts, and executives are saying. Karen Ho shows the contradictions in these claims in her article. She also challenges the typical anthropological rhetoric that American firms have exerted their hegemony abroad. In short, she shows that the global strategies of Wall-Street enacted by everyday investment bankers in the United States do not define the expansion of American Capitalism abroad. However, for an investment banking firm to be competitive they cannot simply focus on Western markets. The growth taking place in the periphery and potential for future growth is far greater than that can be found in the United States or Europe. Firms like JP Morgan are investing heavily in international markets like China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Brazil. This will not make the firm truly global because it’s investment in Central and South America as well as Africa is still minimal. The flows of capital are certainly unequal, but it is not in the best interest of its stakeholders to invest in countries that have undeveloped markets. Their role even in the emerging markets must be questioned as many of the deals can be made from an office in the United States or a temporarily occupied office abroad.