Sure: for things like securities, it seems like every transaction is a bet each way: the seller is betting that the customer will be worse off, and the customer is betting that the seller will be worse off.

But sellers and buyers are different entities, and the fact that they're different means they can value things differently. If I'm a cobbler and you're a tailor, it's natural that we'd want to trade; I have a surplus of shoes and scarcity of suits, and you vice versa. We value our relative products differently, so when we exchange them, we're both better off.

This doesn't justify me knowingly selling you crap shoes. In fact it's even worse than that: because I know more about shoes than you do, if I sell you faulty shoes, I'm even more of an asshole. Or I'm incompetent.

There are slightly more subtle arguments as to why different entities would value securities differently: different appetites for volatility, different time horizons, different liquidity, and sometimes, yes, different information. If the buyer has better information than the seller, people don't complain as loudly as the opposite.

To me, the whole thing was a mixture of assholes and incompetence. I subscribe to the idea that taking someone's money because you're smarter than them is just as morally wrong as taking it because you're stronger than them. So some clever people took money off some not-so-clever people, and all along the chain a bunch of incompetent people were left holding the bag, and had to be helped out.

I can personally say that every time I've traded with a bank I've absolutely thought about it from the perspective of them taking a view contrary to mine. It would be bizarre if they thought that it was a good time/price to buy and instead they sold it to me.

I guess I think that every time I've given someone money it's because they're stronger (smarter/better connected/etc.) than me or because they're willing to do something that I don't want to do or because we value things differently. The last case might be the result of different utility functions or might just be the result of a mistake.

It seems like in any other circumstance there wouldn't really be a reason for me to give money.

I'll give money to a cobbler because they're stronger than me in the sense that I physically can't make shoes as well as they can. I'll give money to my house cleaner because they're willing to clean my apartment and I'm not.

Depends on the relationship with your client. If you're giving advice from one department whilst other departments are betting against it then somethings gone weird.

It seems even less controversial when two different departments do it.

I assume you're talking about something like your ECM doing a follow on and your ER putting out a positive report?

I'd argue that it means your compliance department is doing a great job. You generally don't want the two to talk to each other...