Would private banks have fared better?

The New York Times' Deal Professor raises an interesting point: Would top investment banks have fared better had they remained partnerships instead of converting to public companies? One could easily argue that partners-owners-managers would have had a lot more disincentives not to play so fast and loose. Their personal assets were on the line, and they were cut in for the long term. The public company structure allows for "directors and managers [who] may have interests and goals that are different than those of shareholders: A nicer private jet, more pay, short-term-ism and sometimes more nefarious antics." Those who tout the superiority of the partnership model often point to private equity firms, which are--ahem--now bent on going public.

For more:
- here's the column

Related Article:
Why more private equity firms aren't going public