So marketers would be forgiven for feeling a thrill of malicious pleasure at seeing their financial colleagues facing the kind of critical onslaught they have suffered at financial hands.
After all, marketers have been at the receiving end of sharp financial tongues for a long time. Abrupt cuts to budgets near the year end, the dressing downs for apparent lack of hard measures, the accusations that marketers don't understand the business - it's been a rough ride.
This is partly marketing's own fault, of course. Marketers have been liable to lack ammunition when under fire. But the spotlight being thrown on dubious if not downright dodgy financial practices could prove to be a boon for marketing.
Why? Because investors will become increasingly concerned to peer behind the financial smokescreen to see what's really going on in the business.
And there are signs that this is already beginning to happen.
In the latest issue of Market Leader, the managing director of Deutsche Bank's Equity Research, Graeme Eadie, writes a short but significant piece about how institutional investors are taking a much closer interest in marketing strategies in the drinks industry.
Institutional investors who own the majority of companies in the drinks sector, he claims, all want to see more money invested in marketing.
But hang on. Isn't it usually City demands that are blamed for the short-term focus of so many companies? On the contrary, says Eadie: there are a number of reasons why investors want to see healthy marketing budgets.
First, investors want to own shares in businesses that are capable of steady and reliable growth. In the drinks industry, he says, the key driver is by and large image, which in turn is driven by effective marketing spend.
It's also logical to assume that those who invest more in marketing their brands will have a higher level of growth than those who don't. Those who slash budgets, on the other hand, become unattractive investments.
Not only does the share price of these companies drop when the stock market finds out, but cutting back on marketing harms the brands themselves over time. So investors will pay a premium for stocks such as Heineken, which have good marketing track records.
He also argues that investors want to see a much higher level of disclosure when it comes to marketing spend. He cites the example of a well-known drinks company that provides more information about the moving expenses of the chief executive than the marketing budget.
That is bound to change as shareholders begin to look across a number of consumer goods businesses and compare the marketing spend as a percentage of sales. That's why pressure is being put on companies by analysts such as Eadie to be far more open about exactly what's in the marketing budget - something that can vary a lot.
What this means, he concludes, is that marketing people have an unexpected ally in institutional investors. And although he is focusing on the drinks industry, his arguments will resonate in other sectors as well.