• Sharebar

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said last month that a woman would become CEO at one of the five biggest U.S. banks before the country has its first female President.

"It's a longshot because there are not very many senior women left in investment banking," said Jeanne Branthover, a managing director and head of the global financial services practice at New York-based Boyden Global Executive Search Ltd. "How long will it take to hire them, fit them into your culture, see them succeed and promote them?"

Which will be first? A female U.S. President or a female CEO at a major U.S. bank?

She referred to KeyCorp CEO Beth Mooney, first female CEO of 20 largest U.S. banks, during the event focused on women's leadership in business and politics and stated that more women involved in business would equate to better outcomes for those businesses.

"When women are at the table, they problem-solve differently, they see risk differently, they see success differently," Gillibrand said. "They define a different set of parameters, which when heard alongside male voices, result in a better outcome."

What do you think? Will Wall Street benefit from a female CEO?

Link to article here

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (25)

  • Commuter's picture

    wall street

    @JustinDDuBois
    WSO Company Database | Job Board

  • Neighbor's picture

    Neither will ever happen to be honest.

    I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

  • Anacott_CEO's picture
  • In reply to Neighbor
    DrPeterVenkman's picture

    Neighbor:
    Neither will ever happen to be honest.

    Would you bet on that prediction?
  • SECfinance's picture

    Erin Callan probably set women back 10 years.

    MM IB -> Corporate Development

  • bulge_bracket's picture

    I think we'd have a female president before we have wall street dominated by females. In fact, I really don't think wall street will ever be dominated by females. I could easily see a female president in 2016 or later, especially on the Republican side (Hillary's getting older and there are many, many more rising young stars in the Republican party that have recently been elected than the Democratic)

  • Human's picture

    I have nothing against women. My own problem is that if women want to be CEO, Head of Banking or whatever leadership roles that men are in, "they must work the same hours and the same intensity" as men.

    If women are getting equal pay, they must damn well work for equal hours. If my female co-worker is getting paid exactly the same as me, I am cranking 100 hours a week when she is on maternity leave (3 out 12 months) and we both get promoted and working in the same team, I expect "to get paid more for my hours". Good looking female bankers get preferred treatment at work by peers (mostly male), by clients and by MDs. That is a fact, not an opinion.

    I absolute hate incompetent female co-workers pulling off maternity card/ PMS card/ gender discrimination card, when peer reviews come in and when discussion on why their performance is not on par. It is a simple as "if you want the job, do exactly what is on the job description". No BS. No excuses. And yes no time off for being a woman. If you want the job, don't get married and don't have kids.

    "I am the hero of the story. I don't need to be saved."

  • In reply to Nouveau Richie
    BeastMode's picture

    Nouveau Richie:
    Not counting Vice Presidents, I think Mary Callahan Erdoes will run JPM Chase before we have a woman President.

    Agreed. Don't be surprised if she's Jamie Dimon's successor in a couple of years.

  • In reply to Human
    Nabooru's picture

    Human:
    I have nothing against women. My own problem is that if women want to be CEO, Head of Banking or whatever leadership roles that men are in, "they must work the same hours and the same intensity" as men.

    If women are getting equal pay, they must damn well work for equal hours. If my female co-worker is getting paid exactly the same as me, I am cranking 100 hours a week when she is on maternity leave (3 out 12 months) and we both get promoted and working in the same team, I expect "to get paid more for my hours". Good looking female bankers get preferred treatment at work by peers (mostly male), by clients and by MDs. That is a fact, not an opinion.

    I absolute hate incompetent female co-workers pulling off maternity card/ PMS card/ gender discrimination card, when peer reviews come in and when discussion on why their performance is not on par. It is a simple as "if you want the job, do exactly what is on the job description". No BS. No excuses. And yes no time off for being a woman. If you want the job, don't get married and don't have kids.

    Gave you an SB to equal out whomever threw shit at you. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit about this subject but since it was brought up you pretty much stated my opinion. "When will women do X, Y, Z?" People are seriously beating a dead horse here. These discussions are just annoying. I'm all for women's rights, whatever that is, but you want equality? Stop fucking talking and bitching about it.

    FinanceStudent28:

    "When women are at the table, they problem-solve differently, they see risk differently, they see success differently," Gillibrand said. "They define a different set of parameters, which when heard alongside male voices, result in a better outcome."

    Lol sounds like some more feminist BS - "Yup, women better be treated equally BECAUSE WE'RE EQUAL...except when we're better."

  • capexzel's picture

    As a woman, I really don't give a monkey shit. Why is this a big deal? If the chick wants to be President or Wall street mogul, then do it. Why all this talk.

  • Human's picture

    @Nabooru, Thanks buddy.

    "I am the hero of the story. I don't need to be saved."

  • In reply to capexzel
    Human's picture

    capexzel:
    As a woman, I really don't give a monkey shit. Why is this a big deal? If the chick wants to be President or Wall street mogul, then do it. Why all this talk.

    It matters because the feminists and manginas are "suggesting" men in men dominated industries that women need "preferred treatments and accommodations" to become a successful leader. That women leadership is not exactly the same as men leadership. And men CEO and women CEO should be judged and assessed differently.

    It is not as same as here is what a CEO should be doing, now go both men and women, whoever does all the things on this list, get the job. No, it is increasingly becoming, for male CEO, here is the to-do-list, and for female CEO, (as suggested by the feminists and manginas), here is a different to-do-list; well because men and women are different and men need to accommodate women while men also need to advocate for equal pay at work.

    "I am the hero of the story. I don't need to be saved."

  • In reply to Human
    capexzel's picture

    Human:
    capexzel:
    As a woman, I really don't give a monkey shit. Why is this a big deal? If the chick wants to be President or Wall street mogul, then do it. Why all this talk.

    It matters because the feminists and manginas are "suggesting" men in men dominated industries that women need "preferred treatments and accommodations" to become a successful leader. That women leadership is not exactly the same as men leadership. And men CEO and women CEO should be judged and assessed differently.

    It is not as same as here is what a CEO should be doing, now go both men and women, whoever does all the things on this list, get the job. No, it is increasingly becoming, for male CEO, here is the to-do-list, and for female CEO, (as suggested by the feminists and manginas), here is a different to-do-list; well because men and women are different and men need to accommodate women while men also need to advocate for equal pay at work.

    Okay when you bring in the feminists.... I understand

    - Women and men leadership IMO should be treated the same. I know it never will because of bla bla and blah - I just dislike it because it makes women look superbly weak and incompetent next to men who become CEOs and that shouldn't be the case. I feel like all this is by choice.Preferential treatment shouldn't be given just because of gender or ethnicity (hence why I think affirmative action programs has its flaws, no offence). And then when you DO have good women in Wall St. a Vikram Pandit comes in and does something about it.

    Then you have mainstreet women CEOs and they're doing just fine. Some people fight to the top or get lucky.

  • In reply to capexzel
    Human's picture

    capexzel:
    Preferential treatment shouldn't be given just because of gender or ethnicity (hence why I think affirmative action programs has its flaws, no offence). And then when you DO have good women in Wall St. a Vikram Pandit comes in and does something about it.

    We are right in agreement, buddy.

    "I am the hero of the story. I don't need to be saved."

  • In reply to capexzel
    blastoise's picture

    capexzel:
    Human:
    capexzel:
    As a woman, I really don't give a monkey shit. Why is this a big deal? If the chick wants to be President or Wall street mogul, then do it. Why all this talk.

    It matters because the feminists and manginas are "suggesting" men in men dominated industries that women need "preferred treatments and accommodations" to become a successful leader. That women leadership is not exactly the same as men leadership. And men CEO and women CEO should be judged and assessed differently.

    It is not as same as here is what a CEO should be doing, now go both men and women, whoever does all the things on this list, get the job. No, it is increasingly becoming, for male CEO, here is the to-do-list, and for female CEO, (as suggested by the feminists and manginas), here is a different to-do-list; well because men and women are different and men need to accommodate women while men also need to advocate for equal pay at work.

    Okay when you bring in the feminists.... I understand

    - Women and men leadership IMO should be treated the same. I know it never will because of bla bla and blah - I just dislike it because it makes women look superbly weak and incompetent next to men who become CEOs and that shouldn't be the case. I feel like all this is by choice.Preferential treatment shouldn't be given just because of gender or ethnicity (hence why I think affirmative action programs has its flaws, no offence). And then when you DO have good women in Wall St. a Vikram Pandit comes in and does something about it.

    Then you have mainstreet women CEOs and they're doing just fine. Some people fight to the top or get lucky.

    this is why women will never become CEOs of WS

    IMO, no offence, I feel

    /thread

  • In reply to blastoise
    capexzel's picture

    blastoise:
    capexzel:
    Human:
    capexzel:
    As a woman, I really don't give a monkey shit. Why is this a big deal? If the chick wants to be President or Wall street mogul, then do it. Why all this talk.

    It matters because the feminists and manginas are "suggesting" men in men dominated industries that women need "preferred treatments and accommodations" to become a successful leader. That women leadership is not exactly the same as men leadership. And men CEO and women CEO should be judged and assessed differently.

    It is not as same as here is what a CEO should be doing, now go both men and women, whoever does all the things on this list, get the job. No, it is increasingly becoming, for male CEO, here is the to-do-list, and for female CEO, (as suggested by the feminists and manginas), here is a different to-do-list; well because men and women are different and men need to accommodate women while men also need to advocate for equal pay at work.

    Okay when you bring in the feminists.... I understand

    - Women and men leadership IMO should be treated the same. I know it never will because of bla bla and blah - I just dislike it because it makes women look superbly weak and incompetent next to men who become CEOs and that shouldn't be the case. I feel like all this is by choice.Preferential treatment shouldn't be given just because of gender or ethnicity (hence why I think affirmative action programs has its flaws, no offence). And then when you DO have good women in Wall St. a Vikram Pandit comes in and does something about it.

    Then you have mainstreet women CEOs and they're doing just fine. Some people fight to the top or get lucky.

    this is why women will never become CEOs of WS

    IMO, no offence, I feel

    /thread

    Okay and I am offended by this because...? I don't care if women become CEOs of wall street or not, I care only for myself making bank out of college, which I am. :)

  • In reply to capexzel
    blastoise's picture

    capexzel:
    blastoise:
    capexzel:
    Human:
    capexzel:
    As a woman, I really don't give a monkey shit. Why is this a big deal? If the chick wants to be President or Wall street mogul, then do it. Why all this talk.

    It matters because the feminists and manginas are "suggesting" men in men dominated industries that women need "preferred treatments and accommodations" to become a successful leader. That women leadership is not exactly the same as men leadership. And men CEO and women CEO should be judged and assessed differently.

    It is not as same as here is what a CEO should be doing, now go both men and women, whoever does all the things on this list, get the job. No, it is increasingly becoming, for male CEO, here is the to-do-list, and for female CEO, (as suggested by the feminists and manginas), here is a different to-do-list; well because men and women are different and men need to accommodate women while men also need to advocate for equal pay at work.

    Okay when you bring in the feminists.... I understand

    - Women and men leadership IMO should be treated the same. I know it never will because of bla bla and blah - I just dislike it because it makes women look superbly weak and incompetent next to men who become CEOs and that shouldn't be the case. I feel like all this is by choice.Preferential treatment shouldn't be given just because of gender or ethnicity (hence why I think affirmative action programs has its flaws, no offence). And then when you DO have good women in Wall St. a Vikram Pandit comes in and does something about it.

    Then you have mainstreet women CEOs and they're doing just fine. Some people fight to the top or get lucky.

    this is why women will never become CEOs of WS

    IMO, no offence, I feel

    /thread

    Okay and I am offended by this because...? I don't care if women become CEOs of wall street or not, I care only for myself making bank out of college, which I am. :)

    do you go to a school that begins with a p

  • In reply to capexzel
    blastoise's picture

    To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

    Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
  • APAE's picture

    Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

    Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

  • cheese86's picture