Why don't we ever hear of layoffs from lesser-known banks or funds? Or does Goldman/MS/JPM just suck?
correct me if im wrong but it appears that all we ever hear about every single year is the same layoff crap from the investment banking and trading divisions of goldman, JPM, Morgan Stanley, Citi, RBC Capital, barclays, deutsche bank, BOFA, and a couple more well known banks.
How come we never hear of major layoffs from lesser known firms like DE Shaw, Blackstone, BlackRock, Bridgewater, etc...?
Do they ever lay off employees or are they just really really good at trading and managing how they spend their money?
i mean, according to elite college recruitment, the best talent should be taken up by Goldman among all others so why can't they ever get their shit right and are always laying people off?
call me dumb but i really dont get it.





Because media doesnt tell you
Because media doesnt tell you news, it tells you stuff that generates revenue/interest. GS/JPM etc grab attention. See what Taleb has to say about the media.
T
^ winner The other thing is
^ winner
The other thing is that a lot of smaller places run pretty lean, so there's not a whole lot of fat to trim.
YOU JUST GOT TROLLED
http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you...
Layoffs don't happen at
Layoffs don't happen at smaller shops because they don't staff like fucking retards.
2 reasons: 1. Lesser known
2 reasons:
1. Lesser known funds don't make for good headlines even if they are laying off.
2. Investment banks seem to have this inability to judge appropriate staffings. Overhire in a boom and fire everyone in a downturn.
Interview Guides
WSO Resume Review
Edmundo Braverman
Layoffs don't happen at smaller shops because they don't staff like fucking retards.
^ this... BBs tend to flex their operations much more than a MM or boutique firm
'Before you enter... be willing to pay the price'
I may be off base here but I
I may be off base here but I think public/private ownership might have something to do with this as well. I get the sense that private ownership of companies leads to a longer term perspective on capital (including human) investment. When you have to answer to shareholders every quarter actions tend to be more shortsighted and severe (in either direction).
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
There was an article about GS
There was an article about GS being one of the 'nicer' firms with regards to retrenchment. Apparently GS gave those employees who were about to be laid off ample time to find another job, and allowed them to use the GS name to help leverage into an offer elsewhere.
Gekko_KKR wrote: There was an
There was an article about GS being one of the 'nicer' firms with regards to retrenchment. Apparently GS gave those employees who were about to be laid off ample time to find another job, and allowed them to use the GS name to help leverage into an offer elsewhere.
this situation mostly applies to VPs+. They rarely give the same considerations to the junior folks. That being said, it's not a firmwide policy and sometimes is group dependent.
Most banks are moving to a model similar to Goldman's in that they will cut the bottom 10% of performers every year. Much more prevalent now in this economic environment.
Also, it's a percentages
Also, it's a percentages game. If a 1,000 person firm lays off 1%, that's only 10 people, which isn't really news worthy. When BofA lays off 1% it is 3,000 people.
it has nothing to do with
it has nothing to do with what generates media attention...
its that private co's are not obligated to disclose that sort of information to the public so they obviously dont...
I'd also add that layoffs at
I'd also add that layoffs at the BB's are usually much larger, in terms of the actual headcount reduction # - making it more likely to grab headlines vs. some of the smaller boutiques.
In addition, the larger banks are usually public. When they report weak earnings, their stock drops. When their stock drops, shareholders begin to ask questions. When shareholders begin to ask questions, banks start reducing their employee base to align their cost base to boost earnings. Cycle then repeats in reverse.
HerSerendipity: Most banks
Most banks are moving to a model similar to Goldman's in that they will cut the bottom 10% of performers every year. Much more prevalent now in this economic environment.
So eventually they'll have no one left....unless they replace the fired people. How do they plan of replacing 10% of their workforce with quality hires every single year?
Clearly Ron Paul has no idea
Clearly Ron Paul has no idea how much people move around the street...