Females in IB

grad intake is supposed to be at 50%, but often ends  up less. these schemes run at around 35%-45% for 2-3 years. then the drop starts to form, over the years 4-10 we will see a reduction in staffers who self-identify as female to as little as 25%. re-hiring professionals later on to even this out is not a possibility, spoke with HR about this often.

My groups 1st year class has more girls than guys

Industrials coverage usually has the least females with tech usually being the highest

It's probably 50-50 (or pretty close to 50-50) across junior levels, ANL and ASO. But VP and above I think it's largely male, probably 70%+. For example, in my coverage group our most senior women are all associates, and for whatever reason no one stays on to VP or higher, even with the seniors actively pushing them to stay.

Also varies across industries, so for example I think there tends to be more women in TMT and Consumer / Retail than other industry coverage groups.

My team has 2 women in a group of 18

Was in a large-ish coverage group at a BB. Split was 50-50 through Analyst and Associate ranks and trailed off after. Maybe 1/3 VPs, 0 Directors, and 2-3 MDs. 

My ~35 person group has 2 women, both analysts. Office is about ~200 people and has no women MDs

50/50 at analyst. Hard to find female associates from b-school so a bit lower (~30%) and much lower after, like 1 female MD out of 20.

The push for a more even split started ~5-7 years ago so even if someone chose to stay, they've be early VP at most

Banks are trying to have an overall 50-50 split. You’ll see heavy promotion to this

The amount of people who say "females" instead of "women" in the comments is staggering and telling.

Our firm has a 50/50 analyst hiring quota despite applications from women being 20-30% of the overall pool. Women tend to self select out post analyst years so 50/50 drops at AO but theres meetings internally to significantly increase women promotions. Discrimination if you ask but thats whats happening

At a European bank and analyst classes are actually >50% women atm. But begins to fall off from the VP level onwards and aren't heavily represented among Directors and MDs.

Surprised at the high female percentages I'm seeing above.

Working with a BB/EB on a deal right now.  Their M&A group is over 90% male from top to bottom, and 100% male at VP+.  

Crashed the Christmas party of another BB/EB where a friend works.  Maybe 25% female at the party but a lot of those appeared to be non-IBD folks . . support staff etc.  Hard to imagine their IBD was even 20% female.

I guess it's possible to have a 50/50 analyst class, and still end up with the results I mention above.  But that would mean the associate classes are almost entirely male.  

people trying to use "woman" as an adjective is the funniest shit

All the women at my bank are smokes. Seems like some innate biases by the men who hired them. I'm not complaining.

In my Associate class, 1/10 were female (she went to C&R). Out of the Analyst class that joined at the same time, I'd estimate ~25%-30% were female. In my M&A group, 10% of the people from top to bottom are female, and the overwhelming majority of people I interviewed this year are male. There are far fewer female applicants than male. Additionally, not one woman in my MBA program applied to a bank, either. Most of them wanted consulting between that and IB. 

Women in finance = I don't care about my personal life and I wear the pants in any relationship. That's at least my read-thru from personal experience

Females in finance have super Type-A personalities. Which is fine but I pretty much immediately exclude a girl as a potential partner if I know she works in finance / law. Pretty much anything else is fine tho

50/50 gender split at grad level, mandated by HR/ diversity quotas - think it's the same across most BBs

Attrition falls off heavily towards VP/ED/MD level - as well as the family/children point, women also have easier exit opps & less motivation to stay - which large HF/AM/PE shop doesn't also target hiring women these days? 

Our intakes are basically just diversity now.

Either mostly female and those that are diversity hires. A few are actually good but most have clearly been solely chosen to tick the corporate propaganda box. 

Then it seeks to even out as you head into associate and VP territory with very few directors or MDs 

Zero women, straight up dudes. Which, I hate. I feel like having young girls in the group makes the asshole, boomer MD, straight white patriarch types ease up a little bit. For whatever reason they're totally willing to crush the soul of other young dudes but play light around the little girlies. 

Why do I feel kinda ashamed about myself for clicking on this thread once I read the title? 😄

I don't know why this hasn't been mentioned in any of the posts above - but easy to have 50/50 splits or better at junior levels. As you move up, yes family and politics come into play - but as an execution VP now at a smaller firm, having left much bigger BB and MM firms, I can tell you that I HIGHLY underestimated the politics that come into play. It doesn't just get in the way with your superiors / MDs in navigating promotions, but also your management. How many times I have to turn comments myself, make my own books because juniors refuse to do it unless an MD (men usually) bark out the orders? This is all fine when you're junior because you think to listen to everyone, but all of a sudden you're responsible for business development as well as execution, and you can't get the team to help you with your ideas, so you have to manage that yourself in addition to all the other responsibilities. So while juniors are all curious as to why women don't stay on, take a look at yourselves too - do you treat women fairly? Do you question them more than your superiors that are men? Do you give truthful and thoughtful 360 reviews or feedback to other MDs what it's like to work with you, or do you contribute to to the toxic environment, and say that your female associate / VP / MD whatnot, is "demanding", "b*tchy", "too aggressive," "doesn't ask you enough about how your weekend was or if you caught the game last night" - and then senior mgmt who already is biased against women, are even more biased because women can't motivate a team, or push a team to do better quality work or more output like men staffers can?