Anyone here feel any of this?
Article says layoffs were at higher levels VP+ and affected M&A, ECM, and DCM.
From Yahoo:
Goldman Sachs said to cut dozens of investment banking jobsGoldman Sachs Group Inc. cut investment banking jobs in the last few weeks, joining securities firms that are adjusting to a slowdown in deal activity, according to people familiar with the matter.
The bank eliminated dozens of managing directors, executive directors and vice presidents across the mergers and debt and equity capital markets teams, the people said, asking not to be named as the details aren’t public. The cuts affected bankers in cities including London, New York and Hong Kong and are in addition to the bank’s annual 5 percent cull of employees deemed underperformers, the people said.
Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein is embarking on his biggest cost-cutting push in years as the bank tries to weather a slump in trading and dealmaking, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg in April. The job reductions follow a similar move in the firm’s trading division this year, driven in part by a 60 percent drop in first-quarter profit.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-sachs-said-cut-dozens-114604066.h…
I feel it real good
My condolences. On the other hand, enjoy the changes in perspective this sort of thing forces upon you.
This isn't that surprising given the layoffs we are already seeing from major European banks. The IPO market is weak this year, and GS is not the strongest in debt financing. It makes sense for them to cut costs sooner rather than later. It sucks that hiring/firing is so reactive instead of proactive. I'm sure that those who were let go will find somewhere to go.
Woah, woah, woah. Teh Goldman Sachs is the strongest in everything.
Just saw that on Dealbreaker. Yikes.
Not a PWM fanboy but isn't it odd that we practically never hear of BBs cutting PWM head count and instead hear of UBS and MS saying they'd like to expand their PWM business?
Thoughts? thebrofessor
(Also, I know PWM at GS is totally different than at the wirehouses)
that's because PWM has a double digit ROA, is safe, and is stable.
example: say I produce $1mm in revenue a year (I don't, but it's a nice thought). the firm pays me $400k pretax plus benefits plus my assistant & her benefits. all in all, maybe $550k total. then my portion of an office, computer, desk, same for assistant, MAYBE $600k (our offices are small). that's 40% ROA and all you have to do is make sure I don't become a compliance nightmare.
on top of this, sure there are manager salaries, office supplies, etc., but since I'm 100% commission, there's no risk with me. bring in a MD at $1mm a year plus 30-70% bonus, and say he doesn't bring in a single deal his first year? on top of that all of the analysts, associates, VPs, and their expense accounts, I'd be shocked if the ROA in banking is higher than in PWM.
it's also because my business is like an annuity. say my assets are 50% stocks and 50% bonds billed at 1%. I'm not having to push ideas on clients, I collect a management fee, clients' assets grow (hopefully faster than withdrawals), they fluctuate, I bring on clients, etc., but mostly it's stable revenue, versus banking which I'd imagine is feast or famine.
there will always be a need for investment banking, equity research, etc., but it wouldn't shock me if more firms start to try to look like Morgan Stanley (50% WM, 50% institutional biz e.g. banking, ER, S&T, AM, etc.).
Agree. I've seen a few IBs move towards the "bond + call" or "annuity + market facing" business models. The bond/annuity is Asset Management and other type of businesses that generate a nice, stable, but unsexy stream of annuity-like income. The call/market-facing businesses are divisions like IB and securities who see a lot more volatility. Like revenue, headcount numbers are more volatile in the latter.
Agreed. I definitely still think that M&A is a practically a timeless industry. It's just interesting to see how some of the BBs are shifting towards PWM.
While I agree PWM is safer, perhaps you under estimate the income potential of IB MD. You may be a safe 40% return on your $1mm. IB MD is going to make the firm multiples of that for each deal. And he isn't going to be dry for his first year unless he (and the firm) is developing a completely new product type. So while IB may have dry years, that is not the expected and the revenues are going to be 8+ digits in normal years. So there is more volatility and more headcount below him. But also much more revenue in normal and good years.
The industry is definitely shifting towards heavier PWM... How sustainable is it when wall street starts crowding in the same area? Good for you in the short run (banks will up your pay and take lower returns)... but the merry-go-round will stop at some point.
That's a pretty obvious one. PWM produces the most steady and stable revenue stream. For example, I believe MSWM has over $2 trillion in aum. Now consider that there are more brokers over 80 years of age than under 30, and you can see why they might be interested in pumping more money into PWM, which is low risk as it runs on a commission model.
Do members (especially Certified Users who have experience in the finance industry) think that current college students should be looking to receive internships and/or full-time offers at boutiques/EBs/MMs instead of BB firms given the latter's volatility and added regulatory burdens?
Any thoughts are welcome.
get the best job you can out of college, period. regulation shouldn't concern you at the level you're talking about.
I didn't word my sentences correctly. Given that BBs are more prone to reducing headcount than EBs/MMs (at least from what I can tell - I fully acknowledge I may be wrong), should that factor into my decision-making process in regards to accepting offers for internships (i.e. finding a way to maximize return offer) or accepting full-time gigs (i.e. not getting laid off)?
As others have said, get the best job you can and please don't post in a few months asking about bank X vs Y vs Z unless you've got solid offers from all 3.
On a slightly related note, I would say an EB is probably more desirable anyway than a BB nowadays. Better comp, exposure to high profile deals, smaller (sometimes) deal teams, superb brand names. Unfortunately hours can be pretty brutal.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattporzio/2016/05/03/global-ma-activity-to…
Heard this trickled down through the analyst pool. Rumors of a hiring freeze are circling about. Layoffs were even felt as far as the Dallas (Realty Mgmt Group) which is apparently rare for that office.
The bank is seriously looking to trim fat. Still interview and get an offer- at the very least you 'passed the filter' and other places will snatch you up.
Do people think this would this seriously affect offer-rates for SAs this summer? Or would it just affect FT hiring instead? Obviously no one can say for sure but curious to hear other's thoughts
I don't think this will hurt SA for summer hiring. It's cheap labor for them, right?
Perferendis et magnam aspernatur rerum. Blanditiis sed velit voluptate temporibus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Excepturi inventore dignissimos tempora ratione. Consectetur numquam laborum non occaecati sint nulla. Sed et ad officiis voluptas modi.
Numquam quia cum eos praesentium sit iusto quas. Suscipit labore omnis unde est. Temporibus numquam ducimus id quia quia autem esse. Accusamus officia molestiae sint temporibus.
Delectus labore illo nihil ipsum quo. Voluptatum explicabo quas molestiae ea ex. Aut officia sequi sint ullam sunt omnis. Repellat vel distinctio officia doloribus voluptatibus. Vel temporibus libero dolorem qui maxime facere.
Sit qui sit nam qui itaque distinctio. Ut blanditiis eius a mollitia velit illo.