Living in a glass house
I know this may be a "stupid" question, but it kind of annoys me and I can't really find a rational explanation for this. When you go to the top security/intelligence agencies around the world, you will never see completely open non-tinted glass cubicles/meeting rooms/windows.
Meanwhile, at the top banks on Wall Street, some of which are working on highly confidential deals, every single one I've seen has completely see-through meeting rooms, windows, etc. Entire floors are just completely glass, where anyone on the street can have a full view of an executive's office. I've even seen some offices that have glass doors for bathrooms (albeit tinted but still).
There was recently an interview on Bloomberg with the CEO of Centerview, who's office is in a room where all of the "walls" are glass from top to bottom, and his computer is facing outwards, so any average joe walking in the hallway can see it. I mean imagine the director of the CIA having a room where all of the walls are glass top to bottom, and has his computer facing outwards...
Some janitor or security guard can just walk by and find out completely confidential information, or you might have two companies interested in the same deal across from each other seeing each others information in full view. I mean there are just so many ways this can go wrong and there's little to no upside.
Why tf to banks do this and design their offices this way?
How do you know what CIA/FBI officer are like?
All of the windows for top gov agencies are tinted or blocked, just google it or look at the pentagon for example.
Almost as if the shit we work doesn’t really matter all that much lol
Too close to the bone.
Unreal post
National Security importance >>>>>> random merger
Ok but its still a massive liability, and probably cheaper to have normal walls instead of the glass shit
1. It just doesn't matter that much, like especially good luck reading things on a small screen like that
2. It's for HR related transparency - so you don't have meetings "behind closed doors" or people doing drugs / banging coworkers in their offices / meeting rooms etc...
Imagine thinking anything a banker is working on is on par with an issue related to national security lol
I never said that. But some deals are confidential and should be kept private. Its astounding multi billion dollar companies do not see this as a massive liability.
Why would they? Random mofos aren't walking through the executive offices of Centerview or [insert bank name] on some kind of guided tour. It's either people who work there or are otherwise under NDA/tacit understanding regarding anything they might see in passing. How many times have you walked through an office and committed to memory something from a random computer screen you walked near for a few seconds (at best stood near for maybe a minute)? The answer is 0. Nobody is going to walk past even the CEO flipping through some sort of report or slide deck and be close enough to read what's on the screen, make the connection to something that outside that office is entirely unknown to the public, and turn around and use it in any meaningful manner. And even if they did, what are the realistic chances that 1-2 pages of some random thing is enough to "seriously" damage a multi-billion dollar company? It's a silly premise to begin with.
Why are you like this
Let's think about this. You brought up the janitors and security guards. Great. Let's assume that it's a worst case scenario, and that these guys buy call options or common equity in advance of a PubCo being acquired. First of all, only 60% of US adults even own public equities, and your janitor and security guards are disproportionately going to be in the 40% that doesn't. Second of all, even if they did trade on it, it wouldn't be that large of a volume to even move the needle on the markets because we're not talking about that much money. As a buttressing argument here, 86.9% of public equities are owned by the richest 10% of Americans, so not most janitors. Third of all, insider trading requires breach of duty, which janitor owes to no one. So who cares about the janitor buying stock or calls or puts? No one. Not the banker. Not the SEC. No one. Most people would be happy that that person was participating in the financial markets and making money off of it.
Now, on the other point about the glass house. Collecting this data requires someone doing actual recon to get it. Is someone going to get a Palantir-grade rig hooked up to a telescope or satellite dish to spy on Citadel or Jane Street? I don't know. But in banking, the recon budget to do something like that far outstrips anything you would get from it, so no one hides the data, and no one seeks the data. People seek intelligence data, so that stuff gets hidden. I obsess over security and confidentiality more than anyone I know, but I recognize that there really isn't that much of a need in a lot of instances.
Think of it from the clients perspective though. If you are a c-suite at a decently large public firm, and you are paying millions or tens of millions in fess for a major deal, wouldn't you want privacy and confidentiality? Its the least the IBank could do, and from your (client) perspective you understand the importance of privacy on your deal. You wouldn't want a random joe just getting insider information regardless of who he is. Also, there are just so many ways this can go wrong beyond the examples you mentioned (ie Chinese wall being broken, two competing management presentations, auction being run with insider info leaked due to lack of privacy). It just seems like a little thing to do that would cost relatively little but would save you a potential massive headache. We are thinking about tail-end, low-probability risk events that can have a massive impact but are unlikely.
Investment banking clients want privacy and confidentiality, so there are legal agreements that protect that that are enforceable. Banks use codenames in public and observe a number of protocols to protect confidentiality.
Chinese wall is a feature of the firm and has nothing to do with whether you tint the windows. If there are areas of the firm with conflicts of interest, that's the client's problem regardless of how high tech your security protocols are.
Bankers aren't dumb enough in my experience to run two MPs such that the attendees could see each other. You intersperse dinners or a couple of hours so that there's not a realistic way for that to fall into the wrong hands. I don't fully understand what you mean by the auction point or what threat vector would be used to pick up that information.
None of these things so far have to do with the windows or the actual design of the firm, which is the primary focus of your original post. It's one thing to manage tail risk. It's another thing to manage things that don't even exist in the tail. This is not a fat tail risk, this is a "we haven't even identified a specific issue that would make sense for an adversary to collect on a cost-benefit basis" risk. I think the argument for prop-trading and asset managers is stronger than IB quite frankly.
Absolutely intriguing point! It's always struck me as odd too. Banks, dealing with ultra-sensitive data, opting for all-glass setups seems counterintuitive. Maybe it's a statement about openness, but the security concerns are glaring. I'd be curious to hear the rationale behind this design choice.
https://nypost.com/2024/04/02/us-news/woman-wins-35m-verdict-for-brain-…
"Get some rest, Pam. You look tired"
They're all Philip Johnson stans. Personally, I find his work a bit simplistic and find the Farnsworth House superior in almost every formal aspect, not to mention the blatant derivation from Mies' work.
Suscipit quasi eaque corporis officiis. Voluptatem odio assumenda veniam nobis voluptatum laborum. Dolorem quis fuga atque eius.
Tempora porro magni itaque mollitia. Est velit vel animi ut ut quia non.
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...