Sign-on bonus reverse discrimination?
For analyst and summer analyst positions, is it legal for companies to give different sign-on bonuses based off race and gender? At face, this just seems like reverse discrimination. I can wrap my head around the merit of DEI programs in hiring, but in terms of compensation, what is the point? Can someone explain - I might just be ignorant here, so just looking for some clarity
At my firm, from people I've talked to, for summer analysts, the sign on bonuses:
White/Asian Male: 2.5k
Diversity male: 5k
Female: 7.5k
Diversity Female: 10-15k
Insane if true
As an IB associate at a BB who’s been in the room for many SA and FT analyst hiring decisions, I’ll share some unfiltered perspective on how DEI shapes recruiting, especially given the bonus disparities ($2.5k for White/Asian males vs. $10-15k for diversity females)— I’ve seen this play out firsthand many times. Hiring is undeniably skewed, and I’ll break down why with a specific example.
Why It Happens: -Diversity Metrics: Banks track race, gender, and sometimes first-gen status for leadership and client reports. A “too white” or “too male” class risks internal backlash or lost client points. -Pipeline Programs: SEO, Girls Who Invest, and firm-specific initiatives give diverse candidates pre-interview coaching, networking, and sometimes a Super Day fast-pass. White/Asian males compete in a tougher, broader pool. -Cultural Narrative: HR and leadership treat “diverse perspectives” as a default value-add, even if technical gaps are glaring. - Legal Cover: Firms lean on “holistic” criteria (fit, resilience) to justify decisions, making discrimination claims hard to prove. Bonus gaps are framed as “equity” or retention incentives, though they sting for those getting less.
A Real Example: Last year, we were expanding our full-time analyst class and were down to two final-round undergrad candidates for one spot that we were considering. Candidate A (White male, top school, 3.9 GPA, prior SA at a EB) was a rockstar. He aced every technical—built a flawless 3 statement model, nailed obscure accounting questions, and charmed the MD with sharp industry insights. His behavioral answers were crisp, tying his experience to our firm’s culture. Candidate B (Black female, solid but non-target state school, 3.4 GPA, no prior IB experience) struggled. She mixed up EV/EBITDA with P/E in a valuation discussion, couldn’t walk through a 3-statement model, and gave vague behavioral responses (“I’m passionate about finance”). In the debrief, associates and VPs unanimously ranked A higher, but HR flagged that our class was “skewing too male and not diverse enough” to meet our 2025 diversity targets. The MD, citing pressure from a major client’s diversity audit, pushed for B, emphasizing her “potential” and “unique background.” B got the offer; A was told “it was a tough cycle.” Later, B needed extensive hand-holding on basic deliverables like comps and pitchbooks, frustrating the team. Off-record, a senior associate admitted B’s hire was “box-checking” to pad our diversity stats for a client pitch. This is just one example, there are many.
My Take: The thread’s frustration is valid—when merit takes a backseat, it breeds resentment. The argument that diversity inherently boosts performance (e.g., McKinsey’s 2020 report) assumes equal competence, but hiring less-prepared candidates risks team strain and subpar output. That said, the counterpoint is that diverse candidates face systemic barriers earlier (e.g., access to elite schools or networks), and DEI aims to correct this. But when a Black candidate from a privileged background (say Harvard) gets a boost over a White peer with identical credentials, the “equity” logic feels shaky. The bonus gaps only pour salt on the wound—pay should reflect role, not identity. White/Asian males need to be near-flawless to compete; diversity candidates get a lower entry bar but face the same grind once in. It’s a flawed system that fuels threads like this. Curious for others’ takes, especially from hiring committees.
Disclaimer: Based on my BB experience.
The McKinsey report is some of the most brain-dead bullshit I've ever seen.
It bucketed companies by their "diversity efforts" (if they had a diversity department, had a diversity and inclusion officer, made statements, had targets, etc), and then tracked share performance by bucket.
Surprise surprise- the companies with more excess cash to piss away on diversity efforts also happened to have good share price returns. Shocker.
This is the seminal piece on DEI- the one that all the articles cite when they say that it has been "proven" that DEI is good for profits and therefore must be pursued for shareholder value. The tentpole hoax- a correlation/causation failure.
I’m sorry but I just don’t believe this story, even though I agree that ‘equity based’ hiring has gone too far. This was believable at first, but ‘charmed the MD’? Really? First no one talks like that (perhaps doubly proven by how much your intro paragraphs reek of ChatGPT - you can change the prompting but AI will still sound like AI).
Second, at a true BB, no MD of a good group is going to take the time to chat with a possible FT hire, or even be involved. Just getting one Director to be the ‘senior approval’ stamp is tough and needs to be managed. Also, even if this was true, I want you to really think about the last time a MD was even remotely interested in anything a junior had to say, much less CHARMED by their insights. The one thing people can generally agree on is that senior bankers average personality is extremely rude, and you’re really trying to sell that this guy basically had a crush on this straight white 21 yr old?
Seriously, give me a break.
Sir, if I identify myself as a diversity person, can I get the diversity bonus as a black identified white person?
Wait until you hear about the MBA associate diversity sign on bonuses
lol reminds me of female classmate getting $75k sign on bonus at evercore for an internship.
Her internship sign on bonus was more than most of class’ sign on + stubs bonus as full time
this cant be true lmfao
Yup.
A "diverse" male candidate is getting a $50k sign-on bonus with my EB and this guy clearly comes from money, went to an expensive private school, and is not diverse (he is the kind of diverse where he can check the box, but in no way fits the criteria they are actually looking for - at most you'd think he's a tanned, good looking white dude).
If this is real, it needs to be picked up by the journalists who lurk here lmao. No way that’s legal.
Lol if you think they'd cover this. Goes against the narrative.
Honestly I would bring this up to the DOJ
illegal
name and shame
ITT: White men mad black men get an extra $2,500. Who gives a shit, the rest of you have an advantage in every other aspect of our careers.
What is that advantage? Be specific.
If you are a black man with the exact same resume as a white man, in today's society you will have many more companies falling over to hire you. If you are a black kid with the same grades and SAT score as a white kid, you'll be more preferred for colleges and med schools.
If you are a black EXECUTIVE with even a worse resume as a white executive, you'll still have more boards knocking at your door for board seats due to board diversity disclosures and voting recommendations.
Black people can have race-based affinity groups at companies without looking bad. A black person can advance a black employee and say it's because he "likes to see young black people succeed" and no one will bat an eye. Swap the races on any of the examples in this paragraph and you'll have a discrimination case on your hands.
So, please- what is one advantage "in every other aspect of our careers"
Also- you are making it sound like you are white yet also seem to be disparaging white people... can I guess something about you?
Career growth is easier as a white man. There's a reason why leadership at most companies is still white. Funds have taken a black intern from SEO every year, yet few people VP and above are black. Black people and women get promoted at slower rates due to not fitting in and unconscious bias. The one token "latino" guy is probably white passing.
For board seats to have an impact on your career, you already need to be in middle or senior management. What benefit would a white race-based affinity group give you? It's unnecessary. You're already the majority in the country and in finance.
>Multinational financial institutions literally paying pampered and undeserving DEI kids up to 6x the signing bonuses of White and Asian men
>Still thinking "structural racism" exists against minorities
If ignorance is bliss then you must have quite the life. You are right about one thing though, society is structurally racist against WHITE Americans (the people who built this great country, which people like you are actively trying to destroy). Remigration and mass deportations are needed ASAP
You didn't "build" this country. You built the legal infrastructure, yes. But my black ancestors, Mexicans, and Asians did the labor.
"I can wrap my head around the merit of DEI programs in hiring"
Explain.
Is an all-black African company, or all asian Japanese company, or all white Norwegian company inherently lower performing than a diverse company?
If you took a high-performing team of all black people, and added one high-performing white person, is that team now better? or if a high performing black person joined a high performing all-white team, is that team now better?
I reject the premise that diversity is inherently good.
Not necessarily. If the additional diverse person is added, and allowed to speak up it will increase performance. If you just have a token diverse person, but don't listen to a thing they say then it won't help. Which is the problem DEI faces because your entire vertical has to take their diverse hires seriously.
Does this work for black teams as well? ie, would a company in the Congo benefit by adding a few white folks so that they aren't homogeneous? Why not?
If a black kid is adopted at birth by an affluent white family, goes to a boarding school and then to Harvard, he would be considered diversity. Does he have more to offer than his white brother, who went to the same schools and got the same grades? Why?
Why are Asians not given preferential treatment, when they are more of a minority than blacks?
I pray hope this is just rage bait... But at the same time I can't deny that it can be true.
Crazy this hasn't gotten more attention before. At my MM, diversity MBA associates get a $80-100K sign on bonus while non diversity gets 40k
That is insane, I’d report that
Surprised people on this thread didn’t know this has been going on. This isn’t news. A lot of firms do this and this has been going on for awhile now.
I’ve always thought this was an insane practice. Not only do we have a net tax transfer from whites / Asians to Hispanics / blacks they are literally being offered multiples more money from the beginning of their careers. Absolute insanity. Reparations have gone way too far
Yeah its part of their DEI scholarship. Dont think its illegal not much you can do abt it
If the classification is as a “scholarship” probably not illegal. If it’s an actual sign on then could def be
They classify as scholarship but you can have it come in different forms. Like a stipend (essentially cash bonus) or paying off school loans directly
This is new to y'all?
If this is true, I think there is definitely a lawsuit to be had -- especially in this environment.
At Tier 1 BB my female ASO classmate got a $10k higher sign on bonus. Not to mention certain female ASOs actually have their entire second year of b school paid by the bank.
Here, I will fix it for you. Hiring / Promotions are broadly split into 2 buckets,
Non-Diversity: White, Brown, Arab, and Asian males
Based on internal HR data, almost ~50% of seats are reserved for diversity candidates, and are mostly handed out to “white” women with the rest of diversity folks being less than 10%.
MDs’ performance metrics are directly linked to diversity KPIs and they will go out of their way to ignore performance and hire/promote women.
This forum is full of hypocrites who are selectively against DEI. White women who comprise of majority of DEI in North America get a free pass while colored women who comprise less than 10% are criticized.
Btw, I am against DEI quotas in any shape or form. This problem is far worse in Canada, however, it is a liberal cesspool as shown by elections and hence, doesn’t get discussed as much. If you want chill career in IB as a woman, and get paid for incompetence, work for any of the large Canadian banks.
It's bad in canada but idk if I'd say liberal cesspool, most liberal party peeps (myself included) agree this has gone a bit too far.
Reports of MD bonuses tied to female retention, biased staffers, and the new quotas for analyst classes are wildly inflated
I hope the pressure of greenwashing coming off will return to a more normal model
given how competitive recruiting is in Canada I don't think diversity affects hiring quality here, you still need a good gpa, do good in interviews to get the offer. The only difference I have noticed is that diversiy candidates sometimes get interviews without networking, but interview performance matters to get that offer
——
Pretty accurate based on my experience
...
Your rebuttal is based on “class photos”, which is a skewed reference point. I am a staffer at a BB and can comment based on experience.
If white women are not main beneficiary of DEI then why don’t banks disclose breakdown of diversity hires / promotes by both gender and ethnicity. Why such a focus on gender while deprioritizing ethnicity / socio-economic origins unless your goal is to mainly benefit white women who often tend to be from affluent backgrounds. If white men are not diversity then so aren’t white women as they grow up in a similar socio-economic environment.
Besides, most of you are not “pro-merit”, you are just “pro-white” and lack the courage to push back against the torch bearers of DEI aka white Beckies. Most DEI disclosures deem Asian, White, Arab, and Brown men as non-diverse, yet your sole focus is on the plight of white and asian males, making it seem that all other males are diversity. Grow a pair, I can understand when an Asian, Arab, and Brown male complains about diversity as they neither have privilege of a white man nor are considered diversity but you sir are a joke.
OP, name the bank that is doing this. Clearly it’s illegal. The only way banks get away with this, or with hiring discrimination, is it’s very hard to know what’s happening behind closed doors. You have figured out what’s happening behind closed doors. If I were you, I might 1) file a tip on your banks hotline, 2) send an anonymous tip to a reporter (one who has done similar stories), or 3) go straight to HR.
I had a situation where I did the tip line and HR and got a big settlement from a bank that was discriminating in a different manner.
For MBA, they call it fellowships as a way to give DEI candidates huge sign ons. Until a year or so ago, eligibility was explicitly non white male. More recently I believe most broadened out the eligibility for liability reasons. It was just that they could be that blatant before.
Anyone notice when you apply to Goldman, you have to consent to a statement that very explicitly (more explicitly than any other bank) says they will use your demographic data for DEI considerations when thinking about the composition of the class? Most banks just say they will comply with EEOC. Goldman basically says “nah we’re gonna take this into account.” Haven’t applied there in a few months but that always stood out
Every bank is doing this, or at least most of the major ones. But it’s not JUST discrimination in terms of bonus #’s.
Women and minorities get exclusive access via special events during recruiting, then special early interviewing opportunities (often banks fill 50% of their open spots with women and minorities before white/asian males even step up to the plate). After their privileged recruiting process, they’re then given extra “diversity” sign on bonuses, which can amount to $80k at certain banks given to certain hires but not others based exclusively on gender or race.
Quite the grift if you ask me.
Curious if anyone on the inside saw DEI recruiting scale down at their bank? I was recruiting for SA this year and there was a lot of talk among candidates about DEI being less important than before, but I can’t say if it really happened.
Idk about sign on but at my firm they gave 10k to the summers who came from the diversity program, regardless of getting return offers or not.
But that went directly to the schools in the form of tuition, and they also had to go through the "scholarship process" during recruiting i guess.
Bruh I am an Asian male and got $0 signing bonus for FT.... (at a BB)
And I guarantee that same bank is posting all over social media about how proud they are to be celebrating AAPI month.
Please report this bank. This is ridiculous and unfair. If everyone has an offer already why are some getting paid more? Especially if some had an easier path to get there in the first place!? You’re telling me I have to fight through a harder process AND get paid less? That’s bullshit.
How can they justify this as legal? Wasn’t it illegal to pay men more than women for the same job leading to an entire movement — how is this any different? You are paying women more for the same job solely because of their sex
-
Started out as equality, now it's equity. Their goal (foreign intel agencies) was always to make you powerless and to take over your culture.
What happens if I identify as a Half-Black Half-Asian Semi-Fluid Transgender Nigerian/Indian Women. Will my bonus cumulate?
Maybe white men should wake up a bit and stand up for themselves instead of swallowing all the shit that's thrown at them.
Boomer CEOs / Board of Directors don't have the balls. They will gladly sell out the next generation to the reparation hysteria crowd as long as they get a bigger bonus.
I agree they're cowards. We need to put maximum maximum political pressure on these people or it will never budge. Conservative presidents, lawsuits, media pressure, shareholder pressure etc.
Hasn't this been the standard for white shoe law firms for awhile now? Diversity get bigger sign on bonuses than non diverse? Messed up but exists in law recruiting
who exactly are these “power that be” that terrify even MDs into promoting/giving higher bonuses to undeserved candidates
who are these people that have such a control over everyone from CEO to MDs to HR
since most CEOs/board of directors are predominantly white and/or male why are they putting pressure for DEI or is there someone above them that is making them do DEI?
Large institutional investors, media and public opinion, social pressure etc. Blackrock for example publishes annual letters emphasizing diversity and has applied pressure to boards to enforce these policies.
Also bear in mind some of these CEOs, MDs etc believe in this stuff. Some are ideological, although most are opportunistic sycophants afraid of irritating public opinion. That is precisely why if we manage to change the culture, and make backlash against DEI mainstream, these spineless money-hungry CEOs will cede to the new societal trend.
LPs (Pension Funds, Endowments, etc) who's boards are all full of activists, Large AMs (Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard), Proxy Advisors (ISS, Glass Lewis), Stock Exchanges (thanks Adena Friedman), news / research outlets that manipulate the actual importance (McKinsey reports, left-leaning publications).
Also educational institutions that try to brain-wash their students (future managers, leaders, execs), including MBAs that keep harping on about the power of diverse workforces again and again in class.
Here is the flow of DEI,
Femin*zi Democrat / Liberal Politicians > Special Govt Committees > Pension Funds > Institutional Investors (ie BlackRock) > Board of Directors > C-Suite > HR
Even if we use Trump administration to disrupt the DEI infestation, far too many femc*ls have been promoted to key positions in management / BoD positions who won’t relent unless they are pushed out.
My experience has been quite different. Most DEI perks go to white women or LGBT white folks. Non-white people, including Asians, just have a harder grind at work. A white person can be absolute shit and get the pass. Non-whites just had to work way harder to get the same thing. Maybe it's just me.
Yeah it's just you. Imagine genuinely thinking White men get any help from anyone in 2025.
White women are the biggest beneficiary of DEI IMO but white men are the biggest losers. Funny how that works.
With white women you can check a DEI box while still having a white woman you can easily culturally integrate - win win.
EDIT: Asian men are the biggest losers. White second biggest.
Finally people on this forum are getting it. The whole DEI movement is primarily against white men and it mainly benefits white women; rest is just noise. To boil it down, it is white men vs. feminist white women.
It’s not “reverse” discrimination. It’s just discrimination period.
Good news, this is now illegal. You should sue for big money.
JPM do this and it’s absolutely disgusting and honestly makes me embarrassed to work for them.
I hope I’m wrong. I really do. But if what’s being implied is true that a Black woman got a job over a white man and people are crying about it then we need to talk about what’s actually unfair here.
Imagine being Black and getting hired. You should be celebrating but instead, you walk into a workplace where people assume you’re a quota. Where no one looks like you. Where even the “friendly” coworkers can’t really relate. And whether they say it or not, you feel the label hanging over your head: "diversity hire." You work twice as hard just to be seen as equal. And most of the time, you’re one of maybe two Black people in the whole damn office. That’s the reality not for everyone, but for far too many.
Meanwhile, people are suddenly outraged about diversity programs. Acting like they just showed up yesterday. Barclays was running diversity programs in 2015. Goldman Sachs started its Scholarship for Excellence in 1994. SEO has existed since 1980. KKR and TPG have their AIP fellowship program since 2009. These aren't new. So where’s all the outrage been?
And here’s the kicker those “diversity hires”? They’re often the first to get cut when layoffs hit. Not because they’re underperforming. Just because they were never fully welcomed in the first place.
Now let’s look at the white candidate. Maybe he didn’t get this one role. Maybe it wasn’t fair. But guess what? He’ll bounce back. He’ll land another job. He’ll walk into that office, be welcomed, be mentored, be given the benefit of the doubt. No one will whisper about how he got there. No one will wonder if he “deserved” it.
And that’s the point.
These programs aren’t about giving anyone an unfair edge. They’re about equity about making space in a system that’s never truly been open to everyone. If you’ve never had to think about that, that’s part of the problem.
As for the claim that someone got a £10–15k sign-on bonus over someone else’s £2.5k because of race or gender? Come on. That’s not just illegal, it doesn’t even make sense. Use your head. More often than not, it’s the other way around. Being white and male has always meant better pay, more promotions, and fewer questions.
People love to talk about merit. Fine. But let’s talk about the fact that merit has never been judged equally. That’s the issue. That’s why these programs exist. And if you're more angry about someone finally getting a fair chance than you are about the decades where they didn't, then maybe ask yourself why that is
-
Get rid of DEI hiring and these assumptions end.
When I see an Asian male doctor is taking care of me or a loved one, I immediately feel a sense of relief- that this guy must have been head and shoulders above all the other candidates. The bar is the highest for Asian male med students- odds are best that I'm in good hands.
A fully race-blind hiring process gets rid of this. Everyone earns their spot, no one cares how the cohorts skew (black, white, asian, jewish).
Mess with any group's barriers to entry (for any reason) and these assumptions return (and, statistically, are fair).
But they DON'T work twice as hard.
Would love to see Glickman, Saeedy, and any other WSJ reporters that lurk this forum report on this — a systemic issue that goes far beyond a single group.
This isn’t a story about hiring preferences (which have been normalized), but pay gaps between employees.
While such a disparity might be obvious to some of us who live it, the broader public absolutely isn’t aware and I’m sure they would be interested.
Lol. White men being unfairly discriminated against! How to kill your journalistic career in one article. Sorry but the world thinks we deserve this crap.
They think you deserve it, because you DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. STAND UP FOR YOURSELF AND OTHERS WILL RESPECT YOU.
That's kinda how it works.
You are wrong. There’s no discrepancy in sign on bonus. Everyone gets the same sign on. What differs is done individually get a diversity scholarship which the amount differs by if they were a previous intern or new and if they’re diverse. The individuals must be just saying that scholarship is a sign in when it’s not.
Every intern gets the same $2,500 summer relocation sign on.
My firm when I did the summer program 3 years ago if we are talking about the same firm here.
Standard summer sign on: $2,500 which is what is outlined in our offer letter
Sophomore summer interns who returned for junior summer got an additional $2500 because of retention
Diversity scholarship was $5k prior to start of the internship and another $10k if they return FT.
Did you really think people are getting $10-15k for a summer sign on?
Also, the diversity scholarship was open for everyone to apply. You had to fill it out and write 2-3 essays and then interview for it. Some people didn’t advance because their essays weren’t good.
GS and MS will pay 2nd year MBA tuition for some female summer associates
Proudly facilitated by rich old white guys at the cost of hardworking competent men. I think there needs to be a website where all these stalwarts of DEI at each bank are named / shamed. If they can cancel people by falsely accusing them of misogyny then the opposite should be fine too in fairness.
Crazyyy pocket watching. Get your bread up white boy
Boomer take. "Injustice for the people coming after me? Fuck them, I got mine"
Boo hooo :( Cry about it broke boy.
Lmao you're black as can be and still couldn't make it to IB?
Deleniti quos minus dolor id error officiis. Optio praesentium quos quod illo ut et aperiam. Omnis voluptatem est enim porro et ut. Blanditiis voluptatem ab id. Iusto voluptatem non consectetur. Culpa vel error minima aut omnis porro.
Velit provident magnam nemo ut. Voluptates neque sint perferendis itaque quos iusto. Porro voluptas magni veniam. Ea pariatur exercitationem consequatur dolorum vel fugit. Consectetur ea enim quis at qui. Quibusdam fuga qui ullam dolores quo aperiam.
Facere reprehenderit eligendi tempora voluptas aut. Fugit ullam quia dolorem animi.
Illum nulla praesentium dolorum debitis facere voluptatibus sit repellendus. Eius suscipit omnis doloremque temporibus sunt quia. Quo culpa cupiditate voluptatum et.
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...
Numquam aut itaque quas molestias impedit rerum iure et. Sint veritatis libero error molestiae sunt saepe corrupti eos. Excepturi dicta illum quae esse similique consectetur voluptates. Eligendi qui doloremque animi quo blanditiis. Nisi sunt enim quasi soluta repudiandae vero molestias molestiae. Et tempora ullam repudiandae officiis.
Amet consectetur tenetur consectetur nam veniam nihil. Illo odio vero itaque animi. Impedit omnis excepturi voluptatem quia adipisci ut aut. Ut aut ipsam laborum rerum corrupti et corporis. Ut qui id libero eius id consequatur.
Rerum quia qui et ut minima non ratione voluptate. Autem quidem voluptate expedita consequatur. Aspernatur vel dolor est voluptatibus autem. Omnis odio perferendis modi aliquam amet et quis. Blanditiis ut excepturi eveniet qui.
Ipsa ut optio eaque quas reiciendis. Minima error quas impedit occaecati nemo sit. Non illo nemo saepe deleniti dignissimos ex. Saepe perspiciatis vitae et dolor qui omnis repellat. Qui quia architecto nesciunt nesciunt. Quos optio harum inventore quae dolor provident numquam omnis.
Debitis tenetur aperiam libero neque rerum sed. Numquam ipsum debitis necessitatibus cumque. Dolores quibusdam ipsam est. Assumenda et mollitia et autem voluptate ullam. Et aut ipsa aut commodi consectetur est.