Politics in IB is Hurting Us -- And Corrupting the One Real Principle We Had...

            I decided to get into finance for a few reasons: (i) money, (ii) transferrable skills, (iii) smart, driven people who avoided bullshit like the plague, (iv) I didn't want to get into politics (read: maximum bullshit, no money, well, unless you sell paintings on the side). All in all, I thought it would be the closest thing I'd find to a meritocracy in non-athletic professional life, and that I could bust my balls and make a few million dollars in exchange for some grey hair, probably an alcohol problem and a graveyard of busted-up relationships. Then I could sit in a nice big house on a bay somewhere, pay for everything my kids would ever need, etc. etc. etc., you've heard it before.

            I'm going to leave my internship recruiting experience aside, because I don't think it really has much to offer, it was as plain vanilla as they come, and I ended up at a decent bank on a great desk with some great people. It was a good outcome for me and turned out to be a great place for me to cut my teeth.

            As time went on, though, it became abundantly clear to me that high-fuh-nannce was as much a self-aggrandizing political contest as any other industry. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, and I wasn't by the sorts of climbing, soulless characters I ran into - I did some of that myself, who doesn't during comp time? What got me was when politics came into the office. Isn't that the first piece of advice everyone gets? "Work hard and don't talk politics with your co-workers." I might be hyperbolizing, but you get the point.

            The first thing that really struck me was on a call with HR, discussing resumes for the internship recruiting efforts. We're talking through procedure and timelines, and then the HR rep says something to the tune of, "Oh, and make sure when you look at these resumes you read to see if the candidate is black." We've all reviewed hundreds if not thousands of resumes, and I've never seen someone drop in a bullet to describe their skin color. I found that alarming - HR had, in no uncertain terms, just told us to make racial assumptions and treat those candidates differently, without any confirmation or non-speculative evidence to do so. So, I asked the rep to elaborate, and mentioned that I personally didn't have any training to be able to identify someone's race from resume-style information. The response was, in essence, "when you know, you know"…the rep wanted us to look at names and activities and conclude whether candidates were black.

            As time went on, I ended up playing a prominent role in the bank's undergrad recruiting program. Then the quotas started, then they became the objective, then they became the only thing anyone in management cared about at all, well that and making sure their golf buddies' kids received offer letters. I found the whole thing disorienting - this is a bank, shouldn't we be recruiting for the candidates who are going to do the best job? I always tried to take that approach, and it usually ended up with a very evenly balanced group of top performers. Go through all the resumes, interview as many people as possible, select the most motivated and intelligent kids, full stop. Seems simple enough to me. And don't get me wrong, we should have in place guardrails to make sure all resumes are getting the right attention in review, and that candidates all get a fair shot. My honest, and I think very well informed, opinion is that as quotas for arbitrary 'diversity' buckets became the goal, rather than a sanity check, the quality of the intern classes on the whole declined noticeably. (The buckets are very odd, excluding certain nationalities / provenances from otherwise broad descriptors - it's strange to me that a poor kid from Taiwan or India, or Louisiana or Oklahoma is considered as equally 'non-diverse' as trust fund Chad with his diplomas from Choate and Harvard, which is exactly how it's done, by the way.) To appease the higher-ups and make sure we got all our offers out, we sent dozens of highly-qualified candidates packing over the years simply because the bucket for 'non-diverse' candidates was somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of the class, and they did not get a fair shot. I gave them the shots. And they were not fair.

            The most disturbing instance of these bankrupt policies in action really shattered any illusions I had about the industry. One year, there was a particular intern who was very obviously lagging behind the rest of the class, which was noted throughout the summer. When the time came for full time offers, we were, per standard operating procedure, asked to submit our ranking of our interns and reviews / offer recommendations. The aforementioned intern was last, no question. HR came back and asked us to re-rank only the male interns. The implication was clear - make a cut. The intern who had underperformed all summer and probably shouldn't have gotten a return at all, was going to get a full time offer for one very simple reason - she was a female. The other intern who did very well and genuinely deserved the offer just lost his job because of a quota.

            He wasn't my favorite, but I was outraged. Everyone just stood by and let this poor kid who just busted his ass get cut down to give a spot to someone who frankly did not care, if work product was any judge of whether they wanted to be in banking. What's worse is that our staffer (VP-level at the time) coerced me and others on a call with all the analysts and associates to revise comments and concerns that had been raised regarding this intern's underperformance both on an objective scale and in respect to her peers. I raised a stink in a public but respectful way, asking about the status of getting the intern we had just hung out to dry an offer, asking how this could have happened, when our rankings were so clear, etc. The staffer called me up and told me he understood why I would feel guilty, that it wasn't my fault; he thought that my reaction was because the kid who got cut was my favorite intern, which he wasn't. In fact, I was pissed, and I mean pissed, because the one thing I could've done to stop that fiasco from happening was to not have changed my honest and objective assessment of the other intern's performance. But, instead, I was a good little sheep and I put down some meaningless fluff, because my staffer had just issued a public denouncement of any bad feedback, during which he never questioned the accuracy or objectivity of said feedback (it was painfully obvious), for that particular intern and told us that it would reflect poorly on the authors.

            I'm honestly not sure if it would have mattered, but man did it feel dirty as hell. And I felt like a coward. The good news is, after a lot of hell raising and prodding from a number of people (staffer included, credit where it's due), the kid did get the offer that was rightfully his. So, maybe there is hope after all.

            This was far shorter in my head, and I didn't want to get into that last anecdote because it still gets me angrier than hell to think about. But, I hope that by saying this stuff out loud, and I know a lot of people are thinking the same thing, we can work back toward judging people based on their merits. And hell yeah that includes overcoming adversity. That makes strongest people, in my opinion. What I think is wrong is baking overt, institutionalized, and arbitrary racial, social, and national prejudice into our daily calculations. Usually, once powerful institutions start down that path, things end up in a very, very bad place.

            At the end of the day, when we start recruiting, hiring, and promoting people for the wrong reasons, you don't end up with some utopic workplace, you end up with doubts, bitterness, factions, and, oh, by the way, a less efficient, less effective workforce, because you recruited for box checking, not competence and the right motives. And when you make an honest recruiting effort, there's no doubt in my mind that you're going to find that the most competent people don't look very similar to each other at all. I don't think I need to say this, but, if you think certain groups don't produce the same level of competence as others, and therefore need to be handicapped, you've got some soul searching to do buddy.

            We don't need to read race or creed into someone's resume. Smart candidates will tell you exactly why they're worth the offer, and tell you how they've gotten where they are. I've heard plenty of stories about really tough circumstances from students who are 'non-diverse' too.

I'd like to think that pretty much everyone on this forum just wants to work with smart, driven, and decent people, and I doubt what skin color or gender or sexual preference those people have matter much to any of us. I certainly don't. What I do care about, however, is when people get preferential or punitive treatment for some arbitrary quality - any arbitrary quality - in what is supposed to be a meritocracy. It's a far more dangerous precedent to set than a lot of people realize, and that kind of institutional behavior, which takes place everywhere on Wall Street, should be abhorred by everyone involved. We don't need militant diversity; we need better programs to make sure every single candidate gets a fair shot. What we need is for people to hold true to the one very simple principle that drives the entire financial industry - whoever does x the best, wins.

P.S.      Since I haven't offered any solutions in earnest, a quick blurb on some things I've done with candidates who I thought weren't getting a fair shot, but were smart, and for one reason or another had missed something along the way. I'm not one for making excuses, especially when pretty much everything you need to do decently well in an interview is a few google searches away.

Send people who don't have the interview guides the PDF's. Send them to this forum and others. Give them a week. Interview them again. Now I've found that many of the candidates I've had to have those kinds of conversations with don't do very well even if I tell them which questions they're going to be asked or if I let them choose their own technical questions to answer. But I gave them the shot, took time out of my day to do it, and I'm glad I did. I'm still in touch with some of them, and they've eventually found jobs in the industry. Others capitalized on the opportunity and crushed their interviews, simply because they got onto level footing and did the work. Keep in mind, the kids who succeeded in this case were those who took the initiative, got in touch very early on, and cared enough to keep asking questions. My point is that, yes, if we grill 19 year-olds on DCF's and unlevering beta, some people are going to need to be assessed on a different scale. Then we find ourselves trying to engineer outcomes, instead of making a better system. Things won't change for the better that way.

Comments (23)

iridescent007, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Politics is #1 in IB though. Your investment banking head's middle name is probably Politics. 

Persistency is Key
  • Anonymous Monkey's picture
  • Anonymous Monkey
  • Rank: Chimp
Anonymous Monkey, what's your opinion? Comment below:

fuck man started reading thought it would be short rant, but the page just kept scrolling. needless to say i didn't read it all but yeah, politics suck balls and if you really want to "give it your all" you'll have to go the entrepreneurship route. godspeed

reformed, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Lol. For summer associate positions, being a diversity candidate used to be a prerequisite for Centerview. As of a few years ago, they wouldn't even interview a white or Asian male.

  • 1
Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
  • Anonymous Monkey's picture
  • Anonymous Monkey
  • Rank: Chimp
Anonymous Monkey, what's your opinion? Comment below:

You know, I just wonder about the thought process of people like yourself. I served in the military with people from all walks of life, and the cohesion was more than phenomenal. Our unit was elite and we always performed above the standard. I never had anyone try to treat me differently because I was Black. I feel like the people who project their racism on this forum don't even work at reputable firms, because I have never come across an ignorant person with your mindset ever. This kind of close-minded and vacuous thinking will always hold you back as a person. Oh and btw, there are several minorities at Centerview and Evercore. They should make enlisting in service mandatory to humble some of you children, because honestly people like you need to get punched in the mouth. 

AnalyzeANDchill, what's your opinion? Comment below:

there is nothing close minded about these at all, there is a significant amount of employers who give minority skin colors a advantage that is RACISM and has nothing to do with the person being hateful or anything to point that out. It's funny when the power dynamics switch and you hear people support a law when its against whites or Asians you really get to see who the racist are

i.can.make.it, what's your opinion? Comment below:

I'm black and while I disagree with OP, I respectfully understand his grievances but not yours.

I just hope you know that these quotas started and are being enforced so strongly because of people like you.

anothergodammasian, what's your opinion? Comment below:

i actually want to know why banks even give a fuck about diversity,like i understand google/apple doing bullshit like this because they sell products and services used by general public, they need to keep a good perception of themselves in the eyes of general people, but investment banks have no relation to what emily with #BLM in her Instagram bio thinks about them,i doubt any CEOs they're helping through a merger/taking the company public would give even the slightest of shit that there weren't any black people in the deal teams, do bankers really care about the general perception of public in their eyes, if so why?

Barney_Stinson, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Oh great another post bashing diversity recruiting lol. We don't have enough of those on here

Truth is whether you like it or not, a lot of these banks are public firms so they care about public perception. And when you are hiring excel/ppt monkeys, most of the skills can be learned on the job so you can basically hire whoever you want (nepotism, quotas, etc)

That's just the way the industry is and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere

snarf42, what's your opinion? Comment below:

as someone who's a pretty diehard liberal POC working in IB I have to say I really get the frustration here. I still believe "affirmative action" is more good then bad in general because there are so many decades (arguably centuries) of disadvantage that certain communities are still fighting through. However, it's good to consider the drawbacks of obviously flawed "diversity recruiting" like how OP is doing here even if you're someone like me who really celebrates companies making attempts at fostering a more inclusive/diverse workforce.

The fact of the matter is that yes, quotas aren't good because you're not solving the heart of the problem. While I think the examples listed by OP are not cool at all, I think those specific instances need to be changed rather than dismantling all affirmative action type recruiting. Let's face it, banking (honestly, probably every career) is not about who is the "smartest" or "most deserving." What makes a good analyst/banker/employee/person is determined by who is willing to put in the work and learn and be curious and all that good stuff. However, since the dawn of time and even today we're still just more likely to think of men/white people/rich people/all those types of folks as having more of "what it takes" to succeed, not to mention all the nepotism that everyone just seems to accept as the way it is in finance.

so while I empathize with OP I encourage people to channel their frustrations into improving systems/recruiting processes meant to uplift marginalized communities rather than campaigning for their outright abolishment because let's face it, the status quo only ever benefits people in power. Props to OP for sticking up for what they believe in and correcting poor management/HR practices, and i hope they continue to bring that energy into thinking of productive ways of giving more deserving people from underserved communities a fair shot

AnalyzeANDchill, what's your opinion? Comment below:

i think affirmative action is horrible and just people supporting racism to either be on a moral high horse or because they benefit from it and speak for yourself if you assume white people are great just because they are white then perhaps work on yourself, call me crazy but i think merit is all we should hire on. 

therealgekko, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Affirmative action is for the morally bankrupt. They support equality on one hand but on the hand you are treating racial groups differently? Hypocrisy at its finest

Sequoia, what's your opinion? Comment below:

What you don't realize is that diversity recruitment while arguably helping blacks / (some) women, it is hurting almost every other group. This is breeding increased resentments and tensions which makes those candidates who were screwed much less inclined to think favorably of certain racial groups

Let me put it in a very simplistic way -- You used to get a cake every day. Now a diversity candidate takes your cake and you have to go search for another cake and there's a finite supply of good cakes. How do you think you would view that candidate who took your cake (not because of individual merit in which case you could shrug and say 'meh' but purely on the back of their skin color)? Just put yourself in those shoes, for every diversity candidate that gets the job there are a dozen other people (White / Asian / Indian / even Hispanic) that have been shafted...how many times can they shrug it off and say 'meh'?

Oz-Medici, what's your opinion? Comment below:

We have female-only hiring programs, and anyone who comes through it is subject to ~90% less competition per seat, and also gets a cheeky $10k signing bonus (to incentivise more applicants). I've ran a process and have seen some the candidates coming through here - maybe one candidate (for 10 seats) would be hired on merit if it wasn't for quotas.

Once they start with us, it's hard to look at these people (incl. nepotism hires) without thinking they: (a) got a leg up / don't deserve the role; and (b) are not as good as their peers that were hired on merit.

Oz-Medici, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Dolore quaerat non voluptatem illo est sit. Id deserunt hic placeat aut. Fugit et officiis omnis enim minus qui ut. Cum reprehenderit voluptates et possimus. Maxime et quia tenetur itaque cum voluptas error officiis. Inventore nihil explicabo ipsam. Sed deserunt qui est modi voluptates.

Dolorem aut excepturi delectus tempora nisi ut. Reiciendis in non quia sequi enim deleniti pariatur nisi. Rerum blanditiis sint dolorem adipisci et qui expedita ipsa. Suscipit rerum velit ut.

Nisi rerum sapiente minus rerum. Quis dolorem non veniam et officiis placeat ut rem. Ullam quia neque commodi et aut autem molestias dolor.

Dolore et aut optio sit doloribus corrupti. Aliquid voluptatum dolores tempora minima architecto omnis ratione aut. Est accusamus magni cum.

Oz-Medici, what's your opinion? Comment below:

Molestiae sit officia dolor error est consequuntur velit. Animi et ipsa repellendus fuga harum voluptatem ratione.

Rem quis accusantium est nemo repellat maiores sint. Eaque excepturi expedita qui. Occaecati voluptatem ut eos veritatis commodi voluptas sed. Aliquid consequatur ut eius quisquam dolor qui illo iste. Omnis eum adipisci nobis laudantium omnis. Corporis atque labore eum unde ut blanditiis recusandae. Dignissimos harum deserunt aspernatur consequuntur et eius est.

Autem odio deserunt earum velit officia qui sequi. Ut mollitia non et aut magnam. Dolore sit aut quis est voluptas eaque dolor cum. Distinctio sunt veritatis ut eaque. Sint non dolorem doloribus ipsum. Voluptates soluta possimus est ut.

Start Discussion

Career Advancement Opportunities

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company (▲08) 99.6%
  • Lincoln International (= =) 99.3%
  • Financial Technology Partners (+ +) 98.9%
  • Evercore (▽01) 98.5%
  • Bank of America Merrill Lynch (▲01) 98.2%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • PJT Partners (= =) 99.6%
  • Evercore (▲02) 99.3%
  • Greenhill (▲05) 98.9%
  • Canaccord Genuity (▲15) 98.5%
  • William Blair (= =) 98.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • PwC Corporate Finance (▲14) 99.6%
  • Lincoln International (▲03) 99.3%
  • Jefferies & Company (▲04) 98.9%
  • William Blair (▽02) 98.5%
  • Evercore (▽01) 98.2%

Total Avg Compensation

December 2022 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (10) $613
  • Vice President (38) $392
  • Associates (220) $255
  • 2nd Year Analyst (139) $163
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (19) $160
  • 1st Year Analyst (466) $153
  • Intern/Summer Associate (88) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (337) $92