Analyst Layoffs

Rank: Monkey | 53

There has been a lot of talk about IB layoffs lately. Anyone know if any of the banks have layed off analysts anywhere?

Citigroup or Bear Stearns or Bank of America? (As those are the three I have heard most Investment Banking layoffs have taken place.)

Comments (237)

 
12/3/07

Why fire people that have a net cost of about 150K inclusive of bonus, salary, FICA/FUTA/SUTA/401K...

Learn More

7,548 questions across 469 investment banks. The WSO Investment Banking Interview Prep Course has everything you'll ever need to start your career on Wall Street. Technical, Behavioral and Networking Courses + 2 Bonus Modules. Learn more.

 
12/3/07

Because it saves money and whenever bankers are laid off, it all trickles down b/c you won't need as many analysts to support the remaining ones.

 
12/3/07

you're wrong... keeping around a little low paying 'fat' is in the bank's interest.

 
12/3/07

Assuming everyone is an average performer associates are fired first, followed by VPs and analysts and finally the senior ranks. Associates are the intermediaries between the junior and senior ranks and the firs to go. Analysts are then expected to deal directly with their VPs and MDs, which can be more difficult but cost effective.

While this is the policy in most banks, only in extremely bad times does this occur. Underperformers will usually be picked out from all ranks first, and only after will mass purges occur.

An interesting consequence to the current market softness will be the size of analyst classes next summer, both FT and SA. The size each bank chooses will show their confidence in their future. Also, it will be interesting to see if any banks try not to honor the kids who have signed with them already. I heard BOA hired too many FT analysts from the intern ranks in 2006 and gave some the option (and 30K) to delay starting FT until 2008. Now that they are cutting their IBD ranks and have this years interns and last years holdovers, it will be interesting to see what they do.

 
12/3/07
I-banker2007 wrote:

Assuming everyone is an average performer associates are fired first, followed by VPs and analysts and finally the senior ranks. Associates are the intermediaries between the junior and senior ranks and the firs to go. Analysts are then expected to deal directly with their VPs and MDs, which can be more difficult but cost effective.

While this is the policy in most banks, only in extremely bad times does this occur. Underperformers will usually be picked out from all ranks first, and only after will mass purges occur.

An interesting consequence to the current market softness will be the size of analyst classes next summer, both FT and SA. The size each bank chooses will show their confidence in their future. Also, it will be interesting to see if any banks try not to honor the kids who have signed with them already. I heard BOA hired too many FT analysts from the intern ranks in 2006 and gave some the option (and 30K) to delay starting FT until 2008. Now that they are cutting their IBD ranks and have this years interns and last years holdovers, it will be interesting to see what they do.

That is an interesting perspective ibanker. Do you think confidence will be more or less uniform across the street, or will there be significant differences?

 
12/3/07

that is sweet... 30k to start later. that is just sweet.

 
12/3/07

to the original poster: Analysts have already been laid off at some places. JPM levfin for one. GS moved a bunch of S&T 1st year analysts to operations, which isn't quite the same as being laid off, but unless GS gives them the chance to move back into S&T then from a career perspective that's about as bad as being laid off.

 
12/3/07

I think it is still early enough in the process to reach a conclusion. I know some of the summer hiring can even drag into March. I think most the firms that are relatively unscathed will honor there commitments and take close to record numbers of 1st years. However, firms that are retreating from investment banking probably will not. As I mentioned, BOA is in a difficult situation and how they proceed will be interesting. Banking has in general normalized since the shut down of credit markets in August. If it is able to stay on pace I think GS, MS, DB, CS, UBS, and JP will have large classes. I think Wachovia and BOA will retreat from IB while the future of BS, ML, and Citi is still too uncertain to know for sure.

Frankly, I am suprised LevFin is still as active a market as it is right now. I thought subprime fears would phase many investors and holders of high yield and mezz tranches of many PE portfolio companies.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that? I haven't checked the ABX index recently, but does anyone know where it has ranged since August?

 
12/3/07

I work at one of the banks mentioned and there have been no analyst layoffs yet, but talk is strong that there will be. Nobody really knows what will happen with analysts - there are reliable rumors that X percent of certain divisions will be cut, but it's unclear how the breakdown between analysts/associates/vps/etc will be. Also, while it makes sense that analysts might be less likely to be cut since they are the cheapest...it also makes sense that analysts are least "crucial" to the group since they have the least knowledge, experience, etc. This may not be tru in traditional IBD where they need masses of people to do grunt work, but I work in capital markets where the group layouts are a bit more flat.

 
12/4/07

I-banker2007,

You are not correct. UBS is not going to have a large class (briefly dated HR chick, kind of cute). They have had cutbacks in offices within the coverage groups in IB. Yes GS and MS have faired well. JP somehow made it out looking great. Very clear that Bear Stearns is in a world of hurt. And the normal whipping boy BofA has and is fairing a lot better then you lead on. Yes they fired people... as did everyone else...but notice they are the only ones getting any deals done in the tough market. Scary to say, companies need bofa. Citi is so big, so global, that I do not think one US credit crunch is going to topple us.

 
12/4/07

PublicEquity1,

Only cute ones are DB and JW (since left). Even without extending FT offers to those outside the SA class, it will be a record year due to the high retention rate. As I know they are still conducting campus recruiting next year WILL be a record size class. In IBD no group has cut back its banking staff, except possibly sponsors/levfin.
I did not mean to insinuate that BoA is in any real trouble, however, they are scaling back their IB presence by choice. While J.P has done well with the model of being a "one stop shop" for financing, they have done so because they are backed by a strong IBD core (although much of their banking is concentrated in FIG). Citi and BoA have stumbled with this model since overall their banking divisions are not as strong (especially BoA). Any severe softening in the levfin market will lead to a major decrease in the IB advisory work. What people don't seem to understand is that these three banks were gaining advisory work by commiting to fund these deals (think BCE, TXU, Freescale) not because they had brighters banker. The majority of these bridge loans are still on their books, and at some level will constrain their lending abilities. I am actually suprised that CLOs created by these leveraged loans have not come under the same scrutiny as CMOs backed by mortgages. Anyone have any ideas about this? I was even more suprised to hear that Buffet bought $2 B of TXU bonds, but I guess they were discounted and safer since its a utility.

As I mentioned above I think that subprime will be a major writedown issue well into Q1 2008, so many of the banks so far "unscathed" may still have problems. I am personally concerned about who the counterparties (and their financial strength) of GS, MS, and LB's hedges. Someone has to be suffering. However more importantly, I think leveraged loans will suffer from the next subprime-like investor phobia. I haven't checked the ABX index recently, but does anyone know where it has ranged since August?

 
12/4/07

I heard that a BB randomly laid off some of their 1st yr bankers in their restructuring process. Can you imagine what a career bummer that is? where are they gonna go now that the market is so bad?

 
12/4/07

"I heard that a BB randomly laid off some of their 1st yr bankers in their restructuring process. Can you imagine what a career bummer that is? where are they gonna go now that the market is so bad?"

Do you honestly believe any bank would "randomly" let people go?

 
12/11/07
nystateofmind wrote:

"Do you honestly believe any bank would "randomly" let people go?

You are obviously not in the wall street state of mind nystateofmind.

Citi is laying about 45,000 employees, UBS 1500, BOA 3000... what do you think their strategies are in laying people? Performance for the more seasoned. What about the first year analyst that haven't given the chance to perform? If not randomly, then what? Work ethics? HA!

 
12/4/07

I agree with nystateofmind...and restructuring at a time like this? Its like closing a vulture fund.

 
12/5/07

Which firm is laying off 1st years?

Someone mentioned "Very clear that Bear Stearns is in a world of hurt." Any elaboration on that? (I know subprime mess, but have they been laying off bankers?)

 
12/5/07

PoshMonkey,

It doesn't make sense that

A) A BB would "randomly" let 1st years go
B) If they were to let some go that they would be from restructuring.

Which bank?

 
12/5/07

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe PoshMonkey means to say 1st years were laid off as a part of an internal restructuring process.

 
12/5/07

Oh lol yeah I see now. I glanced over that and missed "process."

My apologies, PoshMonkey.

 
12/11/07

Comparison on bank layoffs - a bit outdated. But, read the comments towards the end of the page.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/the-l...

 
12/11/07

We're going to see a sizable number of workforce reductions at all levels, starting in January. I know, because I've helped parse through the lists. Yes, analysts will be included. While you get more bang by axing more senior bankers, who can cost the same as a dozen or more analysts each, make no mistake that the market conditions are deteriorating rapidly.

Some banks will cut more deeply than others. Some will be reluctant to act too quickly. However, even the most optimistic firms (I believe) would agree that at this point our headcounts exceed the market opportunity. Hence, we will begin re-sizing our rosters to more closely approximate the new revenue outlook. Anything more optimistic than that is wishful thinking.

 
12/11/07

This is scary as hell...Genghis what is the rationale for cutting specific analysts?

Just based solely on potential and/or additionally group?

 
12/12/07
Devils Advocate wrote:

This is scary as hell...Genghis what is the rationale for cutting specific analysts?

Just based solely on potential and/or additionally group?

Every firm will approach the issue differently depending on their specific issues.

Often, the cuts will be done by group (this is to take the discretion out of the hands of the group head, since nobody wants to take more heads out of his own group than he needs to). Thus, the executive leadership tells the group head they've decided that he needs to take x number of MDs out (and they will suggest names for MD shootings), then the number of people at each level south of that. It is then up to him and his close colleagues to determine who the unlucky individuals are.

This selection is done by a number of ways. Everyone but the newest additions will have had some sort of review history, and so the underperformers from the latest review periods are at the most risk. However, nobody wants to start killing off people lightly, so often what I've seen happen is that the staffer will be given the task of polling the group. Who are the top three people of this level who have worked for you? Who are the bottom three?

Names that appear in the top three repeatedly quickly get exempted. Repeats in the other group put your neck on a collision course with the sharp end of the blade.

Look, I don't think the carnage at the analyst level will be severe, at least at this point. For reasons I've walked through in the past, it's not a big bang for the buck item. But the analyst pool isn't going to come out of this one unscathed. Analysts may be relatively cheap by banking standards, but they make real money and you stack up a number of them and it starts adding to net income a lot faster than cutting black cars, taking away free coffee machines or reducing dinner allowances (and trust me, we'll see some of that too).

 
  • b
  •  12/12/07

January...? Right in the midst of SA recruiting? Will the layoffs and wariness affect summer hiring?

 
12/12/07

I am in the midst of studying for finals and I gotta say - that scared the shit out of me. I'm also curious how summer hiring will be affected, as well as FT for next year.

 
12/12/07

so are ft people starting this june in danger?

 
12/12/07

Genghis,
Not sure how long you've been in banking, but if you were around back in '01/'02, can you compare today's mood with back then?

 
12/12/07
ex-banker wrote:

Genghis,
Not sure how long you've been in banking, but if you were around back in '01/'02, can you compare today's mood with back then?

I did indeed live through those days, and it was an incredibly painful and traumatic time. You have to understand, I went through seven (!) rounds of cuts. The worst two took out about a third of our remaining headcounts each. At that point, you're well past cutting fat, or even muscle. At that point, the knife is going to the bone, and it hurts. Even those of us who made it would be wandering around the halls like zombies. You're like shell-shocked survivors after a neutron bomb strike - the building is still there but the people are all gone.

It was awful for the people who found themselves jobless, in an economy where their chances of continuing in their chosen profession were effectively zero. What you perhaps don't realize was that it was equally bad for those of us who made it. Morale was in the tank. You didn't know when the next round was coming, and so many people (both good and bad) had been axed that you really began to understand that you might well be next. Fairness and merit play a key role, but at the end of the day it's never a perfect process.

What's my point in regaling you with stories of the dark days of 01/02/03? Well, it's to say that it's not that bad... yet. It feels to me like mid-2001. We'd had some minor performance cuts early in the year, and mid-summer we had our first real workforce reduction, a 10% job that opened eyes but didn't really put the fear of God into us. It wasn't until after 9-11 that we took the first body blow. A 25-30% cut came to a lot of firms in November/December, and that was an eye opener. A real "holy shit" deal. I don't feel like we're there yet.

We may well get there by April. I hope not. We're sort of on the edge of the knife, at this point, and it could go either way. I'm hoping that it's more short lived, like '98. Six months later and we were back off to the races. But that was a more specific, contained set of events, between Russia, LTCM and some devaluations. The issues we've got today are more systemic, and I'm afraid that they'll take a lot longer to work through. We'll see.

 
12/12/07

Oh shit, I'm on an H1B...if I lose my job I'm going to get deported to Canada...Fuck!!!!! I don't wanna go back to Canada...

 
12/12/07

Why the hell do they call it "layoff"? It's a firing. Call it a firing and deal with it.

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-

 
12/12/07

Firing generally refers to an individual being let go "for cause" - meaning that termination was for something specifically done by an individual.

Broader groups being let go is more a reflection of company or industry-wide impacts, so the lighter term of layoff is used.

 
12/12/07

And whats wrong with Canada mrcanuck?

 
12/12/07

I like Canada as a country, but the job opps in finance in Toronto suck compared to New York. That's the problem with being international...if I lose my job its game over and back to Canada. ..I guess I'll go back to my old HS job of managing my local ice hockey rink...yay

 
12/12/07

Genghis Khan, for your colleagues who were laid off, what did they end up doing next? What are their options?

 
12/12/07
Banana_milkshake wrote:

Genghis Khan, for your colleagues who were laid off, what did they end up doing next? What are their options?

It depends. For those who took a bullet very early (up to mid-'01) or very late (mid '03), many found new jobs with other firms who were more aggressive about the opportunity. Those caught in the middle, for the most part, exited the business and either never came back, or at best found their way to very small boutiques.

The problem with sitting on the sidelines is that your contacts atrophy and your information flow becomes stale. You are out of the stream of conversations, and you get out of date fast. Meanwhile, new classes of bankers are moving up the ladder. By the time the market turns, it's hard to find your way back to the business.

 
12/12/07

Thanks - now your post really motivates me to keep in touch with my b-school friends working at other banks.

 
12/12/07

new 1st years are relatively safer, since we have not really had a formal review yet?

 
  • b
  •  12/12/07

Genghis, how do you think summer hiring will procede? Will there be reservations there as well?

 
12/13/07

Genghis, Thanks for your comparison with recent history. Very insightful.

 
12/13/07

You needn't layoff analysts to cut down the headcount substantially. You can not give out third year offers, not extend associate offers to third years, and decrease hiring. Just as people have been talking about how less SA got full-time offers, this can easily flow down the line.

Also, analysts have a limited program scope so it becomes much more attractive to cut associates. Associates cost a lot more and provide a lot less value at the lower levels (1st year associate straight out of b-school vs an analyst with 1 year under their belt). Associates out of business school also have MBAs, so people feel less bad about cutting them, they can go get another job (thats why they got the degree in the first place).

For middle performers on the cusp of getting laid off (not the bottom of the pack but not the top), its very easy to not promote and lighten the bonus load. This way you can get people to look for other pastures without laying them off (always looks better).

Just some thoughts

--There are stupid questions, so think first.

 
 
12/13/07

They're mostly exempt because they're aren't worth firing (even if performance dictates otherwise, usually). Terrible for recruiting, analysts are cheap, and they aren't expected to stay very long anyway.

 
12/13/07

I hope it wont be a big effect as I start in the summer

XX

 
12/13/07

Not as bad as what happened back in 2008/2009, but yes, there are first year analysts and associates getting canned already in a number of banks.

 
12/13/07

First years are not exempt. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying to your face.

 
12/13/07

They're not exempt, but they are still one of the least likely to get fired. They cost less than any other person in the office and do the most excel/ppt work. They could cut one associate and it would be the same as dropping almost 2 analysts.

 
12/13/07

Summary: Not impossible, but at the same time, incredibly unlikely unless you are God awful. The end.

 
12/13/07

Definitely possible, however if you are on your toes you should be fine.

 
12/13/07

Back in the 01/02 layoffs a lot of 1st and 2nd year analysts got cut.

 
12/13/07

from what i've seen, not often.
i have a handful of 2nd year analysts that were given the pink slip recently however.

 
12/13/07

I am very professional so my opinions my be a little callous (and perceived to be Romney-esque) but there are a good 10-25% of analyst and associates who deserve to be laid off. After the recruiting filters, every single person may come off as capable, passionate and determined individuals on day one of training but it becomes quickly evident after a few months who can hang and who can't.

Typically in good markets, these people end up sticking around since it is terrible PR for any bank to lay off new hires simply for being good-but-not-good-enough / slightly-ineffective workers. What a bad market does is that it really slashes through the BS and gives banks an excuse to lay off their bottom 10-20% performers.

So, yes - new hires are not going to be protected in a bad market. The best way to safeguard against a layoff is to work hard, be passionate and be well-liked. Be a top performer.

 
12/13/07
Vancouver Canucks 2011 wrote:

I am very professional so my opinions my be a little callous (and perceived to be Romney-esque) but there are a good 10-25% of analyst and associates who deserve to be laid off. After the recruiting filters, every single person may come off as capable, passionate and determined individuals on day one of training but it becomes quickly evident after a few months who can hang and who can't.

Typically in good markets, these people end up sticking around since it is terrible PR for any bank to lay off new hires simply for being good-but-not-good-enough / slightly-ineffective workers. What a bad market does is that it really slashes through the BS and gives banks an excuse to lay off their bottom 10-20% performers.

So, yes - new hires are not going to be protected in a bad market. The best way to safeguard against a layoff is to work hard, be passionate and be well-liked. Be a top performer.

I agree that there are a lot of people that are good enough, but not great after they get the job. There are probably more of those than analysts who are actually good at what they do, which doesn't really take much. However, in a down economy you typically have even more pitching going on than usual, even if it doesn't produce any live deals. This means you still need the half-ass analysts who can at least throw books together that require minimal effort. I don't think you can typically fire based on a lack of work unless you severely over-hired during an upswing in business.

 
 
12/13/07

yea what happened to all the "shits gonna hit the fan tomorrow"? All that anxiety yesterday gave me so much gas!!!

 
 
12/13/07
ibhopeful532 wrote:

ai....

no...its the coach from the coors commercials. jim mora

"Look, you're my best friend, so don't take this the wrong way. In twenty years, if you're still livin' here, comin' over to my house to watch the Patriots games, still workin' construction, I'll fuckin' kill you. That's not a threat, that's a fact.

 
  • Commuter
  •  12/13/07

this explains why emails haven't been responded too

Learn More

7,548 questions across 469 investment banks. The WSO Investment Banking Interview Prep Course has everything you'll ever need to start your career on Wall Street. Technical, Behavioral and Networking Courses + 2 Bonus Modules. Learn more.

 
 
12/13/07

Anyone? Bueller?

actually, this looks like a job/response for genghis Khan!

 
12/13/07

Are you looking for buyside jobs at this point?

 
12/13/07

let's just say i'm keeping the opportunities open. My friends were pretty much blind sighted by their layoffs and i don't want the same to happen to me. Eek.

 
12/13/07

I guess I don't understand that answer. Are you currently interviewing or not? Because most of the bigger shops are done at this point.

 
12/13/07

I am. However, I'm not really looking to join a big shop. A few MD's have my resume from the big places like Carlyle and Blackstone (they are pretty strong contacts built through alot of alum networking) and have stated that they could pull some strings if I really wanted to interview. I don't think I'm ready for that environment though. I still have a lot to learn.

 
12/13/07

From a job security standpoint, it's probably a good idea. A director in banking once tried to convince me to make a career out of it, his main arguments to me were "money" and "job security." I wonder if he still stands by his words.

 
12/13/07

I guess we will just have to see what happens. In any respect, i'll just continue chuggling along but keep my eyes peeled.

 
12/13/07

Look at hedge funds as well, they have relatively more open positions than PE places- at least that is what I have gathered.

 
12/13/07

Can anyone comment on what they think the fate of the incoming Analyst class is (ie: Those graduating from school these days and about to start work). I can't say I'm not worried.

 
12/13/07

But I think there are 2 distinct concerns:

1) Existing analysts/incoming hires getting laid off.

2) Existing/new hires not getting good experience due to the poor market and lack of M&A/deal activity in general.

Although it's easy to mostly focus on #1, I think #2 is an equally valid concern. There's no point in doing this job if your office has 0 live deals (that's an exaggeration but you would rather have more activity rather than less).

Will some incoming Analysts be laid off? Yes, probably. It's not going to be a huge %, but some could very well lose their jobs.

To guard against this, I would try to constantly be networking and making connections at other firms, whether banks, PEs or HFs... you never know what it will lead to.

But the reality is nothing is a sure bet in the real world, and finance jobs in general are much "higher beta" than those in other industries.

 
12/13/07

How would banks decide which incoming analysts to lay off? Obviously they can't decide based on previous work. Does it become a last in, first out sort of thing? Or is there some other criteria banks look at? How important do connections become?

 
12/13/07

I would think it probably depends on the group you're in... so anything related to Leveraged Finance, Mortgages, etc. is probably in more danger than an industry group like Healthcare which is more "recession-resistant."

Take that with a grain of salt, though: I really don't know since I was not around back in 2001.

Maybe someone who was around during those days has a better idea?

 
 
12/13/07

it can happen
but all depends
unless ms really wana fuck up the recruiting and it needs to fire mo ppl fast, i dont see them rescind cheap offers

 
12/13/07

The chances of a middle office role being rescinded is next to nil unless the platform, group or sector is being restructured in a major way. This is similar to analyst firings in investment banking, rare, really only saw it in 08/09 time frame because of the mass downturn

In terms of helping your friend, the same principal applies. Can he do anything about it? No not really.

So the best way to phrase it is something along the lines of. "Worrying about something that might happen is not going to increase your performance or improve your options if that does happen" .

So just give him he jist, chances are small, even if it does happen, get back to applying and working hard. Not much else that can be done.

Worrying (caring is different) is a terrible infection that gives no positive results.

 
12/13/07
WallStreetPlayboys wrote:

The chances of a middle office role being rescinded is next to nil unless the platform, group or sector is being restructured in a major way. This is similar to analyst firings in investment banking, rare, really only saw it in 08/09 time frame because of the mass downturn

In terms of helping your friend, the same principal applies. Can he do anything about it? No not really.

So the best way to phrase it is something along the lines of. "Worrying about something that might happen is not going to increase your performance or improve your options if that does happen" .

So just give him he jist, chances are small, even if it does happen, get back to applying and working hard. Not much else that can be done.

Worrying (caring is different) is a terrible infection that gives no positive results.

Though I agree that the chances of this offer being rescinded are almost invisibly slim, it is certainly not true that the last analyst layoffs were in '08 and '09.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."

 
12/13/07
MomentaLaugh wrote:

he 29?

Yea, he got a really late start. He pretty much didn't care about grades in high school and bummed around community college for a bit while working retail. I think it is one of the reasons why he is so worried; he worked really hard to get into university and get the MS internship.

 
12/13/07

Sure analysts do get laid off every year, the amount is low unless you're not very good or your group gets shut down, major peoe quit or something else large occurs.

The real point to make here is this... what is gained by worrying about it? Nothing. This is usually a mindset of someone in their low 20's versus 29.

Since it's his friend would just tell him to relax, and tell him the truth, chances are extremely low and more importantly the only thing he can do to help himself at this point is perform well on the job.

 
12/13/07
WallStreetPlayboys wrote:

Sure analysts do get laid off every year, the amount is low unless you're not very good or your group gets shut down, major peoe quit or something else large occurs.

The real point to make here is this... what is gained by worrying about it? Nothing. This is usually a mindset of someone in their low 20's versus 29.

Since it's his friend would just tell him to relax, and tell him the truth, chances are extremely low and more importantly the only thing he can do to help himself at this point is perform well on the job.

Agreed re: there is no reason to spend time worrying about getting laid off as a 20 year-old.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."

 
 
12/13/07

Yes but far far far worse

 
 
12/13/07

No surprise there. 20,000 of the 40,000 job cuts in finance this year alone are from citigroup. I'll bet that job losses will continue in ibanking, especially after BofA reported a 90% decline in its investment banking

 
12/13/07

Some parts of that table are worthless. At UBS's "Investment Bank," you have forex, prime brokerage, equity research, blah blah blah. Which jobs are getting cut? NO IDEA, because they won't tell us.

Even Morgan Stanley's "Investment Banking" unit includes Real Estate, which includes proprietary RE investing. Again, who knows where the actual job cuts are?

 
 
12/13/07

From what I understand, many consulting firms that specialize in restructuring (FTI, A&M, Huron, etc.) have been hiring record number of graduates for their groups due to the high demand for their service.

 
12/13/07

I don't think that is what OP was referring to.

Haven't seen many layoffs so far, consulting firms are usually a little cagier about planned layoffs than banks. Come back in 6 months and it may be a different story.

 
12/13/07

How much is the recession going to affect consulting firms' business and consultants' hours?

 
12/13/07

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for firms to layoff ACs as they are relatively cheap labor and usually went through a rigorous hiring process to get strong people. A buddy of mine is an AC at B/M/BCG and just got re-staffed after 2 months on the beach so even if they are not busy, they may be keeping them on.

 
12/13/07

I'd expect Bain to be hurt the most out of MBB because they focus more on FIG/PE work...though this is just based on what I read on WSO

 
 
12/13/07

jimbo, does layoffs of upper level people mean much less hiring of junior level people?

 
12/13/07

well one layoffs are across the board, and two yes that's a good assumption.

 
12/13/07

Scary things going on today. Just decided to hide under my desk.

 
12/13/07

or it could mean more capital to disperse among analysts LOL

 
12/13/07
bmwhype wrote:

or it could mean more capital to disperse among analysts LOL

Wouldn't that just be a beautiful thing!

 
12/13/07
bmwhype wrote:

or it could mean more capital to disperse among analysts LOL

you guys are gonna get fugged in july. count on it.

 
12/13/07

"what's that? uh...layoffs? don't talk about layoffs, you kidding me? layoffs?! i just hope we can get our bonuses!"

-jim mora

 
12/13/07

fully expecting a non-existent bonus in july. as everyone else in my group was told this week, "your job is your bonus this year"

 
12/13/07

What do you mean by "I always encourage people to reneg"? Do you mean renegotiate salary terms before starting, while working, or something entirely different?

 
12/13/07

he means if u accept an offer and then u get a better offer, u "reneg" on the first offer.

 
 
12/13/07

Boutiques have been grabbing market share for awhile now. I think as of the end of 3Q the boutique share of M&A was around 17% - an historical high.

Also consider that the vast majority of these layoffs are in trading and other capital intensive businesses. While the sluggish economy has put a large dent in advisory revenues, it's more of a cyclical change than the structural one facing the trading businesses.

I think all things considered the smaller guys are doing better headcount-wise.

 
12/13/07

It's been going on since the dawn of ages.

1. Announce layoffs before Christmas
2. Fire people before bonuses
3. PROFIT!!!!

 
 
12/13/07

Wouldn't surprise me to see Barclays really scale back it's global IBD business.

 
12/13/07

And I thought that the IBD business was diamond...

ha ha ha ha :-/

1percentblog.com

 
12/13/07

So for Barclays they'd scale back the whole investment bank or what? They seem to have a very profitable operation so that would be mainly for reputational risk.

The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.

 
12/13/07

So this explains why my UBS contact in the LA office hasn't replied to my most recent email...

 
 
12/13/07

The worst has passed, but I definitely wouldn't assume layoffs are over.

 
12/13/07

UBS also announced yet another quarterly loss, so I'd say more are still coming

 
12/13/07

GS says unemployment will reach 10.5%, roubini says the world is going to end, i think the worst is likely over but I know from our own portfolio companies that we have a lot of expense contingencies built in should sales continue to deteriorate and I would assume that most companies do as well

 
12/13/07

Barcap have layed off some of their equity people in US and London this, and last, week according a friend who is interning there.

Just my 2c.

Just my 2c.

 
12/13/07

From what I heard:

Many investment banking divisions of a lot of these banks are currently overstaffed, as they are getting ready to pick up deals once the recovery is under way. M&A is still dead (many talks, no closed deals). Basically it is the financing division (bond and equity) that is making the fees at this point since many companies are taking this stock market run-up as an opportunity to issue more debt and equity to refinance their old debt or delever. The current financing deal pace is enough to keep the bankers employed, but if the stock market crashes again and the deal pace stops, it will be the rebeginning of the layoff cycle.

So let us pray for the recovery.

 
12/13/07

Layoffs are over for now. Banks typically don't cut when interns are there. Layoffs occur in good and bad times and if you suck (and don't have great connections), you're out. that's the way its always been. But the bar is certainly set higher now.

 
12/13/07

layoffs sometimes happen about 30 days prior before bonuses are paid out.

and with some firms - every quarter. i've heard layoffs have slowed but are still occuring.

I'm making it up as I go along.

I'm making it up as I go along.

 
 
12/13/07

Frank Dodd + liquidity n'est pas?

 
12/13/07

Because bankers and financiers are essential to society by optimizing capital allocation, which is an incredibly important function. Good capital allocation makes a society more prosperous, which allows for more goods and services for all individuals. Wait what?

 
12/13/07
shera wrote:

Because bankers and financiers are essential to society by optimizing capital allocation, which is an incredibly important function. Good capital allocation makes a society more prosperous, which allows for more goods and services for all individuals. Wait what?

You're a dumbass, I wish I knew you in person so I could beat you up, you ignorant terrorist piece of shit

 
12/13/07
alexpasch wrote:
shera wrote:

Because bankers and financiers are essential to society by optimizing capital allocation, which is an incredibly important function. Good capital allocation makes a society more prosperous, which allows for more goods and services for all individuals. Wait what?

You're a dumbass, I wish I knew you in person so I could beat you up, you ignorant terrorist piece of shit

Wow, less cocaine, more green tea for you.

"After you work on Wall Street it's a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side." - David Tepper

 
12/13/07
alexpasch wrote:
shera wrote:

Because bankers and financiers are essential to society by optimizing capital allocation, which is an incredibly important function. Good capital allocation makes a society more prosperous, which allows for more goods and services for all individuals. Wait what?

You're a dumbass, I wish I knew you in person so I could beat you up, you ignorant terrorist piece of shit

woah, easy on the hatorade dude

-MBP

 
12/13/07

Well HSBC stated their net layoffs will be nowhere near 30k - they are firing expensive workers and bringing in lower cost employees.

Traders, especially executors, are a dime a dozen and I think most firms are starting to realize they can thin the herd without losing too much. Same with equity sales and IBD (easily plug-and-playable in certain areas - equity sales for example - and tend to be highly paid).

 
12/13/07

i think that was sarcastic and supposed to be funny...?

 
 
12/13/07

Deal flow has DEFINITELY gone down significantly. These smaller shops (less balance sheet exposure = less write downs = less of a need to drastically cut costs) are more flexible and apt to supplant M&A and leveraged finance bankers to restructuring transactions and do not have a need to drastically slash headcount in an effort to decrease the bleeding.

Also... when/if a private boutique cuts jobs it doesn't make the cover of every major news paper. In fact, they are not even obligated to let anyone know other than the employees they're axing. Most public firms issue a press release announcing layoffs to signal to the market they are cutting costs and adapting to the environment. A private shop has no incentive to take this route. In fact, they should (IMO) want to keep tight lipped in order to signal to clients that while the sky may be falling, things have never been better at [Insert Boutique Bank Here].

 
12/13/07

As marcus pointed out, when these banks cut people they don't have an obligation to let the public know. Moreover, just because they aren't cutting people doesn't mean they're hiring.

 
12/13/07

JPMorgan, BofA, Citi, UBS, Credit Suisse..

Oh my bad, you said banks with NO layoffs.

The world has changed. And we must change with it.

I'm making it up as I go along.

 
12/13/07

Well to clarify a good number of his listed banks (EVR, GHL,LAZ) are publicly traded and therefore have the same incentives to disclose job cuts.

 
12/13/07

I don't think SocGen has done any layoffs yet...

 
12/13/07

I don't believe that there is a bank that has not gone through ANY layoffs. I mean, a good CEO knows to take out the bottom feeders even in a good year, but what matters is if the layoffs were due to the financial crisis or not.

--
Support WSO.com and visit these links!
Financial Modeling Training
Guide to Finance Interviews

 
 
12/13/07

Wow, what a bitch. I mean the gay dude of course.

 
12/13/07

Back in high school my friend's dad had this story (he worked at a large financial services firm):

In the early 2000s, the IT staff implemented a program to take a screenshot of every computer in a certain division every 10 seconds. One of the managers didn't realize this was going on, and he had a habit of closing his office door and looking at porn on his computer. It wasn't just a few isolated incidents-- this guy was consistently looking at porn for 3-4 hours per day for several months. Needless to say, people caught on to what he was doing when some interesting screen shots started to pop up in the database, and he was eventually confronted and fired.

Imagine explaining that one to your wife, kids, and prospective employers...

 
12/13/07
wanderer wrote:

Back in high school my friend's dad had this story (he worked at a large financial services firm):

In the early 2000s, the IT staff implemented a program to take a screenshot of every computer in a certain division every 10 seconds. One of the managers didn't realize this was going on, and he had a habit of closing his office door and looking at porn on his computer. It wasn't just a few isolated incidents-- this guy was consistently looking at porn for 3-4 hours per day for several months. Needless to say, people caught on to what he was doing when some interesting screen shots started to pop up in the database, and he was eventually confronted and fired.

Imagine explaining that one to your wife, kids, and prospective employers...

Two responses to this story:

What a bitch of an IT dept to spy on employees by taking a screeenshot every 10 seconds. I realize it's company equipment, but what a shitty thing to do.

I think that guy has a porn addiction, unless the office didn't have windows.

 
12/13/07

Kinda lame but gets the point across about some people in the industry...

A research associate puts a presentation together for his analyst who is presenting at a conference. The associate accidentally mixed up the financials in the back of the packet, and attached the wrong income statement for one of the company's. He alerts his boss beforehand, who right after taking the stage, calmly states over his mic, "if you turn to page ##, that is the wrong income statement - I apologize for this mistake." The associate is standing in the back of the conference hall during the presentation.

When the conference is over, the analyst calls out his associate in front of a small crowd in the lobby, pointing and shouting, "GET IN THAT STAIRWELL RIGHT NOW - I'M GOING TO RIP YOUR FUCKING THROAT OUT!"

You can hear the analyst screaming at his associate for the mistake.

5 minutes later the associate comes out of the stairwell crying and resigns.

 
 
12/13/07

Because media doesnt tell you news, it tells you stuff that generates revenue/interest. GS/JPM etc grab attention. See what Taleb has to say about the media.

T

 
12/13/07

^ winner

The other thing is that a lot of smaller places run pretty lean, so there's not a whole lot of fat to trim.

Get busy living

 
12/13/07

Layoffs don't happen at smaller shops because they don't staff like fucking retards.

 
12/13/07
Edmundo Braverman wrote:

Layoffs don't happen at smaller shops because they don't staff like fucking retards.

^ this... BBs tend to flex their operations much more than a MM or boutique firm

'Before you enter... be willing to pay the price'

 
12/13/07

2 reasons:

  1. Lesser known funds don't make for good headlines even if they are laying off.
  2. Investment banks seem to have this inability to judge appropriate staffings. Overhire in a boom and fire everyone in a downturn.
 
12/13/07

I may be off base here but I think public/private ownership might have something to do with this as well. I get the sense that private ownership of companies leads to a longer term perspective on capital (including human) investment. When you have to answer to shareholders every quarter actions tend to be more shortsighted and severe (in either direction).

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

 
12/13/07

There was an article about GS being one of the 'nicer' firms with regards to retrenchment. Apparently GS gave those employees who were about to be laid off ample time to find another job, and allowed them to use the GS name to help leverage into an offer elsewhere.

 
12/13/07
Gekko_KKR wrote:

There was an article about GS being one of the 'nicer' firms with regards to retrenchment. Apparently GS gave those employees who were about to be laid off ample time to find another job, and allowed them to use the GS name to help leverage into an offer elsewhere.

this situation mostly applies to VPs+. They rarely give the same considerations to the junior folks. That being said, it's not a firmwide policy and sometimes is group dependent.

Most banks are moving to a model similar to Goldman's in that they will cut the bottom 10% of performers every year. Much more prevalent now in this economic environment.

 
12/13/07
HerSerendipity wrote:

Most banks are moving to a model similar to Goldman's in that they will cut the bottom 10% of performers every year. Much more prevalent now in this economic environment.

So eventually they'll have no one left....unless they replace the fired people. How do they plan of replacing 10% of their workforce with quality hires every single year?

 
12/13/07

Clearly Ron Paul has no idea how much people move around the street...

 
12/13/07

Also, it's a percentages game. If a 1,000 person firm lays off 1%, that's only 10 people, which isn't really news worthy. When BofA lays off 1% it is 3,000 people.

 
12/13/07

it has nothing to do with what generates media attention...

its that private co's are not obligated to disclose that sort of information to the public so they obviously dont...

 
12/13/07

I'd also add that layoffs at the BB's are usually much larger, in terms of the actual headcount reduction # - making it more likely to grab headlines vs. some of the smaller boutiques.

In addition, the larger banks are usually public. When they report weak earnings, their stock drops. When their stock drops, shareholders begin to ask questions. When shareholders begin to ask questions, banks start reducing their employee base to align their cost base to boost earnings. Cycle then repeats in reverse.

 
 
12/13/07

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon occurrence.

 
12/13/07
 
12/13/07

This whole industry is a smash and grab, it's why so many people bounce out after a while. Personally, I don't plan on a career here, there's just too many things beyond your power that can go wrong as it is without the industry taking a beating lately. You can be fired because of incompetence, laziness, budget cuts, or well shit they may fire you just because fuck you.

cfaboston28 wrote:

Welcome to Wall Street

Get busy living

 
12/13/07

The flip side is if security wasn't there, there would be that one out of thousands who absolutely loses his shit. When that happens people will say "security should have been there."

I agree with you though.

 
12/13/07

see: Margin Call

I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

 
12/13/07
Neighbor wrote:

see: Margin Call

was going to say the same thing. it sounds almost word for word what the OP was saying

"because I want, to fit, in"

 
12/13/07

Because some people will be so bitter as to sabotage their past work or that of others. Some may also send out inappropriate messages via the company's email system. So, while it appears inhumane, it actually helps keep the break pretty clean for everyone involved.

My group used to separate those who weren't being let go into a conference room so that they didn't witness the others gathering their personal possessions. Its tough though because when you run into those who were cut, there's usually some tears. Not a morale booster, thats for sure.

 
12/13/07
NYU wrote:

Because some people will be so bitter as to sabotage their past work or that of others. Some may also send out inappropriate messages via the company's email system. So, while it appears inhumane, it actually helps keep the break pretty clean for everyone involved.

My group used to separate those who weren't being let go into a conference room so that they didn't witness the others gathering their personal possessions. Its tough though because when you run into those who were cut, there's usually some tears. Not a morale booster, thats for sure.

I agree with that, and for that reason I wouldn't take it personally if I was the one being let go.

Baby you're the perfect shape, baby you're the perfect weight. Treat me like my birthday, I want it this way and I want it that way. It makes a man feel good baby.

 
12/13/07
Edmundo Braverman wrote:

Why You're So Easy to Replace

Awesome, glad you posted this.

 
12/13/07
Edmundo Braverman wrote:

Why You're So Easy to Replace

Absolutely fantastic read!

Thanks for posting this.

 
12/13/07

This is more a policy originating in the Legal Department rather than Human Resources. They don't consider you garbage, but the moment you are terminated you are considered a security risk. Because there is no way to tell how the terminated party will react (such as stealing/posting sensitive information), lawyers (and prudence) prescribed an excess of caution should be favored over what would be normally considered socially gracious behavior. Consider the equation from the employers' perspective. If something goes wrong, and the former employee does something to harm a client(s), the company is still liable and 'We didn't want to be rude' defense won't reduce their liability.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

 
12/13/07

And this is why you should never, ever keep anything personal at your desk. I literally could get fired and I would simply walk out the door. Work is work, don't make it home.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

 
12/13/07
TNA wrote:

And this is why you should never, ever keep anything personal at your desk. I literally could get fired and I would simply walk out the door. Work is work, don't make it home.

Bingo. Bring everything you would need in a messenger bag so all you need to do is pick up and walk out the door. Honestly, what do you actually NEED at work anyway.

 
12/13/07

We're all disposable and can be fired at any minute to save the company a few pennies, there is no loyalty.

 
12/13/07

Was this at RBC? I have heard the culture there is military-esque. I am sure all banks treat their terminated employees this way, but out of curiosity?

The difference between successful people and others is largely a habit - a controlled habit of doing every task better, faster and more efficiently.

 
12/13/07
mhurricane wrote:

Was this at RBC? I have heard the culture there is military-esque. I am sure all banks treat their terminated employees this way, but out of curiosity?

Have you ever heard of someone going postal at an investment bank? Me neither. The bank isn't taking any chances...

Get busy living

 
12/13/07
mhurricane wrote:

Was this at RBC? I have heard the culture there is military-esque.

How about DB?

 
12/13/07

There was a fairly high-powered banker in charge of the way this was done at a bulge-bracket firm I once worked for. The way she conducted layoffs was completely cold and disrespectful; worse than it even needed to be. She also treated her PA like absolute fecal matter.

Unfortunately, the bank continued to go through bad times and she ultimately ended up being pushed out completely.

From what I can tell of her web presence now, she dyed her hair blonde, got some decent-looking plastic surgery (or airbrushed the hell out of her shots), and now sells apartments in Manhattan.

Hope that slice of pie tasted real good, mmmm-hmm.

I might throw a little business her way someday, just to see if her manner has changed as much as her face.

 
12/13/07

Should do what Micheal Scott( fictional TV character) did, steal all the major clients offering them Very low fees. Before you actually have to provide the service your old Boss panicks worries about the board blaming him for loosing clients. Buys your compnay, you get your job back and your employer has to fullfill the loss making contracts.

 
12/13/07

Your employer doesn't owe you shit. Last time I checked they pay you, not the other way around. They want you out, you're gone. Lucky you even get to go back to your desk. Ever heard of proprietary information? Get a clue.

 
12/13/07

I was treated like this except instead of security, HR followed me ALL THE WAY down the elevator and made sure I left the building.

No contract means I have all the power. They want me, but they can't have me. - Don Draper

 
12/13/07

This isn't necessarily finance, but a trademark of individualistic cultures. If you look at collectivist societies, the treatment of laid off workers is much different.

CEO's of Asiam firms will bow to their laid off employees. This is a sign of great respect and admiration.

In the 90's or mid 2000's (fuzzy on dates and specifics since I read the article a few months ago) the CEO of Daewoo (Korean chaebol/conglomerate) had to lay off 5-10 thousand employees. The CEO sent letters to the CEO's and human resources departments of EVERY company they had a business connection with, asking them to hire its laid off workers. The CEO was apologizing for laying off the workers, and actively trying to find its former employees new jobs.

One difference between individualistic and collectivist societies.

My WSO Blog

"Unbelievably Believable" -- RG3

 
12/13/07
21 Lives wrote:

This isn't necessarily finance, but a trademark of individualistic cultures. If you look at collectivist societies, the treatment of laid off workers is much different.

CEO's of Asiam firms will bow to their laid off employees. This is a sign of great respect and admiration.

In the 90's or mid 2000's (fuzzy on dates and specifics since I read the article a few months ago) the CEO of Daewoo (Korean chaebol/conglomerate) had to lay off 5-10 thousand employees. The CEO sent letters to the CEO's and human resources departments of EVERY company they had a business connection with, asking them to hire its laid off workers. The CEO was apologizing for laying off the workers, and actively trying to find its former employees new jobs.

One difference between individualistic and collectivist societies.

That is fucking mind blowing.

 
12/13/07

And this is why you should realize none of these firms give a shit about you and do what is in your best interest.

 
12/13/07

'you're either IN or you're OUT' mentality at its best.

couldn't let go of my pair of aces...

 
12/13/07

This is still after all, The Wild West!

 
12/13/07

From my understanding, this is common practice across a variety of industries. The firing is usually quick and impersonal. The understanding is that the longer you drag it on, the worse it is (think about the last time you had to end a relationship). From what I heard, they instead focus on having you take the next step towards finding a new job so it's not like they just throw you out on your ass. Although, I can be totally wrong since I've never been fired yet and I'm sure it differs somewhat among companies.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." - IlliniProgrammer

 
12/13/07

At my wife's company (engineering firm) they escort you out without letting you go back to your desk to collect your things. They mail your things to you.

 
12/13/07

I was at a firm in 2010, there was 500 employees laid off at the end of the day with a 30 minute notice to leave.

 
12/13/07
cheesebeans wrote:

I was at a firm in 2010, there was 500 employees laid off at the end of the day with a 30 minute notice to leave.

This reminds me of a funny story.

I worked for a software company for awhile, and when they hired me I told my manager, "Look, odds are you're going to fire me someday. Don't ask me how I know, I just know. And I'm okay with that. But let me just tell you: as soon as you know I'm being fired, you better tell me right that minute. If you fire me at the end of the day after getting a whole day's work out of me I will absolutely lose my fucking mind."

Sure enough, the day came. He actually called me on my cell on my way into work to let me know I was being fired. I came in, grabbed my shit, and left ten minutes later before the CEO even made it in. My boss called me at home later that day and told me the CEO reamed him for firing me first thing in the morning, and that he'd explained to the CEO that he was afraid I'd tear the place apart if he'd waited until the end of the day.

 
12/13/07
Edmundo Braverman wrote:
cheesebeans wrote:

I was at a firm in 2010, there was 500 employees laid off at the end of the day with a 30 minute notice to leave.

This reminds me of a funny story.

I worked for a software company for awhile, and when they hired me I told my manager, "Look, odds are you're going to fire me someday. Don't ask me how I know, I just know. And I'm okay with that. But let me just tell you: as soon as you know I'm being fired, you better tell me right that minute. If you fire me at the end of the day after getting a whole day's work out of me I will absolutely lose my fucking mind."

Sure enough, the day came. He actually called me on my cell on my way into work to let me know I was being fired. I came in, grabbed my shit, and left ten minutes later before the CEO even made it in. My boss called me at home later that day and told me the CEO reamed him for firing me first thing in the morning, and that he'd explained to the CEO that he was afraid I'd tear the place apart if he'd waited until the end of the day.

Most impressive.

 
 
12/13/07

I don't understand what BOA is trying to do here...haven't Merrill's S&T and IB been very profitable? Are they just going to absorb certain groups? Ugh...Merrill...ouch

 
12/13/07
big unit wrote:

I don't understand what BOA is trying to do here...haven't Merrill's S&T and IB been very profitable? Are they just going to absorb certain groups? Ugh...Merrill...ouch

yeah, take this with a grain of salt -- my source is here at Wharton and has been talking with some mid to upper-level execs at these firms.

He wasn't sure what BoA was actually going to do with IBD and S&T. I had the same reaction -- well what the hell are they going to do with these divisions if they don't support them?

I don't see them shutting everything down but maybe scaling them back slowly...who knows, I think anything goes in this market.

 
12/13/07

This is disturbing to hear about Merrill's IBD. I would have thought BOA might replace their own bankers with a bunch of Merrill's bankers. I mean, last time I check Merrill's IBD > BOA's IBD. Sad times.

 
  • aloki
  •  12/13/07

You're worrying me Patrick. I didn't need to hear about this Merrill thing before finals.

 
12/13/07

I did my analyst gig at ML a while back. Great set of folks and it's sad to even contemplate they'd disband the IBD/S&T. A lot of good (and painful) memories there.

 
12/13/07

Why would BOA pay nearly 40 billion for just the Asset Management business? I thought BOA was particularly interested in the brokerage unit.

 
12/13/07

Makes no sense to me why BofA would not be interested in Merrill's S&T and IBD operations. The talent is there, and Merrill has an exceptional reputation in this field.

Sure, deal flow is down and prop risk taking will be reduced but the recession will eventually end.

Why in the hell would Lewis pay so much for Merrill only to discard 2 jewels? Then again, the man has a reputation of overpaying...

 
12/13/07

Good luck to everyone. One way or another, we'll all make it out of this.

We're about to enter a Great Depression.
Don't you want a president who's already dressed for it?

I'm making it up as I go along.

 
  • aloki
  •  12/13/07

The author says that the cuts should be coming before the end of the year. How then, are the majority going to be from Merrill? Are they going to make Merrill lay off a large portion of their workforce?

Edit: Yes, I realize that they can lay off countless Merrill bankers/traders after the merger, but it's not supposed to close for another few months. I guess we'll hear some sort of announcement within the next few weeks...

 
12/13/07

"Many of the cuts as much as 10,000 employees, mostly from Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. will come from the investment banking operations."

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/keyDevelopme...

Pages