Goldman Improving Work Hours for Analysts?

Anyone read this article in the WSJ (Goldman Seeks to Improve Working Conditions for Junior Staffers)?

Any thoughts about whether this is some bad PR-crap claiming that analists will work less hours but in reality will still work 100 hours a week or is this sincere? Also, is only Goldman looking to change working conditions or does this apply to more IB's? It seems kinda hard to image that analysts would now all of a sudden have a lot of free weekends.

Goldman Seeks to Improve Working Conditions for Junior Staffers
Program Seeks to Cut Weekend Work, Streamline Functions

Maybe you don't have to work seven days a week to succeed at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -0.39%

The New York banking company said it has spent the past year working to improve the work-life balance of most-junior employees, known on Wall Street as analysts, by reducing their hours and other measures.

The moves come as banks across the industry struggle to keep young workers who increasingly are favoring the better hours at hedge funds and private-equity firms and the lavish perks at technology startups over Wall Street's grinding analyst programs.

"Banks over the last couple of years, especially the [biggest], are frustrated that they cannot retain people," said Matan Feldman, founder and managing partner of Wall Street Prep Inc., a training program for investment bankers.

Goldman long has been viewed as a fast track to wealth and a wellspring of talent. Some of its top executives began their careers in its much-copied analyst program, which started in 1982. Since then, the programs have become synonymous with grueling work loads, late nights and depressingly frequent orders for takeout food.

But earlier this year, Goldman formed a task force made up of senior staff from different businesses within the firm to improve quality of life and promote career-development opportunities for junior employees. It has implemented the task force's suggestions.

This isn't the first time banks have faced a war for talent. In the dot-com boom in the early 2000s, college graduates increasingly turned to technology jobs over investment banking. Banks pumped up their salaries and made lifestyle concessions, such as free dinners and car service home, for analysts staying late.

But this time banks, which are under public and regulatory pressure to keep pay down, can't merely boost compensation to lure young people.

One of Goldman's goals is to find ways to help young employees finish their work during the regular five-day workweek and avoid all-nighters. Weekend work should be reserved for "critical client activity," the task force found.

For example, when a more-senior analyst commissions a client presentation, the task force has advised asking for a short outline rather than a full presentation that could run 100 pages or more.

Goldman also created new technology that makes it easier for senior bankers to let analysts know what kind of information they need. In an attempt to minimize email traffic, the technology lets senior bankers input specific requests through a portal that can be accessed by the analyst anywhere. This allows senior bankers to be more explicit in their requests, ensuring the junior analysts have a shot at getting the information right the first time, a Goldman spokesman said.

The task force came on the heels of Goldman's decision last year to do away with the two-year contracts for most analysts hired out of college. Instead, the firm said it would hire recent college graduates as full-time employees.

Goldman hired 332 analysts to begin work in 2014, up 14% from 2013, the spokesman said. He added that the firm is betting that hiring more analysts will spread the work among a wider group of people.

"The goal is for our analysts to want to be here for a career," said David Solomon, co-head of Goldman's investment-banking division. "We want them to be challenged, but also to operate at a pace where they're going to stay here and learn important skills that are going to stick."

Goldman Chairman and Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein told a group of departing summer interns during a question-and-answer session this month that they would do well to "lighten up," according to a video on its website. "People at the age of the people in this room could also relax a little bit, too," he said.

Scott Rostan, founder and CEO of industry-training firm Training the Street Inc., said that unlike in the 1990s, when Wall Street analysts rarely quit their posts, junior staffers today are far less likely to finish their full two-year terms. He said some banks are seeing between 60% and 80% of analysts bolt before their two years are up.

"Lifestyle is very important, especially for millennials now," said Mr. Rostan. "Behind the scenes, [banks] are all somewhat on different levels how we retain our talent. They're not sure how to do it because the common lever in the past was pay, but they can't do that."

Comments (144)

Oct 29, 2013

They are on a PR binge. They've been giving out huge charity donations (see Dealbook), and now they are improving analyst conditions except for "critical clients" (Who isn't critical at GS?). These are both very marketable developments.

Still, this might give analysts a free weekend once in awhile. Pretty neat.

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.

Oct 29, 2013

332 analysts? Is that IBD in NY?

Oct 29, 2013
orangebull:

332 analysts? Is that IBD in NY?

How big do you think the company is? They only hire like 50 each year for NYC IBD.

Oct 29, 2013
BTbanker:
orangebull:

332 analysts? Is that IBD in NY?

How big do you think the company is? They only hire like 50 each year for NYC IBD.

This is just blatantly incorrect

Oct 29, 2013
BTbanker:
orangebull:

332 analysts? Is that IBD in NY?

How big do you think the company is? They only hire like 50 each year for NYC IBD.

you must be fucking retarded

Oct 29, 2013

you're right, they hired 332 IBD analysts for 1 office last year.

Oct 29, 2013

Lmao

Oct 29, 2013

I'm confused about the notion of cutting or limiting weekend work. I suppose by shortening the size of decks in theory less time would be spent, but at the end of the day if client asks during Friday afternoon call for x,y, and z by Monday morning call, then weekend work is just inevitable. Weekend work is imposed on analysts by the clients (who know that they will put in 25 hrs over a weekend to get it finished) rather than internally by senior people who are disorganized/incompetent (though this can happen as well). Sure, there might be ways to cut some (read less than 10%) of weekend work through processes discussed above, but as long as the client mindset is that of "if I give them a demand and a deadline they will meet it," the lifestyle isn't going to change much. If you want to boost analyst lifestyle/more eliminate weekday face-time. Of course, a lot of this is perpetuated by the analysts themselves, so would be a difficult thing to remove. The best groups (in my mind) are groups where, if you finish your work by 8pm, you go home and nobody is bothered by it because they know that you'll undoubtedly be there sometime later in the week until 2am.

    • 1
Oct 29, 2013

IB at GS (or any other bank) is not becoming a M-F job. Not unless analysts start working near 20 hours a day, and even then they'd probably still have to do some work on weekends- as an above poster said, it's about the deadlines in large part.

Oct 29, 2013

I don't buy it for a minute.

GS has always been claiming that they are trying to make life better for the IBD analysts and cutting hours. OK, they weren't claiming this in 2008, but they've been claiming this since at least '09 and '10- since they've cut analyst pay. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Fool us three or four times, we're stupid college students.

I've never heard any of these cuts in schedules or hours materializing.

I think the GS IBD job is about as miserable as it's always been. I've talked with a lot of rank and file people who've worked there.

I think college students are relatively easy to mislead.

I think this stuff catches up with you eventually. But it's up to us; our communication process, and our decision-making process- to make sure it catches up with GS rather than us getting burnt.

I think that if I meet a GS summer intern who says GS has actually cut hours- that he and other analysts are working 80 hours/week, I will change my tune. Actually, if I find any BB bank where rank-and-file IBD employees who work there claim they never pull more than 70-80 hours/week for more than a couple weeks/year, I will become a big cheerleader for said bank's IBD department.

I don't think that's going to happen at GS when their SALES AND TRADING employees are largely working 80 hour weeks.

GS is a very smart bank. They are also a somewhat cynical bank (admittedly, like most banks). They know they have you sold on working there, because they generally do have slightly smarter people than just about every other firm (yes, there are many exceptions on a group by group basis) They have you sold on the fact that people who go to GS tend to earn more money over the course of a career (even though there is a GS discount for analysts). They don't have you sold on the fact that you won't wind up in some sort of horror story about pulling 100 hour weeks. So every year, they run this marketing campaign about how senior execs are trying to find ways to cut back analysts' 100 hour/week schedules. These claimed schedule reductions never materialize, and then you get screwed on bonus to boot, because you work for GS and take the GS discount.

Pro tip: ignore the GS marketing campaign and go work for JPM. (I have never worked for JPM. I don't have any sort of stake in JPM's success. I don't even own their stock. I do know that they are probably the fairest and least cynical of all of the top ~3-5 banks) Believe them when they tell you that you are working a 90 hour week, that there will be some misery as an analyst. At least it's not some 100 hour bait and switch. Suck it up, this is what you signed up for- if you don't like it, you can always get a master's degree and become a quant and earn 40% less for 40% less time. Once you've made VP or MD and have become cynical, THEN leave for GS and promise undergrads (suckers) 75 hour weeks and $160K first year comp.

Every year, GS rolls out the same (predictable) "life is getting easier for analysts" marketing campaign. Every year over the past couple, it's never materialized.

    • 2
Oct 29, 2013
IlliniProgrammer:

I don't buy it for a minute.

GS has always been claiming that they are trying to make life better for the IBD analysts and cutting hours. OK, they weren't claiming this in 2008, but they've been claiming this since at least '09 and '10- since they've cut analyst pay. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Fool us three or four times, we're stupid college students.

I've never heard any of these cuts in schedules or hours materializing.

I think the GS IBD job is about as miserable as it's always been. I've talked with a lot of rank and file people who've worked there.

I think college students are relatively easy to mislead.

I think this stuff catches up with you eventually. But it's up to us; our communication process, and our decision-making process- to make sure it catches up with GS rather than us getting burnt.

I think that if I meet a GS summer intern who says GS has actually cut hours- that he and other analysts are working 80 hours/week, I will change my tune. Actually, if I find any BB bank where rank-and-file IBD employees who work there claim they never pull more than 70-80 hours/week for more than a couple weeks/year, I will become a big cheerleader for said bank's IBD department.

I don't think that's going to happen at GS when their SALES AND TRADING employees are largely working 80 hour weeks.

GS is a very smart bank. They are also a somewhat cynical bank (admittedly, like most banks). They know they have you sold on working there, because they generally do have slightly smarter people than just about every other firm (yes, there are many exceptions on a group by group basis) They have you sold on the fact that people who go to GS tend to earn more money over the course of a career (even though there is a GS discount for analysts). They don't have you sold on the fact that you won't wind up in some sort of horror story about pulling 100 hour weeks. So every year, they run this marketing campaign about how senior execs are trying to find ways to cut back analysts' 100 hour/week schedules. These claimed schedule reductions never materialize, and then you get screwed on bonus to boot, because you work for GS and take the GS discount.

Pro tip: ignore the GS marketing campaign and go work for JPM. (I have never worked for JPM. I don't have any sort of stake in JPM's success. I don't even own their stock. I do know that they are probably the fairest and least cynical of all of the top ~3-5 banks) Believe them when they tell you that you are working a 90 hour week, that there will be some misery as an analyst. At least it's not some 100 hour bait and switch. Suck it up, this is what you signed up for- if you don't like it, you can always get a master's degree and become a quant and earn 40% less for 40% less time. Once you've made VP or MD and have become cynical, THEN leave for GS and promise undergrads (suckers) 75 hour weeks and $160K first year comp.

Every year, GS rolls out the same (predictable) "life is getting easier for analysts" marketing campaign. Every year over the past couple, it's never materialized.

Great post, thanks. I was already somewhat sceptical about this, considering that it seems unlikely that Goldman will start telling their clients that they'll just have to wait a few days longer because the analysts are enjoying their weekends.

Oct 29, 2013

Waiting for @APAE to eloquently chime in on this one. Surely he'll mention the Saturday blackout period as evidence of this reduced weekend work policy and go on to say that it just means your weekdays are more fucked.

Best Response
Oct 29, 2013
bschoolhopeful:

Waiting for @APAE to eloquently chime in on this one. Surely he'll mention the Saturday blackout period as evidence of this reduced weekend work policy and go on to say that it just means your weekdays are more fucked.

Classic.

Yes, the 36-hour protected window is a thing. Originally exclusive to Healthcare, it has recently been adopted by CRG as well. It isn't division-wide yet (nor will it ever likely be). I wouldn't say that it automatically correlates to your weekdays being worse, if I insinuated that somewhere else then I apologize.

Per the comments regarding class size, 150 would be a fair number to ballpark it for the IBD analyst class each year. I think 135 is a closer number. I would be surprised if it were 332 analysts (undergrad hires) across the whole firm in New York, but that's the only way I can see that number working.

I do believe that there is an undeniable correlation between compensation and retention. Bitch all you will, at the junior level too many people care exclusively about how much they get paid. People don't have the mentality of "I'll start here, cut my teeth, and position myself for where I want to be down the road," it's more of a "fuck you, pay me, pay me, PAY ME" mentality.

As a result, they sacrifice health, relationships, sleep, and sanity for work ... because they expect it to show up at the end of the year. It's lamentable, because at most it makes a difference of $3-5k post-tax. The threshold between middle-bucket and bottom-bucket analyst is really hard to cross. The threshold to be top-bucket is as well. Killing yourself for the bonus is like wearing a backpack full of bricks while treading water for an hour; the task itself is already hard enough without the self-imposed burden.

If people really cared about their quality of life, they'd push back. That's not to say that they don't care about quality of life. The proof is in the pudding, however; they care more about the money than anything, and we see the results.

On top of that, there's the classic 'red badge of courage' syndrome where people will sadomasochistically tilt their work-life balance unnecessarily. You wouldn't believe it, but there are people there too early and too late for no reason. On top of that, everyone will inflate their hours when bitching to their friends from college over drinks at the bar. 85 hours that week somehow becomes 100; everyone has to see how big your dick is because 'oh my God, Brian's getting killed at work, what a stud' somehow makes sense.

Long story short, the nature of the job isn't going to change any time soon, nor is basic human nature (avarice, greed, and materialism). Hours aren't likely to improve materially. The smart guys will continue to get their work done promptly and properly and get the fuck out of the office.

    • 4
    • 1
Nov 1, 2013

My group (not GS), has a 36 hr blackout period as well. It's not like it results in less work needing to be done and it definitely makes the weekdays longer. Still, it's nice to be able to plan something once a week.

Oct 29, 2013

Also, it's spelled ANALYSTS. Freudian slip?

Oct 29, 2013
bschoolhopeful:

Also, it's spelled ANALYSTS. Freudian slip?

I changed it. My sincerest apologies.

Oct 29, 2013

BAML should probably run one of these, per the death of an intern.

Oct 29, 2013

They squashed that story really quickly. No pitchforks at all. Props to their PR team.

Nov 2, 2013

I agree, they handled that immediately. I'm surprised at how little "outrage" it sparked

Oct 29, 2013

Did 70-80 hour weeks as a SA in S&T this summer, not buying into this whatsoever.

    • 1
Oct 29, 2013

Get ready for the pay cuts.

Oct 29, 2013
Edmundo Braverman:

Get ready for the pay cuts.

This was the first thought that crossed my mind.

"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."

Oct 29, 2013

They have the 'critical client' escape clause, which means this is all a bunch of BS

The only way this works is if all the MDs in a particular group go out of their way to respect it. I have seen this work and I have seen this not work. In smaller groups, particularly those in regional offices, it is possible to keep this under control. The reason being that their are fewer MDs to pile on 'critical client' qualifying work. In larger groups, this is almost impossible to police unless the group head is really serious about it. 'Problem Child' senior bankers will not respect it unless they are actively brought in line by the group head.

Oct 29, 2013

Looks like Sarah was thinking the same thing I (and Duff) was:

Goldman Sachs is likely to pay its analysts less now. Is this a HUGE MISTAKE?

Oct 29, 2013

By overhiring, Goldman is diluting pay and exit opportunities, the very reason people go work for them...

    • 1
Oct 29, 2013

I think the honest to god solution here would be that an MD must be present in the office while analysts are working on his project. If it's that critical of a client, the MD needs to pull an all-nighter too.

Oh well, when I see GS analysts with the time to post rebuttals to me, I will start to believe GS. However, I have a feeling this is part of their annual marketing campaign to get FT hires to sign.

Oct 29, 2013

Heard they were piloting this a while back, obviously depends on group culture more than anything. Little late for FT recruiting PR though, as the top / sweatshop groups where it would matter have been full for a bit now.

Oct 29, 2013

holy cow! GS brand AND reasonable hours? Sounds too good to be...oh.

Oct 29, 2013
turnyasystemup:

holy cow! GS brand AND reasonable hours? Sounds too good to be...oh.

LOL

speed boost blaze

Oct 29, 2013

There is absolutely no way they hired 332 ibd analysts for one office. I would believe this number if it was worldwide and if you're lumping all cap markets and some of the obscure product groups in there as well.

Oct 29, 2013

What they really need to do is get their company culture back on track. I've recently spoken to Pre IPO partners and all of them say they don't even recognize the company anymore. I am guessing there would be similar sentiments from other people who were senior at the big IBs before the 90s.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 29, 2013
heister:

What they really need to do is get their company culture back on track. I've recently spoken to Pre IPO partners and all of them say they don't even recognize the company anymore. I am guessing there would be similar sentiments from other people who were senior at the big IBs before the 90s.

Interesting point...but that can be said of all BBs - obviously banking has changed a lot - back in the day it was actually the go-to place to work if you wanted easy hours: banking was heavily regulated so there wasn't that much risk to take.

speed boost blaze

Oct 29, 2013

Pre-IPO partners crying about loss of culture?
Let them wipe away their tears with their millions.

Oct 29, 2013

The bank actually used to do right by their customers, if you want an idea about what happened to the company read the book why I left Goldman Sachs. From what I have heard from my dad's friends it's very accurate of the culture decline at Goldman.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 30, 2013
heister:

The bank actually used to do right by their customers, if you want an idea about what happened to the company read the book why I left Goldman Sachs. From what I have heard from my dad's friends it's very accurate of the culture decline at Goldman.

Heister you be trollin'

"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."

Oct 30, 2013

Well by doing right by their customer I mean they didn't openly shout on the trading floors about putting their customers in bad trades just so the bank could take the winning side of the trade. No one said banks were ever truly ethical places.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 29, 2013

I'll throw my two cents in. As a first year MBA student, I've been spending a lot of time getting to know the various IBs, NYC BBs included. Granted this is all anecdotal, but I've spoken with a number of people, primarily associates, that feel there is a bit of a culture shift occurring on Wall Street. I spoke with one associate at a BB IB in NYC and he explicitly told me that he doesn't plan to stay at the bank much longer and that he is looking forward to transitioning back into his previous industry working in an operations role. I asked him if he's generally so blunt about his plans and he stated that he doesn't shout them from the rooftops, but that people senior to him know that he's not going to make banking his career. He also stated that senior members within the bank recognize that things are changing and that they are essentially okay with luring folks in the door (at the post-MBA associate level, at least) with the thought they might not stay long term. I guess the thought there is to get them in the job and hope they might just stick it out...as opposed to passing on that 'talent'.

I also had the chance to meet with GS and their associate panel mentioned the non-essential hours thing. I'll be meeting with them again in another week and see what else people have to say about it.

In my opinion, retaining talent is the problem GS and the IB industry faces as a whole. They have paid money for one of two reasons in the past, either your (a) a top talent and they want you or (b) you're above average intelligence and willing to bust your balls (read: Type A). I think the impasse is that you can only hope to reel in type A's so much. As the 'top talent' leaves Wall Street to pursue opportunities in industry or with tech companies, etc. Wall Street just ends up with more above-average people that want to work hard and/or have something to prove. The way I see it, hiring a few more people and trying to distribute the workload, and pay, among them isn't going to make these people happy. Once you take away the compensation incentive, then people start to leave the street in droves because...from what I can see...few people find the work fulfilling and they often have/had other options at places they might like just as well doing things they might find a bit more interesting. If you eliminate the 'out-sized' pay, you just give people less incentive to sacrifice...that is to say, few people will likely find working 70 hours on Wall Street much better than just working 60 or 65 at Google/Apple/Microsoft/Exxon/Etc.

Part of me thinks that if GS does something, it's very likely only a matter of time before other IBs follow suit. I certainly could be wrong, and I sort of wish I am, but only time will tell.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

Oct 29, 2013

Obviously, you have to start with the caveat that IB is a client-facing industry and that weekends will never be totally off-limits ("essential clients clause"). But that's true of pretty much all high-paying jobs.

That said, this is the natural step in Goldman's progression towards trying to retain talent at the junior levels. I don't see why people find this so unbelievable. GS has been hinting in this direction for a couple years now, starting with the cessation of the two-year analyst program, rules against recruiting, etc. and the response has largely been, "Well, you can't grind your analysts out with punishing 100-hour weeks and expect them to want to stay!!" Consequently, their attempts at retention haven't been very successful, and many first years continued to recruit despite the new policies.

This step is an attempt to address that retort, and it's actually fairly easy to enforce with badge IDs, computer logins, etc. Cultural paradigm shifts aren't ever going to be easy, and there can be no doubt that a lot of senior people will take these new directives with a grain of salt. But this is enforceable if Goldman takes the initiative to cajole its senior officers into abiding by this policy.

Moreover, it's not an unreasonable request: I know several high-dealflow groups across the street that rarely-if-ever have analysts pulling 100-hour weeks. A great deal of IB work is avoidable and unnecessary, deriving from endless turns of a unimportant book.

The only snag is precisely what @cphbravo96 brings up above - the work is still unfulfilling for a lot of people, which is going to drive a fair bit of attrition in and of itself. That said, a great deal of corporate work is rote. It's not as though consulting or corpdev is existentially meaningful work vis a vis IB. A lot of the high-paying alternatives to IB are in the same category, they just lack the notorious sweatshop hours. It's hard for me to believe that, if you can convert IB into a 60-70 hour consistent gig, you won't see a considerable uptick in retention.

Whether or not GS actually follows through is an entirely different question, but this is completely reasonable to me.

"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."

    • 1
Oct 29, 2013

Let's be honest about something. People go into IB and finance in general for money. If the money goes, so do the people. It's not that hard. GS can't be that stupid to cut paychecks, because people would leave in droves.

Oct 29, 2013

One step closer to becoming one of those insufferable big corporations...pay going down. Might as well go to GE and countdown retirement

Oct 29, 2013

Sounds like an excuse to lower the salaries. I would be interested in seeing how the other banks react to this (in terms of lowering their salaries, too).

Once I did bad and that I heard ever. Twice I did good and that I heard never.

Oct 29, 2013

End the need for Face Time. We have all experienced flat patches or the need for a post deal cool off period. Would be nice for MD's to respect that - tell analysts/associates to get out of the office - play golf for a morning, we all have phones and if something needs to be crunched can get to the office/laptop quickly

We are absolutely kidding ourselves if 60+ hour weeks are going to end. Imagine telling a client, sorry we won't have the LBO model updated until close of business tomorrow, our analysts need a rest. Investment Banking is about grunt work, if I wanted a 9-5 I'd have gone to an accounting firm.

Consultants at Bain, BCG and McKinsey easily do 60+ hour weeks

You're born, you take shit. You get out in the world, you take more shit. You climb a little higher, you take less shit. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what shit even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake son.

    • 1
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.

Oct 29, 2013

I saw this and thought back to my analyst days and sighed (mostly with relief that I'm not at that place anymore...)

But seriously: I agree that most likely, this is just PR bullshit. However, Goldman being Goldman (and there is no doubt in my mind, having now interacted with several parts of their franchise as a client, they are definitely a cut above most of their competitors) - I think there could be something here. GS has always prided itself on being long term greedy...and if you are running an investment banking department, you have a real issue right now, which is that your pipeline of long term talent looks totally fucked.

The single biggest reason is that, with exceptions, in general it's true that most of the future finance rockstars these days enter into Wall Street at the analyst level. I used to work in a top bb ibd group; the MDs were very smart (mostly), the analysts were very smart (mostly), and the associates through VPs were functional idiots (mostly)...And nowadays, all those analysts are leaving to go to hedge funds and private equity (and some of them aren't even coming in the door, going instead to work at Google). Out of my class (2009), I think there is maybe 1 analyst left in IBD who stayed on to the associate level; the other 100 or so are gone.

GS seems to have realized this with changing their bonus calendar and trying to ban some exit opp recruiting, but obviously those kind of policies have minimal effects. But if they were actually able to make this a job that didn't suck so much -- I would bet money that there would be more people who would stay.

Back in the 80s and 90s, PE/HF jobs just weren't that common or easy to get, so retention wasn't a huge issue (this is still the case in markets like Asia and Europe too from what I hear). Some people are saying this is just a ruse for college students -- and likely it is; but if so, then Goldman won't be able to stop their problem of kids leaving before their 2 years are up, and not sticking around after to become a part of the franchise. But it wouldn't surprise me if they actually try to make a real change here...

    • 1
Oct 30, 2013

I'll throw in my opinion as well: I actually liked IB (for the most part) but could not stand the hours/culture. I might have considered staying longer if the hours were somehow reduced -- even if it meant less pay. If I had to do it all again today, I would probably still pick GS over Google coming out of college.

    • 1
Oct 30, 2013

Shoot, as a summer associate I was averaging 110 hour weeks... I was sending summer analysts home even. Where is the love for the mba associates who have NO IDEA what we are doing? haha.

Oct 30, 2013
West2East:

Shoot, as a summer associate I was averaging 110 hour weeks... I was sending summer analysts home even. Where is the love for the mba associates who have NO IDEA what we are doing? haha.

Yes because they obviously staff summers with other summers. You just wasted 3 seconds I'll never get back .

This scrub probably picks bulbasaur and has an all-grass type team complete with 4 bellsprouts and a tangela.

speed boost blaze

    • 1
Oct 30, 2013

My firm for a fact staffed summers with other summers too. Many of the summer analysts had projects they were staffed on with summer associates.

I also wasted 3 seconds I'll never get back on your second remark.

    • 1
Oct 30, 2013
DWalk248:

My firm for a fact staffed summers with other summers too. Many of the summer analysts had projects they were staffed on with summer associates.

I also wasted 3 seconds I'll never get back on your second remark.

Same with mine. It is actually quite common.

As for the original topic, it's likely just lip service as most have said. Weekend work will never go away, but there are ways to make it better such as killing facetime and cutting unnecessary turns of the book.

    • 1
Oct 31, 2013

Untwist your panties, that is how some staffings go.

+2 seconds.

Oct 30, 2013

In my opinion, everyone knows the hours before they go in, so that's less of an issue.

The system to help with communication is a great idea, but we'll have to see if it works. I know there have been a number of times that I put together a pitch where we ended up pruning out a ton of information that wasn't necessary, but the reverse could happen as well. Having a well constructed 200 bullet outline of a pitch could end up creating a ton more work, if you end up throwing out 50 of those points the next day.

It's not the company. It's the credibility. My credibility. I can't just sit on the bench and let other people play the game. Not my game. Not with their rules. - Henry Kravis, Barbarians at the Gate

    • 1
Oct 30, 2013

Goldman is having trouble attracting talent? Wtf? And their reply is to cut hours and pay? Double wtf? I don't get it. Aren't monkeys dying to get into this place? Put the email from someone at Goldman here and he'll get a 1000 CV's no problem.

Oct 30, 2013
krauser:

Goldman is having trouble attracting talent? Wtf? And their reply is to cut hours and pay? Double wtf? I don't get it. Aren't monkeys dying to get into this place? Put the email from someone at Goldman here and he'll get a 1000 CV's no problem.

They have no trouble attracting talent. They have a problem retaining said talent.

Oct 30, 2013

I have been thinking about this today. I think the problem isn't just in the hours or pay at any IB. I think the bigger issue might be generational. A lot of kids these days want to do something they feel is really beneficial what ever that might be. I know kids have always felt this way but the generations growing up today have connectivity resources that didn't exist even 10 years ago. In the past banking has been able to attract not only the brightest kids but also the most determined, real grinders. People who started working at banks in the late 90s early 00s most likely at some point in their college careers had to do projects that required actual research in a library using actual books. There has been such a massive shift in how information is accessed, disseminated, and used that the banking pitchbook model seems antiquated by any rational persons view. When you can go on Google and research any topic, and correlate them into a high quality and source-able paper in a fraction of the time it took to look things up in books, you realize how technology has revolutionized the world. The world wide web is younger than construction time of some of the great buildings of the ancient world. It has gone from basic text only information pages to live high definition video medium that can be broadcast around the world to anyone whom has a connection, be it in their homes, or wirelessly on a cellular or wi fi network. By comparison banking looks like an old world profession where things in comparison take eons to change. More people are beginning to realize that life is in fact short so why spend it doing something you hate.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 31, 2013
heister:

I think the bigger issue might be generational. A lot of kids these days want to do something they feel is really beneficial what ever that might be.

This is why people hate our generation...

"Unlike previous generations... we want to do something beneficial."

I assure you, people are the same all over. We haven't stumbled into new territory of career existentialism.

"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."

Oct 31, 2013

I know all new generations are like this, the hippies, the people who left Europe for America etc. But the difference is the young generation now can easily do something about it. Technology allows people to change the world in some way with many orders of magnitude smaller initial input.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Oct 31, 2013
heister:

I know all new generations are like this, the hippies, the people who left Europe for America etc. But the difference is the young generation now can easily do something about it. Technology allows people to change the world in some way with many orders of magnitude smaller initial input.

Agreed, but in my eyes this only nominally affects career decisions. Sure, every Millennial has the pipe dream of starting the next-great-startup. So few will actually act on that dream.

"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."

Oct 30, 2013

analysts are not talent and goldman sachs does not care if they are retained. In fact they prefer to have them leave and go do something where they can be a client of the firm...that is the real point of hiring the best and brightest for the analyst program...its for future business, not to keep the analysts to be future GS bankers. This is why GS and other top banks foster "alumni networks" as if they are universities. So retention is not the reason, but I do believe this change is real and it is done a) because an analyst recently died and having analysts die isnt good press and b) because they want analysts to be treated at least somewhat fairly and much of the 100+ hour work week is based purely on senior people being dicks for no real good reason....last minute work, etc. It doesnt help anyone except sadistic bosses to have people be miserable for no reason.

So in short i think this is a real change and would be surprised if it doesn't result in less total hours for analysts but not for the reason stated.

    • 1
    • 1
Oct 30, 2013
Bondarb:

analysts are not talent and goldman sachs does not care if they are retained. In fact they prefer to have them leave and go do something where they can be a client of the firm...that is the real point of hiring the best and brightest for the analyst program...its for future business, not to keep the analysts to be future GS bankers. This is why GS and other top banks foster "alumni networks" as if they are universities. So retention is not the reason, but I do believe this change is real and it is done a) because an analyst recently died and having analysts die isnt good press and b) because they want analysts to be treated at least somewhat fairly and much of the 100+ hour work week is based purely on senior people being dicks for no real good reason....last minute work, etc. It doesnt help anyone except sadistic bosses to have people be miserable for no reason.

So in short i think this is a real change and would be surprised if it doesn't result in less total hours for analysts but not for the reason stated.

I think you're 100% wrong here on GS not caring about retention. A lot of senior execs at Goldman have talked about this as a retention problem (even before this change), and some of their other policy changes (moving to a full year bonus cycle for example) don't make sense if you think they don't care about retention. The fact is that a lot of some of GS' biggest rainmakers (in IBD) over the years started at the firm as analyst, so it would be incredibly shortsighted not to value that talent.

Oct 30, 2013

"Goldman Sachs is likely to pay its analysts less now. Is this a HUGE MISTAKE?"

http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/154316/gol...

"He that hath a beard is more than a youth, and he that hath no beard is less than a man." -- William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing

Oct 30, 2013

Oh yeah Goldman clearly wants all their analysts to move to HFs and PE so that they can have more associates and senior bankers who started as Big4 accountants and GE analysts.

Oct 31, 2013

Speaking about 'talent' when you are talking about IBD analysts is ridiculous. Sure, some analysts develop into good bankers down the line but those are the guys who either would rather be relationship bankers in the first place or can't cut it on the buyside.

And being an analyst at GS vs. having started as a Big 4 accountant or GE analyst says nothing about your potential as a dealmaker. IBD analysts are hired on their ability to grind out excel models and powerpoint presentations until ungodly hours, and hopefully not be too much of a douche. Unless you are the son of some big-time banker or a Chinese dignitary, no one is hiring you at an analyst level because you look like a future rainmaker.

The fact that so many people on this board still glorify being an IBD analyst so much is proof GS is on the right track. Half the people here would give up their left nut to be an analyst at GS, lower pay or not.

    • 2
Oct 31, 2013
GoodBread:

And being an analyst at GS vs. having started as a Big 4 accountant or GE analyst says nothing about your potential as a dealmaker. IBD analysts are hired on their ability to grind out excel models and powerpoint presentations until ungodly hours, and hopefully not be too much of a douche. Unless you are the son of some big-time banker or a Chinese dignitary, no one is hiring you at an analyst level because you look like a future rainmaker.

The fact that so many people on this board still glorify being an IBD analyst so much is proof GS is on the right track. Half the people here would give up their left nut to be an analyst at GS, lower pay or not.

Oh come'on. I'm no IB enthusiast, but analysts are hired on the basis of being intelligent, personable and hard-working, which are pretty much the key components of a successful MD.

Sure, some analysts develop into good bankers down the line but those are the guys who either would rather be relationship bankers in the first place or can't cut it on the buyside.

... that's exactly the point: great analysts go to the buyside and leave IB altogether. Hence, GS' focus on retention; hence, the cessation of the two year program; hence, this new firm policy on hours.

Regardless of everyone's insistence that this is some weird PR ploy, there is a considerable cohort of people at GS who (perhaps wrongly!) believe that analyst attrition is a problem. And that cohort has made some significant strides in the last couple years. That may be misguided, but it is real.

"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."

Oct 31, 2013
GoodBread:

Speaking about 'talent' when you are talking about IBD analysts is ridiculous. Sure, some analysts develop into good bankers down the line but those are the guys who either would rather be relationship bankers in the first place or can't cut it on the buyside.

And being an analyst at GS vs. having started as a Big 4 accountant or GE analyst says nothing about your potential as a dealmaker. IBD analysts are hired on their ability to grind out excel models and powerpoint presentations until ungodly hours, and hopefully not be too much of a douche. Unless you are the son of some big-time banker or a Chinese dignitary, no one is hiring you at an analyst level because you look like a future rainmaker.

The fact that so many people on this board still glorify being an IBD analyst so much is proof GS is on the right track. Half the people here would give up their left nut to be an analyst at GS, lower pay or not.

Perfectly put. +1.

If you had 'talent' as a 22 year old you would be off curing cancer or going #1 in the NFL draft. Why do you think banks recruit MBAs into associate positions? They are looking for people with diverse backgrounds who have the potential to be good relationship managers after 4-6 years as an associate/VP. I would be surprised if more than 1 in 10 first year BB IBD associates eventually become managing directors, but they are ultimately hired with the hope they will develop into one. Analysts are hired to grind it out and go to the buyside, hopefully bringing business back and recommending the respective bank's analyst program to undergraduates.

Oct 31, 2013
FormerHornetDriver:

If you had 'talent' as a 22 year old you would be off curing cancer or going #1 in the NFL draft. Why do you think banks recruit MBAs into associate positions? They are looking for people with diverse backgrounds who have the potential to be good relationship managers after 4-6 years as an associate/VP. I would be surprised if more than 1 in 10 first year BB IBD associates eventually become managing directors, but they are ultimately hired with the hope they will develop into one. Analysts are hired to grind it out and go to the buyside, hopefully bringing business back and recommending the respective bank's analyst program to undergraduates.

Come on.

Maybe 1 in 10 IB analysts I have met are "pure processors" devoid of social interaction skills. On the contrary, being personable is probably the single most consistent predictor of getting an offer among a pool of academic over-achievers.

Moreover, the buyside recruiting processes are so competitive, every last one of the people I have met at upper-MM+ firms is sharp, discerning, articulate and pedigreed. You're telling me that these are the people GS, et al have decided "oh, we can do without them, we were just looking for processors."

Firm alumni networks continue to exist whether the banks send their crappiest analysts to PE shops or best. HF exits pose no discernible benefit to banks. It's crazy to think this is how the system would work in GS' ideal world. And they are taking steps to change that.

It may not accomplish anything, but I refuse to believe that significant structural changes in employee contracts (no two-year program), actually-enforced recruiting policies (several analysts were fired) and a WSJ-published article about a new weekend policy (which is already in effect in the HC group!) is all some massive publicity stunt.

"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."

Oct 31, 2013
NorthSider:
FormerHornetDriver:

If you had 'talent' as a 22 year old you would be off curing cancer or going #1 in the NFL draft. Why do you think banks recruit MBAs into associate positions? They are looking for people with diverse backgrounds who have the potential to be good relationship managers after 4-6 years as an associate/VP. I would be surprised if more than 1 in 10 first year BB IBD associates eventually become managing directors, but they are ultimately hired with the hope they will develop into one. Analysts are hired to grind it out and go to the buyside, hopefully bringing business back and recommending the respective bank's analyst program to undergraduates.

Come on.

Maybe 1 in 10 IB analysts I have met are "pure processors" devoid of social interaction skills. On the contrary, being personable is probably the single most consistent predictor of getting an offer among a pool of academic over-achievers.

Moreover, the buyside recruiting processes are so competitive, every last one of the people I have met at upper-MM+ firms is sharp, discerning, articulate and pedigreed. You're telling me that these are the people GS, et al have decided "oh, we can do without them, we were just looking for processors."

Firm alumni networks continue to exist whether the banks send their crappiest analysts to PE shops or best. HF exits pose no discernible benefit to banks. It's crazy to think this is how the system would work in GS' ideal world. And they are taking steps to change that.

It may not accomplish anything, but I refuse to believe that significant structural changes in employee contracts (no two-year program), actually-enforced recruiting policies (several analysts were fired) and a WSJ-published article about a new weekend policy (which is already in effect in the HC group!) is all some massive publicity stunt.

9 times out of 10 I agree with your posts. But I think you're being a little naive here.

All this sideshow stuff, like new employee contracts, press releases, and new recruiting policies? Honestly, I don't think it means shit. The new contracts are worthless. They don't guarantee an associate promotion. It's just a carrot on a stick. "See, maybe you can stay! If we like you." Press releases? This is Goldman. C'mon. They've been leaking stuff to the Journal for a looooong time. And recruiting policies? I had an ex-girlfriend who would flip out any time I was texting like, literally any other girl. Super possessive. She still cheated on me. Goldman is a psycho-jealous-bitch. I wouldn't confuse that with like, loyalty. It's all about control.

If Goldman honestly wanted to retain top analyst talent, they would start writing fat checks to the guys staying for a third year. This is fucking Wall Street. Money talks. Elite boutiques pay up to keep their people around. Private equity firms pay up to get the best. It's not like Goldman doesn't know that. They just don't care.

Aaaaand it looks like they're actually cutting bonuses: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-31/wall-stre...

(Some smart-ass is going to try to argue that they can't increase bonuses because they're publicly traded and investors would get pissed. To that, I say: $KKR, $EVR, $GHL, $BX...)

    • 1
Nov 4, 2013
LBJ's hair:
NorthSider:
FormerHornetDriver:

If you had 'talent' as a 22 year old you would be off curing cancer or going #1 in the NFL draft. Why do you think banks recruit MBAs into associate positions? They are looking for people with diverse backgrounds who have the potential to be good relationship managers after 4-6 years as an associate/VP. I would be surprised if more than 1 in 10 first year BB IBD associates eventually become managing directors, but they are ultimately hired with the hope they will develop into one. Analysts are hired to grind it out and go to the buyside, hopefully bringing business back and recommending the respective bank's analyst program to undergraduates.

Come on.

Maybe 1 in 10 IB analysts I have met are "pure processors" devoid of social interaction skills. On the contrary, being personable is probably the single most consistent predictor of getting an offer among a pool of academic over-achievers.

Moreover, the buyside recruiting processes are so competitive, every last one of the people I have met at upper-MM+ firms is sharp, discerning, articulate and pedigreed. You're telling me that these are the people GS, et al have decided "oh, we can do without them, we were just looking for processors."

Firm alumni networks continue to exist whether the banks send their crappiest analysts to PE shops or best. HF exits pose no discernible benefit to banks. It's crazy to think this is how the system would work in GS' ideal world. And they are taking steps to change that.

It may not accomplish anything, but I refuse to believe that significant structural changes in employee contracts (no two-year program), actually-enforced recruiting policies (several analysts were fired) and a WSJ-published article about a new weekend policy (which is already in effect in the HC group!) is all some massive publicity stunt.

9 times out of 10 I agree with your posts. But I think you're being a little naive here.

All this sideshow stuff, like new employee contracts, press releases, and new recruiting policies? Honestly, I don't think it means shit. The new contracts are worthless. They don't guarantee an associate promotion. It's just a carrot on a stick. "See, maybe you can stay! If we like you." Press releases? This is Goldman. C'mon. They've been leaking stuff to the Journal for a looooong time. And recruiting policies? I had an ex-girlfriend who would flip out any time I was texting like, literally any other girl. Super possessive. She still cheated on me. Goldman is a psycho-jealous-bitch. I wouldn't confuse that with like, loyalty. It's all about control.

If Goldman honestly wanted to retain top analyst talent, they would start writing fat checks to the guys staying for a third year. This is fucking Wall Street. Money talks. Elite boutiques pay up to keep their people around. Private equity firms pay up to get the best. It's not like Goldman doesn't know that. They just don't care.

Aaaaand it looks like they're actually cutting bonuses: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-31/wall-stre...

(Some smart-ass is going to try to argue that they can't increase bonuses because they're publicly traded and investors would get pissed. To that, I say: $KKR, $EVR, $GHL, $BX...)

+1 SB for you. All of this is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Like this says above, money talks. You want the best, pay them. You want to keep people you invested in, pay them. The formula is not hard.

The thing I find the most galling is that GS is not the only bank playing this game, trying to sell a 'better experience' for junior bankers. You want to improve my experience, then pay up.

Like I said, this is all smoke and mirrors to try and avoid having to pay junior folks. The thing I find interesting is that interest by prospective analysts for IB recruiting this year is way up from previous few. However, associate recruiting interest is way down again.

Oct 31, 2013
GoodBread:

Speaking about 'talent' when you are talking about IBD analysts is ridiculous. Sure, some analysts develop into good bankers down the line but those are the guys who either would rather be relationship bankers in the first place or can't cut it on the buyside.

And being an analyst at GS vs. having started as a Big 4 accountant or GE analyst says nothing about your potential as a dealmaker. IBD analysts are hired on their ability to grind out excel models and powerpoint presentations until ungodly hours, and hopefully not be too much of a douche. Unless you are the son of some big-time banker or a Chinese dignitary, no one is hiring you at an analyst level because you look like a future rainmaker.

The fact that so many people on this board still glorify being an IBD analyst so much is proof GS is on the right track. Half the people here would give up their left nut to be an analyst at GS, lower pay or not.

Eh, might have to disagree here. Not so much on analysts having 'talent' persay, but I think we all (or most of us) can agree, that the top associates/VPs are former analysts themselves (rather than MBA laterals) and, at least in my experience, this holds true all the way up to the MD level.

Oct 31, 2013
GoodBread:

Speaking about 'talent' when you are talking about IBD analysts is ridiculous. Sure, some analysts develop into good bankers down the line but those are the guys who either would rather be relationship bankers in the first place or can't cut it on the buyside.

And being an analyst at GS vs. having started as a Big 4 accountant or GE analyst says nothing about your potential as a dealmaker. IBD analysts are hired on their ability to grind out excel models and powerpoint presentations until ungodly hours, and hopefully not be too much of a douche. Unless you are the son of some big-time banker or a Chinese dignitary, no one is hiring you at an analyst level because you look like a future rainmaker.

The fact that so many people on this board still glorify being an IBD analyst so much is proof GS is on the right track. Half the people here would give up their left nut to be an analyst at GS, lower pay or not.

I guess we have different definitions of talent. By talent I mean a good well-rounded candidate, as polished as a 20 year old can be, e.g. a 3.8 guy from Wharton.
You are telling me that they would rather have all the 3.8 Wharton guys who went through the analyst programme leave for something better and instead staff their associate programme with ex-big4 accountants with an MBA from a top 20 school? I don't need to glorify Goldman or IBD analysts to see that this is simply not true.

Oct 31, 2013

Analysts are not talent. Even where i work at a hedge fund the analysts are not talent and they are 4-5 years older. The talent are the producers...the people who make money or on the sell-side the people who bring in the deals. The proper analogy is a baseball team like the yankees...the 25 players on the roster are the talent. The cast of hundreds that shine their shoes, get the field ready, throw them batting practice, etc are important but they are all 100% replaceable and nobody is realistically expecting them to become players. If the Yankees don't resign robinson cano nobidy is expecting the bat boy to step up and play 2nd base.

As analysts in banking you are the ball-boys...nice to have around but nobody cares if you leave.

    • 1
    • 1
Oct 31, 2013
Bondarb:

Analysts are not talent. Even where i work at a hedge fund the analysts are not talent and they are 4-5 years older. The talent are the producers...the people who make money or on the sell-side the people who bring in the deals. The proper analogy is a baseball team like the yankees...the 25 players on the roster are the talent. The cast of hundreds that shine their shoes, get the field ready, throw them batting practice, etc are important but they are all 100% replaceable and nobody is realistically expecting them to become players. If the Yankees don't resign robinson cano nobidy is expecting the bat boy to step up and play 2nd base.

As analysts in banking you are the ball-boys...nice to have around but nobody cares if you leave.

That's the thing. Junior bankers used to be the farm team. Now they are the ballboys. So you end up paying for big free agents (poached MDs with guarantees) because you have no farm system. And your comp ratio goes up as revenues fall and your boss/shareholders are unhappy.

Also, most fundamental equity/credit hedge funds do view their tenured analysts as talent (at least role players) that the producers would be at least inconvenienced to be without.

Oct 31, 2013

Your firm is destined to fail at some point if you don't have some system (however informal it may be) to develop young talent in a firm where the only value is in the people. That should be obvious to people who are paid to predict the future.

Your analogy does not ring true. Secretaries are not talent. Analysts most definitely are. The top ones are people that will be running the firm in 20 years.

Nov 1, 2013

i work at a firm that has been around 25 years on the model...the naivete is on ur side thinking that analysts are talent. they aren't. being able to proofread a spreadsheet doesn't make u more qualified then a secretary...that is a fact and while u may not believe it it is how the higher-ups view analysts.

Nov 1, 2013
Bondarb:

i work at a firm that has been around 25 years on the model...the naivete is on ur side thinking that analysts are talent. they aren't. being able to proofread a spreadsheet doesn't make u more qualified then a secretary...that is a fact and while u may not believe it it is how the higher-ups view analysts.

That's not how I view my analysts, I like them to learn how we do things and keep the good ones over time. If your firm is willing to place zero value in them and is willing to pay extra to get seniors to lateral over who still have to learn your system, then more power to you. It's just a bad way to run a business.

Nov 3, 2013
DickFuld:

Your firm is destined to fail at some point if you don't have some system (however informal it may be) to develop young talent in a firm where the only value is in the people. That should be obvious to people who are paid to predict the future.

Your analogy does not ring true. Secretaries are not talent. Analysts most definitely are. The top ones are people that will be running the firm in 20 years.

ok thx for the advice but a) the place i work has been around for quite some time and has made many people very rich so i dont think anyone is looking for advice on the business model and b) i am not paid to predict the future i am paid to make money trading. Thank god i dont have to also predict the future as that sounds very hard.

Keep living in the fantasy world that the executives at your firm actually care about analysts and think of them as future stars if you want but its untrue. Analysts are a cost center just like the secretaries...in fact the cuts in hours are really in part an admission of this not a refutation of it. Whenu guys are working 9-5 M-F just like the secretaries i bet you'll be saying "this is great they are really lkining us up to run this place now!".

Nov 3, 2013
Bondarb:
DickFuld:

Your firm is destined to fail at some point if you don't have some system (however informal it may be) to develop young talent in a firm where the only value is in the people. That should be obvious to people who are paid to predict the future.

Your analogy does not ring true. Secretaries are not talent. Analysts most definitely are. The top ones are people that will be running the firm in 20 years.

ok thx for the advice but a) the place i work has been around for quite some time and has made many people very rich so i dont think anyone is looking for advice on the business model and b) i am not paid to predict the future i am paid to make money trading. Thank god i dont have to also predict the future as that sounds very hard.

Keep living in the fantasy world that the executives at your firm actually care about analysts and think of them as future stars if you want but its untrue. Analysts are a cost center just like the secretaries...in fact the cuts in hours are really in part an admission of this not a refutation of it. Whenu guys are working 9-5 M-F just like the secretaries i bet you'll be saying "this is great they are really lkining us up to run this place now!".

You don't predict the future? Don't you try to buy things that go up in value at the point you buy it from today? That's predicting the future in my book.

You seem like a bitter guy.

Nov 3, 2013
DickFuld:
Bondarb:
DickFuld:

Your firm is destined to fail at some point if you don't have some system (however informal it may be) to develop young talent in a firm where the only value is in the people. That should be obvious to people who are paid to predict the future.

Your analogy does not ring true. Secretaries are not talent. Analysts most definitely are. The top ones are people that will be running the firm in 20 years.

ok thx for the advice but a) the place i work has been around for quite some time and has made many people very rich so i dont think anyone is looking for advice on the business model and b) i am not paid to predict the future i am paid to make money trading. Thank god i dont have to also predict the future as that sounds very hard.

Keep living in the fantasy world that the executives at your firm actually care about analysts and think of them as future stars if you want but its untrue. Analysts are a cost center just like the secretaries...in fact the cuts in hours are really in part an admission of this not a refutation of it. Whenu guys are working 9-5 M-F just like the secretaries i bet you'll be saying "this is great they are really lkining us up to run this place now!".

You don't predict the future? Don't you try to buy things that go up in value at the point you buy it from today? That's predicting the future in my book.

You seem like a bitter guy.

Yeah, the foundation of investment is predicated on a future prediction, or at least a prediction of future upside/downside. Not too sure what exactly Bondarb is doing through his "trading" that doesn't involve the future. And if it really doesn't then why it can't be automated through a computer program.

    • 1
Nov 4, 2013
DickFuld:
Bondarb:
DickFuld:

Your firm is destined to fail at some point if you don't have some system (however informal it may be) to develop young talent in a firm where the only value is in the people. That should be obvious to people who are paid to predict the future.

Your analogy does not ring true. Secretaries are not talent. Analysts most definitely are. The top ones are people that will be running the firm in 20 years.

ok thx for the advice but a) the place i work has been around for quite some time and has made many people very rich so i dont think anyone is looking for advice on the business model and b) i am not paid to predict the future i am paid to make money trading. Thank god i dont have to also predict the future as that sounds very hard.

Keep living in the fantasy world that the executives at your firm actually care about analysts and think of them as future stars if you want but its untrue. Analysts are a cost center just like the secretaries...in fact the cuts in hours are really in part an admission of this not a refutation of it. Whenu guys are working 9-5 M-F just like the secretaries i bet you'll be saying "this is great they are really lkining us up to run this place now!".

You don't predict the future? Don't you try to buy things that go up in value at the point you buy it from today? That's predicting the future in my book.

You seem like a bitter guy.

just because part of trading is making educated guesses on the future doesnt mean i get paid to predict the future. I have been a profitable trader for quite some time and my hit ratio on trades/ideas is too low to say i have made my money predicting the future. Maybe it is too nuanced for a college kid but trading is not about predicting the future it is about managing your mistakes and capitalizing on your succeses...i suppose i do in the process make predictions about the future but its definitely not what i get paid for. I guess a weather man gets paid for that but not a trader.

Nov 4, 2013
Bondarb:

just because part of trading is making educated guesses on the future doesnt mean i get paid to predict the future.

Care to predict how much your LPs would pay you if your predictions about the future were always wrong?

Bondarb:

I have been a profitable trader for quite some time

It's the Internet, we can all be whoever we want. I was the CEO of a major investment bank (don't ask how it ended).

Bondarb:

and my hit ratio on trades/ideas is too low to say i have made my money predicting the future. Maybe it is too nuanced for a college kid

I hope you're not referring to me, because then I would have to agree with your self-assessment about predictions.

Bondarb:

but trading is not about predicting the future it is about managing your mistakes and capitalizing on your succeses...i suppose i do in the process make predictions about the future but its definitely not what i get paid for. I guess a weather man gets paid for that but not a trader.

I agree that a PM's job is to manage risk, but it's impossible to put on a trade if you have no view on anything in the overwhelming majority of funds. In my mind, anytime you view something as 'cheap' or 'undervalued', there is an implicit assumption that it should rise in value. Not necessarily an outrageous conclusion, but it's still a prediction.

Anyway, going back to the original point. If your firm does not care at all about the junior employees, it's probably a fair conclusion that they don't care much for the senior employees either. Obviously, at every firm, the people who have already proven themselves are the most value to the firm. I don't know anybody that would deny that. But, the majority of firms do care about ensuring a succession plan for the more senior people. You need a bench. Talented young people should be that bench and they are at many of the places I've worked.

    • 1
    • 1
Nov 4, 2013
DickFuld:

Anyway, going back to the original point. If your firm does not care at all about the junior employees, it's probably a fair conclusion that they don't care much for the senior employees either. Obviously, at every firm, the people who have already proven themselves are the most value to the firm. I don't know anybody that would deny that. But, the majority of firms do care about ensuring a succession plan for the more senior people. You need a bench. Talented young people should be that bench and they are at many of the places I've worked.

+1 to this.

"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."

Nov 5, 2013

allow me to repeat that nobody cares about your opinions on how to run a firm...i am telling you with 100% certainty that i work someplace that has created many many millionaires and is long lived, well-respected and anyone who doesnt produce is not valued in terms of retention. That is a fact. You respond by saying "your firm sucks". OK fine but i'd bet a lot of money that if offered a job there you would jump at it just like you would at many other places like goldman that think the same way....and once you realized it you wouldn't even leave. That is the way it works...you dont have people in this or any business valuing you as an employee because you are willing to proofread a spreadsheet twelve times a night and getting into a role as a producer isn't easy. Believe it if you want or dont...when i was 22 i would have balked at the idea also.

Nov 6, 2013
Bondarb:

allow me to repeat that nobody cares about your opinions on how to run a firm...i am telling you with 100% certainty that i work someplace that has created many many millionaires and is long lived, well-respected and anyone who doesnt produce is not valued in terms of retention. That is a fact. You respond by saying "your firm sucks". OK fine but i'd bet a lot of money that if offered a job there you would jump at it just like you would at many other places like goldman that think the same way....and once you realized it you wouldn't even leave. That is the way it works...you dont have people in this or any business valuing you as an employee because you are willing to proofread a spreadsheet twelve times a night and getting into a role as a producer isn't easy. Believe it if you want or dont...when i was 22 i would have balked at the idea also.

I'm not saying your firm sucks, but a leanly-staffed hedge fund is a completely different animal than a global investment bank with 32,000 employees. No one said becoming a producer was "easy" or that "proofreading a spreadsheet twelve times a night" is difficult, but that has absolutely no relevance to the value of reducing employee turnover.

Personally, your attitude towards junior employees makes me quite happy that I don't work for you. And I find it unlikely that I would turn down my current buyside gig to join a team that takes this approach to development.

Also, here's an internal GS email about the "fake" new policy. Going to great lengths to perpetrate this smoke screen, wouldn't you say?

//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/details-on-goldmans...

Please, take a step back and reevaluate how silly your position on this is. You're posting incessantly defending the obviously false view that this is a "PR stunt" or "fake policy" in order to assure that IB analysts comprehend how unimportant they are. We got it, man, we're replaceable. No one disagrees with that. Nor does anyone think that is an acceptable justification to turn your business into a revolving door of overpriced temp-workers.

"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."

Nov 5, 2013

i am definitely not going to get into an argument with you about what makes a great buyside trader since you clearly have never done it but predicting the future is not what a trader does. it was soros who said "it doesnt matter how often i am right and how often i am wrong. it only matters how much i make when i am right and how much i lose when i am wrong". I guess you know more then him and your right that trading is all about accuracy predicting the future.

And interesting theory that i am making up my background...i have been posting on this board on and off for 8 years since i was an ops guy...i really invested a lot of time and imagination into this fake persona.

Nov 5, 2013

Just because your firm does not value junior level talent, does not mean every firm is run that way. You won't even concede that it might be different elsewhere. I find it a little strange that you seem so hostile to young people on the team.

This is an anonymous Internet forum, you don't know what I've done. But, you seem pretty strong in your conviction that I'm some junior guy who has never done this stuff before. That's fine by me, because it's not like I'm going to gain anything by telling you about who I am. But, if what you write on WSO is to be believed, I have more experience in this industry than you do.

    • 2
Nov 6, 2013

i dont know ur industry experience but I can say with 100% certainty that you don't run any money in a trading boo based on ur response to my comments about the nature of trading. But whetever i wish u best of luck the dripping arrogance of you and northsider has finally convinced me after almost a decade to give up these boards. good luck im sure you will both ride the analyst to CEO path that you are so convinced is out there.

Nov 6, 2013
Bondarb:

i dont know ur industry experience but I can say with 100% certainty that you don't run any money in a trading boo based on ur response to my comments about the nature of trading. But whetever i wish u best of luck the dripping arrogance of you and northsider has finally convinced me after almost a decade to give up these boards. good luck im sure you will both ride the analyst to CEO path that you are so convinced is out there.

I've enjoyed many of your posts in the past, but I don't know what you were hoping to accomplish with this recent line of comments. Everybody knows that the actual "producers" are the most valuable part of a firm, but to come onto a forum in which 99% of the users are not hedge fund partners (as you claim to be) or those contributing significantly to the bottom line of a large business entity and basically claim they're all no more valuable than secretaries reflects a seriously unreasonable attitude IMO.

Nov 6, 2013
Bondarb:

i dont know ur industry experience but I can say with 100% certainty that you don't run any money in a trading boo based on ur response to my comments about the nature of trading. But whetever i wish u best of luck the dripping arrogance of you and northsider has finally convinced me after almost a decade to give up these boards. good luck im sure you will both ride the analyst to CEO path that you are so convinced is out there.

I have enjoyed many of your posts as well. Dropping off WSO because you think I'm an arrogant dick (you wouldn't be the first) would probably disappoint some people. I happen to disagree with your stance about junior people, but no big deal to me. I'm an asshole in your mind, but given the large amount of people here, you were bound to think at least a few people were assholes. No need to stop because the inevitable was going to happen. I can tell you don't like unsolicited advice, but here goes anyway: life is short, lighten up a little.

Nov 6, 2013
DickFuld:

Dropping off WSO because you think I'm an arrogant dick (you wouldn't be the first) would probably disappoint some people. I happen to disagree with your stance about junior people, but no big deal to me.

I second this.

"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."

Nov 6, 2013
Bondarb:

i dont know ur industry experience but I can say with 100% certainty that you don't run any money in a trading boo based on ur response to my comments about the nature of trading. But whetever i wish u best of luck the dripping arrogance of you and northsider has finally convinced me after almost a decade to give up these boards. good luck im sure you will both ride the analyst to CEO path that you are so convinced is out there.

My goodness. We're being arrogant??!

Just a few posts ago you were calling all junior level talent on Wall Street no-better-than-secretaries. Your posts thus far have been exclusively pompous and condescending, chock full of mysterious references to your "millionaire-producing" hedge fund that we would drop everything to "jump into" and "never leave", and sarcastic slams at how meaningless analysts are compared to big-shots like you.

Some excerpts from my posts:

We got it, man, we're replaceable. No one disagrees with that.

...

Analysts may perform rote, easily replaceable tasks

...

Of course executive management views analysts as a cost-center. How else would they?

My whole point this entire time has been simply: "Just because analysts aren't currently raking in revenue for the firm doesn't make their development and attrition unimportant."

Somehow you interpreted that as me thinking I'm going to "ride the analyst to CEO path" (even though, as I've stated, I'm leaving IB for the buyside).

I think you need to seriously back up and re-read your own posts.

No one here is glorifying analysts, saying that they perform existentially important work, claiming that they are anywhere near as valuable as revenue-generators, etc. People are merely pointing out that Goldman is taking proactive steps to reduce analyst attrition, which is, plainly, a fact. Lost in your insistence that analysts are the non-contributing scum of this planet, you have clearly missed the point.

"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."

Nov 4, 2013
Bondarb:
DickFuld:

Your firm is destined to fail at some point if you don't have some system (however informal it may be) to develop young talent in a firm where the only value is in the people. That should be obvious to people who are paid to predict the future.

Your analogy does not ring true. Secretaries are not talent. Analysts most definitely are. The top ones are people that will be running the firm in 20 years.

ok thx for the advice but a) the place i work has been around for quite some time and has made many people very rich so i dont think anyone is looking for advice on the business model and b) i am not paid to predict the future i am paid to make money trading. Thank god i dont have to also predict the future as that sounds very hard.

Keep living in the fantasy world that the executives at your firm actually care about analysts and think of them as future stars if you want but its untrue. Analysts are a cost center just like the secretaries...in fact the cuts in hours are really in part an admission of this not a refutation of it. Whenu guys are working 9-5 M-F just like the secretaries i bet you'll be saying "this is great they are really lkining us up to run this place now!".

You have a very strange perspective on all of this.

Of course executive management views analysts as a cost-center. How else would they? They don't bring in any revenue! Since when is that justification to sit idly by as your most productive junior talent glides out the door? Do you realize that recruiting is also a cost-center? Lost productivity due to incompetent 1st year analysts is a cost-center.

Even my friends who manage movie theaters put time and effort into reducing staff turnover for minimum wage ticket-takers.

Just because you have talented guys bringing in revenue today doesn't mean that you abdicate any responsibility to grooming the next generation of revenue-generators.

And this whole "analysts are the same as secretaries" credo just makes you sound like a pompous elitist. At some point, you did something utterly replaceable as well, and thanks to the investment firms and individuals made in your development, you are where you are today.

Analysts may perform rote, easily replaceable tasks, but I can assure you that no sane executive management treats assistants making $40k the same as the 22 year-old Harvard grads they're throwing $150k at. They're treated differently, there are different expectations, and - yes (the horror!) - there is more emphasis on keeping them around. There is no alternative explanation for this behavior at Goldman, stop insisting that there is. You're making a fool of yourself.

"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."

Nov 4, 2013

theatre owners care about attrition of ticket-takersbecause they cost money to train and because ticket-takers can't leave and become clients of theirs. Answer my initial question: do u think goldman has made more money in the last 20 or so years of the modern analyst program off of production internally of former analysts or on business former analysts bring to the firm? And why do you think goldman touts their "alumni network" as if they are running a trade school? I can tell you that when we hire PMs (and even some more senior analysts/strats) where i work we give them tough non-competes, defered comp arrangements, and other things to make it hard for them to leave...we dont pitch the alumni network.

And u can say i am making a fool of myself but u arent even in the business and you are trying to tell me about something i have lived for the last decade so with all due respect i dont think you have a clue.

Nov 4, 2013
Bondarb:

theatre owners care about attrition of ticket-takersbecause they cost money to train and because ticket-takers can't leave and become clients of theirs. Answer my initial question: do u think goldman has made more money in the last 20 or so years of the modern analyst program off of production internally of former analysts or on business former analysts bring to the firm?

Quite frankly, I think it's mostly a wash. There are a fair number of former analysts in MD / Partner roles, and I don't know too many former GS analysts who either 1) think back fondly of their "good ol' analyst days" or 2) would feel any ethical duty to repay GS for "all of that good treatment".

What is not a wash is the value of Goldman's reputation. And, for the most part, reputation on the street is judged based on the quality of people at the firm. Some of that comes through poaching talent from competitors; but, increasingly, senior laterals are moving to boutique firms for bigger paychecks. At least some of it has to come from within, and this policy is a small step in that direction.

I can tell you that when we hire PMs (and even some more senior analysts/strats) where i work we give them tough non-competes, defered comp arrangements, and other things to make it hard for them to leave...we dont pitch the alumni network.

And u can say i am making a fool of myself but u arent even in the business and you are trying to tell me about something i have lived for the last decade so with all due respect i dont think you have a clue.

1) I am in the business. In fact, I'm closer to the IB world and, more specifically, the treatment of analysts at GS than you are.

2) Please respond to these remarks, which were intended as responses to your questions above:

Is the anti-recruiting policy, using which they fired several analysts who had outstanding buyside offers, part of their plan to turn over analysts with a great "2 year sales pitch"?? I suppose the cessation of the two-year program a part of the "2 year sales pitch" as well??

Why is Goldman firing analysts with outstanding buyside offers, if their goal is to send analysts to the buyside to become clients?? Why end the two year program, which only makes it less attractive to leave and become a client?

"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."

Oct 31, 2013
Bondarb:

Analysts are not talent. Even where i work at a hedge fund the analysts are not talent and they are 4-5 years older. The talent are the producers...the people who make money or on the sell-side the people who bring in the deals. The proper analogy is a baseball team like the yankees...the 25 players on the roster are the talent. The cast of hundreds that shine their shoes, get the field ready, throw them batting practice, etc are important but they are all 100% replaceable and nobody is realistically expecting them to become players. If the Yankees don't resign robinson cano nobidy is expecting the bat boy to step up and play 2nd base.

As analysts in banking you are the ball-boys...nice to have around but nobody cares if you leave.

The "producers" are pretty replaceable as well...there are thousands of them.

A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

Nov 1, 2013
Going Concern:
Bondarb:

Analysts are not talent. Even where i work at a hedge fund the analysts are not talent and they are 4-5 years older. The talent are the producers...the people who make money or on the sell-side the people who bring in the deals. The proper analogy is a baseball team like the yankees...the 25 players on the roster are the talent. The cast of hundreds that shine their shoes, get the field ready, throw them batting practice, etc are important but they are all 100% replaceable and nobody is realistically expecting them to become players. If the Yankees don't resign robinson cano nobidy is expecting the bat boy to step up and play 2nd base.

As analysts in banking you are the ball-boys...nice to have around but nobody cares if you leave.

The "producers" are pretty replaceable as well...there are thousands of them.

A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

that is true...the prdoucers are only as good as their last year/month/day/whatever...i have been on both sides and when u r on the production side the pressure is much more b/c you know the reality which is that you are just a number in black and white at the bottom of a PnL statement. But at least that is fair and i would never create the mental bullshitt thought that i am somehow more valuable then that stream future income. You fight years in this business to be able to show that you can create a serious number art the bottom of that page and you getpaid very well if you can do it.

    • 1
Nov 1, 2013
Bondarb:

Analysts are not talent. Even where i work at a hedge fund the analysts are not talent and they are 4-5 years older. The talent are the producers...the people who make money or on the sell-side the people who bring in the deals. The proper analogy is a baseball team like the yankees...the 25 players on the roster are the talent. The cast of hundreds that shine their shoes, get the field ready, throw them batting practice, etc are important but they are all 100% replaceable and nobody is realistically expecting them to become players. If the Yankees don't resign robinson cano nobidy is expecting the bat boy to step up and play 2nd base.

As analysts in banking you are the ball-boys...nice to have around but nobody cares if you leave.

Of course the RMs at the top are way more important than Analysts - that goes without saying.

But I would take an IB Analyst over an Associate / VP any day of the week. A fair amount of the reason for that is that the top "talent" (people blowing up about the use of that word, so put it in quotes) heads to the buyside. I don't see why it's so ludicrous to think they want to change that. I'm not saying Analysts are cosmically important to the operations of the business, merely that these are - mostly - intelligent, driven, articulate kids that the bank spent millions recruiting. Why not try to keep them around?

Only on WSO is the reaction to paying 22 year-olds $300k in two years after spending millions recruiting at the nation's top undergraduate programs and simply letting them walk out the door a nonchalant "meh, who cares?"

A bunch of people in here are wondering why there is a talent drain to startups, consulting, etc. The attitude reflected above is the root precisely.

9 times out of 10 I agree with your posts.

Good to hear there's at least one person out there!!

All this sideshow stuff, like new employee contracts, press releases, and new recruiting policies? Honestly, I don't think it means shit. The new contracts are worthless. They don't guarantee an associate promotion. It's just a carrot on a stick. "See, maybe you can stay! If we like you." Press releases? This is Goldman. C'mon. They've been leaking stuff to the Journal for a looooong time. And recruiting policies? I had an ex-girlfriend who would flip out any time I was texting like, literally any other girl. Super possessive. She still cheated on me. Goldman is a psycho-jealous-bitch. I wouldn't confuse that with like, loyalty. It's all about control.

So your argument is that they did all of this for what? Good PR?? How does preventing analysts from working weekends contribute to "control"?

If Goldman honestly wanted to retain top analyst talent, they would start writing fat checks to the guys staying for a third year. This is fucking Wall Street. Money talks. Elite boutiques pay up to keep their people around. Private equity firms pay up to get the best. It's not like Goldman doesn't know that. They just don't care.

Unless you're writing huge checks for 3 dozen hours a week of useless work. If that's the case, it's a much shrewder policy to cut out those hours and maintain pay.

Not sure of your experience, but I've seen plenty of analysts jump ship for lower-paying gigs on the buyside, in corpdev, consulting, startups, etc. This really isn't all about the money. It matters, but IMO the culture of banking contributes quite a bit more to attrition than does substandard pay.

I hear a ton of bankers complaining about rote work and 100-hour weeks; rarely do I hear them complain "I don't make enough money for a 22 year-old".

My bottom line:

Every paradigmatic shift is going to sound ridiculous and incite scoffs at first. But I've started to see precisely this trend at the elite boutiques: not only do they pay their analysts more and give cash incentives for people staying a 3rd year, but they also have slowly been reducing workloads for analysts (LAZ is a notable exception). Analysts at GHL / EVR / BX / Moelis are working considerably less than BB peers, and they seem a lot happier / more willing to entertain the idea of staying a 3rd year than do BB analysts. I just don't buy that the primary reason is because they're making $25-30k more than their BB peers - it's because their job isn't as punishing.

If there's one thing that IB teaches you very early on, it's that an incremental $20k here or there is nothing worth making life decisions based on. I would gladly take a cut in pay for more (predictable) vacation time in a year.

"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."

Nov 2, 2013
Bondarb:

Analysts are not talent. Even where i work at a hedge fund the analysts are not talent and they are 4-5 years older. The talent are the producers...the people who make money or on the sell-side the people who bring in the deals. The proper analogy is a baseball team like the yankees...the 25 players on the roster are the talent. The cast of hundreds that shine their shoes, get the field ready, throw them batting practice, etc are important but they are all 100% replaceable and nobody is realistically expecting them to become players. If the Yankees don't resign robinson cano nobidy is expecting the bat boy to step up and play 2nd base.

As analysts in banking you are the ball-boys...nice to have around but nobody cares if you leave.

Oddly enough - at the fund I work at, a lot of the producers started out as analysts. A couple of the biggest producers (who are among the single best at what they do on the street and are quite well known across the street for being rock stars) started as junior analysts right out of college or a few years after.

Funny how that works, I always thought that the best PMs emerged fully formed from the womb without any training or experience whatsoever.

But you're right. No talent in junior employees whatsoever. All 100% replaceable robots with the brains of monkeys.

Nov 2, 2013
xqtrack:

Funny how that works, I always thought that the best PMs emerged fully formed from the womb without any training or experience whatsoever.

But you're right. No talent in junior employees whatsoever. All 100% replaceable robots with the brains of monkeys.

Lol, don't forget the "fact" that analysts are no more qualified than secretaries, shoe-shine guys, folks working the print room, and janitorial staff. And of course there's no way that many of the mid-level PMs at a lot of the larger shops are just glorified relationship managers who get a lot of their ideas from research analysts and/or CIO/head-PMs.

Nov 1, 2013

LOL at people claiming it takes "talent" to be an IB analyst. A fucking homeless man could do this job, it's not rocket science.