Hello monkeys,
Reading about investment banking hours in this forum, over the internet, and asking around, it's probably very commonplace to have 70 hour work weeks up to 100 hours per week, although many would say that this involves very menial tasks such as Powerpoint, number massaging, or getting that pitchbook done.
I think that this may seem counter-productive as the employees would be too tired and fatigued to do all this work and this increases risks of doing something wrong. I also stumbled upon this interesting article on Bloomberg about how 6-hour weekdays save money by increasing health and productivity benefits.
The article also mentioned these aspects:
These improved attitudes and health led to higher quality care at the nursing home.
I understand that the results from the Swedish nursing home are done under completely different circumstances than investment banking, however, can't these results be extrapolated? With improved attitudes and health, these bankers can cater to clients' requests better.
EDIT: Seems that I have reached a misunderstanding on IBD and iBankedUp gave a really good explanation. In any case, do you guys think there's a good solution to the long hours of investment banking?
Healthier employees spend half as much on health care, a new study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found. Looking at 10,000 employees at a health system in Florida, researchers found that those who were in “ideal” cardiovascular health, using the American Hearth Association's Life’s Simple 7 measurement, spent $4,000 a year less on health care costs than those in “poor” heart health.
In addition, considering on how so many of investment bankers have health problems due to copious amounts of alcohol, lack of sleep and exercise, what do you guys think about shorter work days for investment banking?
I cannot help but laugh at the generalizations you make.
6 hour work weeks are good when you have two weekend days built into the 5 day schedule. Tell me how you get 70-100 hours into 7 days any more efficiently than just hammering them out...more than 24 hours in a day? Don't forget we need our copious amounts of drinking time.
This is an unfortunate misunderstanding on your part. I think a lot of the long hours is on part of the client side. But what's worst is that deal teams might work better leaner, despite there'd potentially be enough work to hire double the average analyst class. When I was working on menial tasks (and even now, post-IB) it's better to not step on each other's toes, doubling work, and bumping heads leading to inefficiencies, causing failures in the strategy. IB is part science, part art, so it's the art aspect that gets muddy with more than one person acting on what an MD wants or even bank-specific preferences on small things (there's just no way for each individual to work on the same schedule and exact same approach). It's not like changing x number of sheets in a building with y number of rooms per z hours. You're not doing a job that requires more hands on deck to get a better product, just more delicate hands, which is where prim and proper target school grads come in. Plus, I'm sure it's cost-effective for banks where they hand out top of the line salaries for juniors too, to have as low numbers as possible.
Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding! +1 SB
I think this is a fair point. I've long thought that it made little sense to have the number of people on a deal team that typically show up to a room. As an analyst or associate, you never get to come to those meetings (at least, I never did). As you get a bit more senior, you realize that most people don't actually need to be in the room.
You can ABSOLUTELY run deal teams leaner.
The problem is that all of the MDs came up together. Some of them are competitive with one another, but most are aware that their group (and the M&A division as a whole) is more dependent on total fees EVERY YEAR than their individual contribution in a single year. As such, you get a LOT more MDs attaching their names to a deal than really should.
I've done a few billion dollar deals, and I can assure you that in those deals, there were FAR too many senior dickheads sucking off the teat of whomever actually originated the deal. In most cases, the bankers aren't even the originators. They're a necessary evil to complete a transaction. It's FAR easier to conduct a deal principal to principal than through a network of intermediaries. What value do you think you really add as a banker? If I'm not leveraging your balance sheet, I have a wider network than most of your MDs, and I have my own associates, what value do you add?
I've often demanded analysts and associates to come to meetings since you're the guys who ultimately have to do the work I need. I don't need advice from another guy at my level. All of the structures we use are commonplace. And we have lawyers, accountants and consultants who can all do the same work the bank does.
I often wonder what the bank is doing at all. Outside of the 'fairness opinion' and access to your balance sheets, I see little use at all. Which is probably why your MDs make you do loads of bullshit analysis. They know what I know, and they're attempting to win a MASSIVE fee by playing a shell game with a modicum of intellect.
SO TRUE.
I do wonder how much investment banks' inability to retain junior bankers costs, in terms of recruitment and training. I wouldn't be surprised if things shift in the next decade, due to the fact that Wall Street is losing its sheen in comparison to other top companies which don't run their employees into the ground.
Quite a bit. I went through recruiting this year primarily at MMs and some BBs, and I don't think there was a single one that didn't flaunt some sort of work-life balance program (protected weekends/etc) and express how available the promotion to associate was.
At an information interview with an HR exec at a bank, they said that it was a huge cost, because it literally takes ">1 year to get new associates up to the speed of new associates coming from the analyst pool."
I've never worked in banking, so I guess this question might seem naive: what does massaging numbers actually entail. I get that it is data manipulation, but do you literally change numbers to make them look better or play around with the parameters?
Tweaking growth rates, synergies, discount rates, choosing different comps etc to get to your desired numbers.
Cum ut repellat eos maiores odit. Expedita libero non corrupti reprehenderit aut. Ut eos molestiae id architecto et. Architecto odit odit maiores qui.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...