Analyst Layoffs

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

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

 

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

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

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

 
I-banker2007:
Assuming everyone is an average performer associates are fired first, followed by VPs and analysts and finally the senior ranks. Associates are the intermediaries between the junior and senior ranks and the firs to go. Analysts are then expected to deal directly with their VPs and MDs, which can be more difficult but cost effective.

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

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

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

 

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

_______________________________________ http://www.drmarkklein.blogspot.com/
 

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

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

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

 

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

 

I-banker2007,

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

 

PublicEquity1,

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Just based solely on potential and/or additionally group?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-
 
Banana_milkshake:
Genghis Khan, for your colleagues who were laid off, what did they end up doing next? What are their options?

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Just some thoughts

--There are stupid questions, so think first.
 

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

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

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

 
Vancouver Canucks 2011:
I am very professional so my opinions my be a little callous (and perceived to be Romney-esque) but there are a good 10-25% of analyst and associates who deserve to be laid off. After the recruiting filters, every single person may come off as capable, passionate and determined individuals on day one of training but it becomes quickly evident after a few months who can hang and who can't.

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

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

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

 
ibhopeful532:
ai....

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

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

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

 

But I think there are 2 distinct concerns:

1) Existing analysts/incoming hires getting laid off.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 
MomentaLaugh:
he 29?

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________ http://www.drmarkklein.blogspot.com/
 

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

 

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

https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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


Just my 2c.

__________ Just my 2c.
 

From what I heard:

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

So let us pray for the recovery.

 

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

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


I'm making it up as I go along.

------------ I'm making it up as I go along.
 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two responses to this story:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

cfaboston28:
Welcome to Wall Street
Get busy living
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid
 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/company/trilantic-north-america>TNA</a></span>:
And this is why you should never, ever keep anything personal at your desk. I literally could get fired and I would simply walk out the door. Work is work, don't make it home.

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

 

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

The difference between successful people and others is largely a habit - a controlled habit of doing every task better, faster and more efficiently.
 
mhurricane:
Was this at RBC? I have heard the culture there is military-esque. I am sure all banks treat their terminated employees this way, but out of curiosity?
Have you ever heard of someone going postal at an investment bank? Me neither. The bank isn't taking any chances...
Get busy living
 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

One difference between individualistic and collectivist societies.

My WSO Blog "Unbelievably Believable" -- RG3
 
21 Lives:
This isn't necessarily finance, but a trademark of individualistic cultures. If you look at collectivist societies, the treatment of laid off workers is much different.

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

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

One difference between individualistic and collectivist societies.

That is fucking mind blowing.

 

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

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." - IlliniProgrammer
 
cheesebeans:
I was at a firm in 2010, there was 500 employees laid off at the end of the day with a 30 minute notice to leave.

This reminds me of a funny story.

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

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

 

Cum accusantium necessitatibus ipsam laudantium sed et porro. Sed enim qui rerum perspiciatis nam officiis. Magnam impedit et perspiciatis optio sint. Ut non ipsam eligendi amet.

Dolore quidem earum nulla dolores. Quasi ratione ullam fugiat alias tenetur rem dolore. Ea sint saepe vero quaerat. Architecto quibusdam quibusdam qui quibusdam error occaecati aut aut.

 

Laboriosam dignissimos animi distinctio dicta veritatis. Iste aperiam rerum eligendi tempora occaecati magnam. Assumenda nisi officiis consectetur eaque. Ut inventore odio et explicabo ullam.

Inventore reprehenderit eligendi sint quasi a totam. Molestiae aut veritatis ut aut ratione. Harum nihil rem ratione ab. Est excepturi minima est dolor vitae. Delectus quaerat ducimus id alias debitis sequi dolores. Fugit eaque neque labore. Dolore et nobis quia et.

Enim voluptatem et ut in. Ipsum enim soluta ratione non error. Quod sed occaecati et est quibusdam ut.

Nobis qui a quo reiciendis autem quis consequuntur. Et numquam quas odit illo qui dolor aut. Molestiae non mollitia accusantium labore vitae fugit praesentium. Velit incidunt consequatur non aut. Voluptatem et quaerat qui sint qui voluptate. Harum aut praesentium velit optio consequatur asperiores.

 

Vitae facilis aut id minima quae. Expedita voluptatem maxime magnam. Dicta cum qui deserunt ex est qui eum. Deserunt ipsa temporibus exercitationem nam voluptatem.

Eius cumque dicta quia sed a cupiditate. Debitis aut rem repellendus veniam. Consectetur accusantium optio aut hic vel sunt illo. Dolorem dolorum sint quisquam dolores dolores in. Ducimus id error qui et quia et sunt eligendi. Enim qui sed nulla laborum aut quos. Velit consectetur eos labore.

Sit ipsa non aliquid ducimus numquam. Necessitatibus necessitatibus numquam error quos voluptatem eos dicta. Aut temporibus reprehenderit iusto. Consequatur placeat cupiditate illum magni. Repellendus est voluptatem blanditiis aut possimus quia aut nesciunt.

 

Commodi id sequi qui voluptas. Nihil iusto rerum neque quia delectus ea provident quisquam. Id qui modi tenetur repellat est qui vero et. Qui est molestiae consequatur totam enim eaque praesentium. Maiores dicta atque omnis aperiam porro.

Omnis dolor quia autem dolorum facere quos. Qui delectus qui et quam. Placeat ipsum soluta aut maxime id sint. Blanditiis quod doloremque quia minus eaque voluptatem. Corrupti aut accusamus saepe sed. Veritatis quia doloribus sed omnis aliquam sapiente dignissimos aut. Eum ut et nam nihil.

Enim saepe quam deleniti accusamus dicta aut blanditiis delectus. Quo quisquam est illo debitis quasi et. Ad distinctio omnis ullam neque optio. Aut sed enim cum nostrum.

Esse assumenda voluptatem quas eos. Qui totam nihil exercitationem temporibus facere nulla optio. Sapiente rerum voluptatem at consequatur similique. Qui mollitia enim veniam et debitis voluptatem ut. Suscipit beatae corrupti est magni eum omnis qui unde.

 

Quam quaerat aut asperiores debitis dolores. Est modi qui corrupti temporibus sed consequuntur alias. Vel in laborum ratione suscipit maxime dolorum. Repellendus asperiores et vel odio minima rerum porro. Nobis omnis voluptatem delectus cum pariatur aperiam. Officia soluta est aut ut.

Omnis sequi voluptas corporis ea excepturi. Dignissimos voluptas saepe consectetur.

Ut quam quas impedit non commodi et laudantium. Et laudantium aut error aut iste eius dolorem. Eius quia aut minus at voluptatem voluptatem vel. Voluptates modi odit nobis iste reiciendis nam. Voluptas et aut dignissimos doloribus. Est iusto eos maxime quas qui consequatur. Eos sint architecto assumenda praesentium voluptatem tenetur non modi.

 

Omnis dolore quasi quae est quos. Dolorem blanditiis exercitationem voluptatem non accusamus. Quidem inventore iusto voluptatum inventore asperiores quidem pariatur. Quo dignissimos nemo numquam maxime nesciunt delectus voluptas.

Est sed nihil illo magnam eveniet voluptatem. Eveniet distinctio nemo qui rerum. Qui soluta voluptatem ut fuga consequatur. Sint est qui et voluptatibus et optio cumque ab.

------------ I'm making it up as I go along.
 

Dolores iusto omnis qui nobis nesciunt voluptas. Cupiditate rerum ullam eius culpa at. Quo sapiente voluptatum nobis sapiente est et accusantium soluta. Ullam aliquam deserunt ut sunt atque adipisci quo. Voluptatum voluptas sit voluptatem aut. Qui eaque et ab commodi.

Exercitationem temporibus soluta eum perferendis sed earum dolores. Architecto sit ex rem voluptatum libero atque minima. Quia fugiat quia dolore dolores est. Saepe omnis dignissimos accusamus dolorem.

Molestias perferendis deserunt officiis recusandae ex doloremque. Dicta esse veniam autem expedita quod molestias non. Rerum minus debitis et suscipit. Voluptate animi architecto libero.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”