Lunch with my ex colleagues are invariably convivial and enjoyable. They talk a lot, I learn a lot, and I keep in contact with everyone.
The bankers at CSFB are worlds apart from those at CIMB-GK. They lead more stressful lives, more time at work, earn more money and live more extravagantly. Investment banking, as my colleague said, really distorts your value of money, and many of them find it tough to adjust after leaving IBD. We pay our own way at lunches, eat generally at cheaper places, but everything else is the same. IB at a bulge bracket firm is a lifestyle choice with a short span, many of them are not looking to be career investment bankers, since priorities oscillate as one grows older. The attrition rate is so high, and even higher is the higher-and-fire rate, but again, even higher is the pay.
The personalities we discuss are always right at the top of the financial world – john mack, brady dougan, eric varvel, alan wheat etc. At today’s lunch I find out how important is sucking up to the correct people, and what is the opportunity cost of “managing upwards”.
My dad and jack are similar in many ways, both manage downward impeccably but upward disastrously. Dad is known by his peers as one who cannot play the political game in the office; jack is known as one who doesn’t respect the “upstairs people” in his society. The advantage of this is you get a loyal following, you meet people who might rise above you and get good contacts; the disadvantages are obvious.
An ex colleague is known for being very politically savvy, managing upward extremely well – to the point where he only works on one deal at a time!! of course, since his attention is undivided, his reviews for that deal are impeccably come paytime; he gets the largest bonus. The cost – when the business cycle swings, those who were at his level might climb the ranks, but they don’t particularly like that person. The cost may seem social at first, but it may have larger repercussions – indeed, this unnamed colleague is currently out of a job after he’d left CSFB, unlike all the others who were at lunch today. He wasn’t, and is never, at our lunches, for obvious reasons.
Of course, there are variations of this generic formula, and the factors I have enumerated are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive, but this is what ive heard and seen first hand, and its rather enlightening.
Personally, I think im the type who is better at managing up – which im not sure is a good thing.
Ah, we’d see, we’d see.
we talked, we talked, till work called us back.
The bankers at CSFB are worlds apart from those at CIMB-GK. They lead more stressful lives, more time at work, earn more money and live more extravagantly. Investment banking, as my colleague said, really distorts your value of money, and many of them find it tough to adjust after leaving IBD. We pay our own way at lunches, eat generally at cheaper places, but everything else is the same. IB at a bulge bracket firm is a lifestyle choice with a short span, many of them are not looking to be career investment bankers, since priorities oscillate as one grows older. The attrition rate is so high, and even higher is the higher-and-fire rate, but again, even higher is the pay.
The personalities we discuss are always right at the top of the financial world – john mack, brady dougan, eric varvel, alan wheat etc. At today’s lunch I find out how important is sucking up to the correct people, and what is the opportunity cost of “managing upwards”.
My dad and jack are similar in many ways, both manage downward impeccably but upward disastrously. Dad is known by his peers as one who cannot play the political game in the office; jack is known as one who doesn’t respect the “upstairs people” in his society. The advantage of this is you get a loyal following, you meet people who might rise above you and get good contacts; the disadvantages are obvious.
An ex colleague is known for being very politically savvy, managing upward extremely well – to the point where he only works on one deal at a time!! of course, since his attention is undivided, his reviews for that deal are impeccably come paytime; he gets the largest bonus. The cost – when the business cycle swings, those who were at his level might climb the ranks, but they don’t particularly like that person. The cost may seem social at first, but it may have larger repercussions – indeed, this unnamed colleague is currently out of a job after he’d left CSFB, unlike all the others who were at lunch today. He wasn’t, and is never, at our lunches, for obvious reasons.
Of course, there are variations of this generic formula, and the factors I have enumerated are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive, but this is what ive heard and seen first hand, and its rather enlightening.
Personally, I think im the type who is better at managing up – which im not sure is a good thing.
Ah, we’d see, we’d see.
we talked, we talked, till work called us back.
