Contributed, entirely coincidentally, by Zoe Cruz.
Last week, the co-president of Morgan Stanley and one of the most visible women on Wall Street, Zoe Cruz, was fired. According to Bloomberg.com, Ms. Cruz, who was born in Greece and received undergraduate and MBA degrees from Harvard University, started her Morgan Stanley career in 1982 as a bond trader. She became a managing director in 1990 and helped run foreign exchange before taking charge of fixed income, commodities and foreign exchange in 2000.
Only last year, Zoe Cruz topped the Forbes Magazine list of the 10 most powerful women in the world. Oh, how the mighty fall. So what happened?
Right now all of the major banks, corporations, and investment firms, are playing ‘hot potato’ and trying to pass the blame for the subprime market collapse onto scapegoats at the top in an attempt to halt hemorrhaging losses. Market-wide, credit losses entangled in subprime home loans add up to more than $50 billion, -and that loss continues to weaken the economy in ways both subtle and overt.
But is Cruz really to blame for Morgan Stanley’s slip-up?
As an editor of a blog that has covered this issue, or perhaps because of the strange coincidence that my name is also Zoe Cruz, I received an email that was actually a discussion between two people well-versed in the ups and downs of the financial industry. Their identities are kept confidential to protect the still-gainfully employed.
The email authors discussed how THE Zoe Cruz was unjustly represented in recent Wall Street Journal articles covering her demise. The emails also noted that three weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article stating that Cruz was the heir apparent to John Mack, C.E.O of Morgan Stanley, and now the Journal is publishing articles explaining how Mr. Mack lost confidence in Ms. Cruz.
The other writer also expressed disappointment, saying that Ms. Cruz had held the firm together and that now she was taking the fall for others and being treated as a scapegoat.
We are interested to know what The Glass Hammer readers think about the firing of Zoe Cruz, and whether you all think that the hatchet man on Wall Street is disproportionately targeting the few women at the top. Feel free to weigh in.
MSN Leaves Women in Business off its “Most Influential” List
Breaking the Glass CeilingMSN released their annual list of the most influential women in 2007. The list included politicians (two, to be exact), singers, television personalities and actresses (six, to be exact), a random woman who popped up on the radar of bloggers at some point during 2007, a coach and an author. The big shocker? The list did not include a single woman in business, finance or law. That’s right, according to the movers and shakers at MSN, the myriad ways in which women leaders impacted our society in 2007 did not merit a single mention of women in the corporate world. In contrast, the list of most influential men was dominated by politicians and businessmen. Here, the list of 2007’s influential women, as interpreted by MSN News:
However, readers on the MSN message boards also noticed the discrepancy, which caused a bit of an outcry. Several readers noted that it seemed ridiculous to include Miley Cyrus and Benazir Bhutto on the same list of anything. The stark and surprising absence of women leaders in business was observed by several commentators, who panned the list as a superficial and inaccurate reflection of women’s accomplishments in 2007. One reader stated that she was disappointed in the list, which consisted mostly of “sexy-looking media celebrities,” and did a disservice to Clinton, Bhutto and other serious hardworking women who were left off. Another reader summed it up nicely, lamenting the exclusion of the “hundreds of women trying to make the world a better place” and stating bluntly, “that’s five minutes of my life that I will never get back, thanks.”
This pseudo-list of accomplished women inspired The Glass Hammer to try to compile the real thing. Who do you think should be included on the list of most influential women in 2007? Write to us or post below to let us know your thoughts. This article will be published shortly after the New Year.
Are Men Threatened by Your Success? Come to Washington, D.C.
Intrepid Women SeriesContributed by Sally Lee
This piece is in response to “The H-Bomb,” an article by Erin Abrams which was published on The Glass Hammer a few months ago. The basic argument of the piece was that smart, successful women with high-powered and high-earning jobs (in this case, graduates of Harvard Law School), had a hard time meeting men who were not threatened or intimidated by their professional status and income (hence, the H-Bomb).
To those women in New York and other large cities who have felt it necessary to apologize for their hard-earned success because of the insecure men that they encounter, I have a suggestion. Move to Washington D.C., a city where there are plenty of men who actually like and even expect a woman to be educated, successful, and have lots of money. It seems, at least according to an unscientific poll conducted by this observer and her female friends, that there are plenty of men on the D.C. dating market who have visions of quitting their jobs, being provided with a weekly allowance, and having all the time in the world to play golf!
Honestly, not all men are like that in D.C., but there are some sad yet funny stories to share regarding the dating woes of women in our nation’s capital regarding these types of men. For example, I once dated a guy who said to me, “If I quit my job for six months and try to find myself, you’d be able to support me, right?” I wasn’t sure if he was serious, particularly because we were on a third date, so I replied, “I don’t understand the question.” He answered in an exasperated tone, “You know what I mean. If I decide that this job isn’t for me, you’d be able to take care of me until I found something else, because you make enough money, right?”
Read more
Is Ageism a Ticking Time Bomb for Women?
Expert AnswersContributed by Rebecca Chong of Rooks Riders Solicitors
Accountants, bankers and analysts are increasingly finding that they have more in common with celebrities than they ever realized or wanted. It is no secret that Tinseltown and the media have been unkind to women who dare to age. For Hollywood, this led to some of the industry’s finest hitting Cannes with “Searching for Debra Winger,” a documentary exploring Hollywood’s treatment of the aging actress. Across the Atlantic, a high profile campaign was launched against the removal of OBE-awarded and respected British journalist Moira Stuart from Sunday AM, reportedly eased out because she was too old for TV (although this was always denied by the BBC). For women of all ages working in a society ruled by the commercial power of image, particularly for those working in the financial sector where the big institutions fix their eyes on the keen and capable amongst the freshly graduated, it appears that sexism and ageism is the double glass ceiling to progression in the work place.
A study on working women and ageism, by Women in Journalism, reveals the hidden fear:
As the cosmetics industry feeds off the resulting frenzied quest for the fountain of youth, it perpetuates the fallacy that has permeated society; that whatever the profession, only the young and vital are valuable. For example, Liz Walker, proprietor of the House of Beauty in Barnsley, Yorkshire, recently commented to The Guardian Unlimited that it is Botox that her increasingly younger clientele are ‘clamouring’ for.
Read more
2007: The Year in Bonuses – Winners and Losers
Money TalksContributed by Susie Potier
Come December, the whispers on Wall Street are not about who is doing what for New Year’s Eve or where to go on the perfect winter beach getaway. Let’s not kid ourselves. The talk on the Street is all about bonuses. Who’s getting how much, and more importantly, who’s not getting as much as he or she expected.
While the process of handing out bonuses is generally shrouded in secrecy, that doesn’t stop people from speculating. Relevant facts under consideration include how much employees at the same level received last year, whether profits for the year were up or down, whether stock prices at publicly traded companies rose or fell, and how the company was impacted by the subprime mortgage crisis, among other things.
While bonuses at investment banks and hedge funds won’t be handed out until January or February, depending on when the company’s fiscal year ends and what their internal policies are, one group of Wall Streeters is already sitting pretty: lawyers. Unlike investment bankers, who generally receive bonuses tied to individual performance and market returns, most New York lawyers at major law firms receive “lockstep” bonuses, meaning that all members of the same entering class receive the same amount, set annually by the managing partners of the firm and distributed in the all-important bonus memo.
This year, there was a slight shake-up in the attorney bonus world, when Cravath, Swain & Moore announced “special bonuses” to be paid at year end, and other big law firms quickly followed suit. The bonus watch was aggressively chronicled through the leaking and posting of internal firm memos posted on the online legal gossip site abovethelaw.com, which most big law firm associates spend the month of November avidly reading. Second year associates at big law firms in New York (class of 2006), who last year got a raise to a base salary of $160,000, would now be receiving $35,000 as an annual bonus, in addition to a $10,000 “special bonus,” according to Cravath. Bonuses for ascending classes were to be paid out as follows:
Read more
Return to the Work Force Programs: Spotlight on Lehman Brothers
Breaking the Glass CeilingWith more and more women taking time off from their careers in finance to start a family or pursue personal ambitions, it is no wonder that the corporate world is in need of qualified female applicants. After studies revealed that it was difficult for employees to re-enter the work force after a career break, Lehman Brothers became one of the first investment banks to capitalize on this untapped pool of professionals.
Lehman Brothers co-sponsored a study called “On Ramps and Off Ramps,” which looked at how many financial professionals take off from work and what they do with that time. The results showed that 37 percent of females and 24 percent of males take a career break and then have trouble re-entering the work force.
In response to the data generated by the “On Ramps and Off Ramps” study, Lehman Brothers started the Encore program. Created by Lehman Brother’s Chief Diversity Officer, Anne Erni, the program was built around the premise that inviting mid-career executives back to corporate America added value to companies.
Read more
Harvard Business School Profiles: Hannah and the Importance of Mentors
Analysts and AssociatesContributed by Lauren Davis
While this comment was met with a range of responses from puzzlement to hostility to efforts to understand, Hannah, a Harvard Business School (HBS) second year MBA candidate said, “I understand what he means.”Hannah sacrificed hours of sleep and made major adjustments to her personal life in order to win an offer as a summer associate at this investment bank.
But when she realized that all of the women in her group were unmarried (except one), she couldn’t help but wonder: was there something about investment banking that kept women from marrying and having children? Read more
What Is Happening to Women on Wall Street?
Breaking the Glass CeilingAs yesterday’s Glass Hammer posting by Zoe-Cruz-not-the-Zoe-Cruz noted, these are tough times for women on Wall Street. Indeed, as a recent posting on the New York Times Dealbook website noted, Zoe Cruz’s forced transition into early retirement from her job heading up trading and risk operations at Morgan Stanley may have quietly heralded the end of an era.
What era? For the first time in history, the future looked bright for women on Wall Street. Zoe Cruz was the most senior woman on the Street, but examples of high flying female power brokers were increasingly more common. At a fundraiser last year for a women’s rights organization, I heard Sallie Krawcheck, Citigroup’s former Chief Financial Officer, speak passionately and convincingly about her road to success, the tradeoffs she made in her life on the way to “having it all,” and her enduring commitment to charitable causes. I remember feeling an almost giddy sense of jubilation and possibility, hearing her remarks and thinking that this life of professional success, family fulfillment and passion for public service could be mine one day too.
So you can imagine how I must have felt when I heard that Ms. Krawcheck was demoted from her top position at Citi in January 2007, where she had been widely been rumored to be the heir apparent to now-deposed CEO Charles O. Prince III.
Read more
WITI New York Regional Network Event
NewsWITI New York is hosting its holiday networking event. Prizes to be raffled during the evening. Complimentary Hors d’ Oeuvres and Wine Bar.
Someone Has To Take The Blame
Breaking the Glass CeilingContributed, entirely coincidentally, by Zoe Cruz.
Last week, the co-president of Morgan Stanley and one of the most visible women on Wall Street, Zoe Cruz, was fired. According to Bloomberg.com, Ms. Cruz, who was born in Greece and received undergraduate and MBA degrees from Harvard University, started her Morgan Stanley career in 1982 as a bond trader. She became a managing director in 1990 and helped run foreign exchange before taking charge of fixed income, commodities and foreign exchange in 2000.
Only last year, Zoe Cruz topped the Forbes Magazine list of the 10 most powerful women in the world. Oh, how the mighty fall. So what happened?
Right now all of the major banks, corporations, and investment firms, are playing ‘hot potato’ and trying to pass the blame for the subprime market collapse onto scapegoats at the top in an attempt to halt hemorrhaging losses. Market-wide, credit losses entangled in subprime home loans add up to more than $50 billion, -and that loss continues to weaken the economy in ways both subtle and overt.
But is Cruz really to blame for Morgan Stanley’s slip-up?
As an editor of a blog that has covered this issue, or perhaps because of the strange coincidence that my name is also Zoe Cruz, I received an email that was actually a discussion between two people well-versed in the ups and downs of the financial industry. Their identities are kept confidential to protect the still-gainfully employed.
The email authors discussed how THE Zoe Cruz was unjustly represented in recent Wall Street Journal articles covering her demise. The emails also noted that three weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article stating that Cruz was the heir apparent to John Mack, C.E.O of Morgan Stanley, and now the Journal is publishing articles explaining how Mr. Mack lost confidence in Ms. Cruz.
The other writer also expressed disappointment, saying that Ms. Cruz had held the firm together and that now she was taking the fall for others and being treated as a scapegoat.
We are interested to know what The Glass Hammer readers think about the firing of Zoe Cruz, and whether you all think that the hatchet man on Wall Street is disproportionately targeting the few women at the top. Feel free to weigh in.
How to Improve Your Odds of Getting a Quant Job: Tips from an Expert
Expert AnswersSeveral recent Glass Hammer posts have focused on finance jobs in quantitative analysis, and how to help women break into this mostly male-dominated field. For a background, take a look at “Why Do Girls Hate Algorithms?” and “Breaking the “Quant Jock” Stereotype.” To continue this series, I interviewed a friend of mine, “Mr. B,” who is a strategist as a quantitative hedge fund and asked him to share some suggestions to help women pursue jobs in the field.
Why Are There So Few Women in Quant?
I asked Mr. B to try to help me understand why there weren’t more women in quant jobs. Maybe it’s a problem of lack of information, and the funds need to do a better job of recruiting top-notch female PhD students right out of university. He explained that many firms are interested in hiring women and would like to add more gender diversity to their rosters, but that, in his experience, quant funds receive very few resumes from women. While women might be underrepresented in graduate programs in the sciences as well, there are still many qualified female PhDs who pursue academia, government work or private sector work in biotech, chemistry, engineering or computer technology. So what’s so scary about quant?
Perhaps the fact that most offices have so few women creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby women applicants don’t see a job in quant as a viable option or think that they would be intimidated in the workplace, and thus don’t apply. To a certain extent, plenty of quant guys like their “boys club” environment just fine, and don’t see any reason to change it. When asked about this subject, another male quant strategist interviewed for this article, let’s call him Mr. C, commented “I don’t know why women would want to work in quant, when there are plenty of other opportunities for them to make money. Their personalities would be better suited for sales, no?” All of them? Hmm. I’ll look into it. This attitude is nothing new, but it makes it hard for women to break into the field.
Read more