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.
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
Where was the Chicago Mercantile Exchange at the FIA Expo?
NewsContributed by Susie Potier
A rumor was circulating around the Futures Industry Association (FIA) Expo last month when the largest futures exchange did not exhibit at the conference. The question on the tip of everyone’s tongue was “why wasn’t the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) at the FIA show?” It was the talk of the convention as futures traders from all over the country gathered in Chicago to discuss the changing futures trading landscape. As the CME is one of the original members of the Futures Industry Association, it is worrisome they did not sponsor this year’s event.
The FIA was established in 1955 as the national trade organization for the futures industry. According to their website, their mission is to provide a forum to discuss issues within the futures industry, work with the exchanges and represent the public customer. They also study ways to reduce transaction costs, eliminate credit fraud as well as coordinate educational and networking seminars, including those held at the FIA Expo, FIA Boca in May and the International Derivatives Expo in June.
Their members include over 40 of the largest futures commission merchants. The FIA also estimates that their members are responsible for 80 percent of customer business transactions executed on U.S. futures exchanges.
John Lothian, a futures broker who writes a daily newsletter, pointed out the absence of the CME at the FIA Expo on November 16, 2007. In his newsletter, he questioned the Exchange’s motives for not exhibiting at the show and said that “the spiteful posture sends a chilling message to the rest of the futures industry about how the CME group may be willing to treat those who have disagreed with them in the past or may disagree with them in the future.”
After reading Mr. Lothian’s comments and watching the FIA keep the CME’s booth space at the expo, it can only make one wonder if there is more to this story…
Read more
Advice for Entrepreneurs -Building a Managed Funds Business
Money TalksWith more women becoming entrepreneurs than ever before, there is a high demand for information about how to start a business. At the Futures Industry Association Expo in Chicago last week, one of the panel discussions included advice on building a managed funds business. The broad-based suggestions given to the audience were applicable to a range of organizations, especially the tips about how to execute start-up strategies.
The session was moderated by Paul Olin of the alternative investments group at Union Bancaire Privée. He was joined by speakers Arthur Bell of Arthur Bell Certified Public Accountants; Jim Little of Campbell & Company and David Matteson, partner at the law firm DrinkerBiddle.
In the discussion, Mr. Matteson drew a parallel between starting a business and getting married. He emphasized the importance of a pre-nuptial agreement. He advised that declaring ownership before the business takes off is essential and explained that things get complicated after the money has already been invested.
Read more