UKH

There are reports of the insane hours Goldmann Sach bankers work.  Presumably there are clients paying a huge amount for this work.  Do you think the clients know?  If I was paying £xxx per hour for a banker, I'd want one who was awake.

Separately, it's impressive how bankers seems have gone from hate figures to deserving sympathy all of a sudden.

I propose a weekly clap to show our solidarity. Say Wednesdays, 9 PM

From what I have read the bit which is really annoying them is it seems to be mostly internal make work where they produce documents on the hurry up which are then mostly ignored.

The long hours which really scare me are doctors.  Whilst I am sure there are a few people who can operate effectively on bugger all sleep I suspect most people deteoriate rapidly after a few days.

I know I do. Advantage of being a software developer is when I have done those long nights I can look back in version control and see the utter shite I put in towards the end before realising best to go to sleep and then chances are once I wake up I will be able to solve it far better.

I must have missed that memo

Yes, because they will be getting emails at all times of day and night.

There is a long hours culture in investment banking but, as with all professional services, it's been exacerbated by the blurring of work and home life as a result of the lockdown.

I work in M&A tax and we rarely work 'standard' hours. 12-15 hour days are not uncommon, sometimes longer. That's fine for a few days. After a few weeks, it does get to you, especially if you have to work weekends as well (although the vast majority of the time I manage not to have to do any significant work at weekends - it does take some planning to avoid having to do that). Still, from what I've seen over the years, the lawyers and corporate finance advisers (which can be from the investment banks) tend to work longer hours.

The key thing for me is to have periods of relative downtime when I have a few days / weeks of not being particularly stressed and not working silly hours. In fact I'm about to have about a week off around Easter, which is holiday I'm carrying from last year as I had to work long hours on a project over the Xmas / NY period. I did have about 3 days off for Xmas and 2 for NY but had to work a few weekends as well (which is unusual for me). Didn't really mind as there wasn't much else to do! In fact it's worked out well as I can hopefully get out climbing next week. So there is give and take, at least for me. I don't think I'd want to do a job involving 90 hour weeks on an ongoing basis.

The CEO sounds like a right knob from the comments I have seen him make, the kind of boss who a company would be better off without.

I've done a set of 55-60 hour weeks + 3 nights of scouts for 4 weeks on the trot before now, there's no way I would be comfortable doing that in a role where I had to do more than transcribe data.

Oh woe is me, poor things. Lots of people work those kind of hours, and for a lot less pay. F*ck them. 

Yeah pretty much this. It's been the job description for a long time and part of why it pays so people want to do it. It's a greasy industry, but no ones doing anything for free.

For a time I was around that crowd and maybe it's different now, but then it was part of a sort of unhealthy bravado, people were well aware they had given up a life for it and apparently everyone was going hard and sure it would lead to the big time. I wonder for how many it did....

I suppose once upon a time cocaine took up some slack.

I look forward to Timmd’s take on this 😃

Do you think the majority of clients care? As long as long as they are getting the returns they are looking for on their investments I doubt anything else matters. 

Can I ask you the question I’ve been wanting to ask the people in these news stories - why? What do you like about your industry/role that makes those work demands acceptable to you?

Exactly. Regularly do 80+ hours for months on end, along with hundreds of others. 

Merchant #ankers

I think it’s a good thing that the trainees  are calling this type of culture out.  It’s also a reaction against the zoom work at home culture.

Banks like GS are starting to see that a lot  of the young brighter minds do not want that environment even with the pay.

The longest days I remember were at Kishorn in the 80s.  4 weeks on then a week off.  5 days of 8 to 8 then Saturday 8  till 1 but you could work to 8 and Sundays optional unless there was something big on like a loadout in which case it might be a 12 hour one.  The 65 standard hours were rated as 80 for pay.

This is what I was thinking, but what do I know, I've never worked such hours and as the Wiser Elders of the Thread have already said , these people chose to go into banking so obviously they are purely evil brats who deserve to suffer

(seriously though, I do agree, good on them for trying to start to call time on these conditions, hopefully the high profile in the media will make the movement "trickle down" to the industries that the Wiser Elders of the Thread deem worthy of sympathy. I am drawing an analogy to the MeToo movement, where naysayers would claim that young women going into Hollywood should know what they are in for and just put up with it due to the potential fiscal rewards...)

The thing is it is well known that working excess hours results in low quality of output. This is why doctors, pilots, drivers etc have legal restrictions on how long they can work.  Presumably investment banking work is fairly high stakes financially for the client so why do they tolerate this?  They would get better work from a company without people working ridiculous hours?

Sure - it's ridiculous from an employee perspective too.

I suppose the point, should one be choosing to be generous of spirit, is that <i> no-one</i> should be doing those sort of hours, even if they are merchant bankers, and especially not as a matter of course. 
I've been reading Matthew Walker's Why We Sleep, which drives home quite a stark picture of all the terrible things that (he concludes) come from disrupting the 'proper' cycles of sleeping and waking, psychologically, physically and societally

I had occasion some years ago to employ one of the Magic Circle law firms.  The first task was to review and comment on a new contract, was was about 3 inches thick.  They told me that they would have a commentary back to me in 2 days.  I told them that if they did that, I would not pay the bill.  Two weeks later would be fine, with the work conducted by someone who was awake, not struggling to focus, let alone think, at 3am.  If they needed to get their billable hours up, they could do it on someone else's account, not mine.

Excellent

They will probably get promoted having shown the gumption to challenge practises. These trainees are really bright and the future. Usually from state education background. GS will not want to lose them despite all the rhetoric. Some balls to challenge them. 

Really the question is not "Would you employ Goldman Sachs?" but "would you do business with Goldman Sachs?" because that's a more accurate characterisation of what the relationship would be.

Call me cold, but I don't have any sympathy at all for their employees. You don't get in without being very, very capable, bright, hard-working and driven to make money. So you can't claim that someone who goes in is in any way unaware of the sort of horrendous work/life balance they are signing up to. And you can't claim that they are dependent on the company and totally unable to quit if they choose because a) They are making an absolute shedload of cash so are completely capable of setting some of it aside for later and b) If you put "worked for Goldman" on your CV, you can get a job pretty much anywhere else.

Basically this is the equivalent of a pilot complaining that they suffer from vertigo or a pornstar complaining that there is no no-nudity clause in their contract. You can't legitimately complain about something you knew all about when you went in and fully accepted as it was your choice to apply for the job.

As for whether I personally would do business with Goldman - I have no earthly idea. I'm never likely to be in a position to use their services but if I ever was, I'm sure I would do a hell of a lot more research into whether it was a good idea rather than listening to a few whinging rich brats.

Maybe people have to work long hours to afford to live, or maybe they want to buy a house or car etc or maybe they like working long night shifts (e.g. me) so they can enjoy their hobbies. There is also the remote possibility that some people actually enjoy their job.

Also, not everyone works in a well paid salary type of job. Many I have worked with rely on the long hours to be able to live, they have said they would be better off unemployed if they only worked a 37 hour week.

I wouldn't draw any such analogy at all and I'm pretty surprised that you think "working long hours" is comparable to "being raped or sexually assaulted".

This suggests that in empirical terms, Goldman Sachs underperforms for clients vs other investment banks. I believe that part of the fame of Goldman is specifically that they _outperform_ other investment banks and that is a big part of why they are so rich, successful, have so many clients, etc. etc.

Read my post again, slowly. I in NO WAY said that I thought the two were comparable. 

I have read it again and I'm afraid it still reads very much that way:

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/drawing_an_analogy_betwe...

Maybe "drawing an analogy" wasn't quite the right way to express what you were meaning...

OK, sorry if my reply looked a little rude, it wasn't meant to be. 

To clarify, I was drawing an analogy between those without sympathy for the GS whistleblowers, and those without sympathy for the MeToo whistleblowers and victims.

I don't think that that is equivalent to drawing an analogy between the actual GS whistleblowers and the actual MeToo whistleblowers and victims. 

Maybe I am wrong about that though, and maybe a poorly thought out analogy. I am stupidly multitasking right now so my brain might not have been fully on the job re: this topic. 

That's a little early, shouldn't it be 2am to show solidarity?

Right. That's a lot clearer.

For me the critical difference is that the MeToo movement is universally justified because it doesn't matter what job you are in, rape/sexual assault are never acceptable. Whereas the long working-hours culture is not something I personally think is unacceptable everywhere. Exactly where you draw the division is up for debate (there is a problem with low paid workers being exploited) but when it comes to extremely high-end, high-paying jobs, that is the deal you are signing up for. It is an integral part of the job, not something separate and unrelated to the job and not something that is illegal.

I'll take my turn with an analogy. If I'm working on a building site, I'd view it as completely acceptable to be expected to work in the pissing rain and roaring wind. I'd view it as being completely unacceptable to be expected to work without safe scaffolding and all equipment being maintained and used safely.

You know 2am is like 19 hours _earlier_ than 9pm right? :P

It depends whether the other banks take the same approach which seems to be broadly true here. In addition it depends how much of this makes it to the client.

That peoples performance drops when sleep deprived has been demonstrated repeatedly.  There may be some abnormal people who can effectively operate on less but most of us will be performing about the same as we would after several pints.

In addition there is quite a lot of evidence pointing towards longer term health consequences of lack of sleep.

I did see a suggestion that a possible reason for the kick back is they arent really a crowd at the moment. That it is easier to get into the culture if you are all in the office eating takeouts at o stupid hour not when you are at home with a laptop perched on your kitchen table.

That was the point of their complaints. They did not sign upto be stuck in a single room apartment working on zoom all hours with no support.They are saying that is unacceptable and have "rebelled "against it.Good on them.

No one should have to work those kind of hours and companies who do that sort of thing are guilty of cynical manipulation. 

Plenty of young clever people are eager to make loads of money when they leave university. There's nothing wrong with that. No doubt they will be fed the usual bullshit that glittering prizes are there for the taking but they will only be won by those who are prepared to work hard to win them. When you're young, ambitious and naive this is the sort of sales pitch many are impressed by. Fast forward a few years and no doubt many of those who started their jobs with stars in their eyes now realise they've burnt themselves out and wasted some of the best years of their lives. A few will "succeed", the rest will move on and Goldman Sachs know that there's plenty where they came from.

fair point, get them on the journey home from work

Diminishing pool though..that is an issue for GS and their likes, they want to get hold of the top canidates.There is a limited pool of graduates each year that ticks their boxes.Probably a few thousand across the UK.It is certainly a small pool.They are turning their backs on investment banking...it has an awful reputation as highlighted in that article. Software start ups, fintech, medical etc are far more attractive if you are 21-23 with the right academic background.

Yes, I should have originally put 'no-one should be forced to be doing those kinds of hours' - though I'd also generally argue that everyone would be better off if they/we could arrange things in such a way so as to not have to.

I was mostly meaning to convey the extent to which - according to Walker (and I accept he might be laying it on a bit thickly since it's specialist area) - working crazy hours and, necessarily therefore, sacrificing sleep has a very pervasive yet under-acknowledged negative impact on people.
It made me a little fretful about what horrendous side effects are going to emerge from my own spell doing long night shifts years ago - though at the time I quite liked it

And I think less bright young things going into investment banking has got to be a good thing for society. Driving a set of numbers higher or lower than another set of numbers to “generate wealth” seems an enormous waste of intellect and potential. 

I find the work interesting and challenging. Well, at least some of the time. In some ways, I only work well under (time) pressure. If it’s too chilled out, I just get bored after a while and don’t get anything done. I also like a lot of the people I work with. Plus the pay is very good compared to most other jobs.

As I said, generally I’d don’t work as hard as the lawyers and the bankers and I don’t tend to work consistently long hours for more than a few weeks at a time. I also generally don’t do any significant work at weekends - that’s generally a red line for me due to climbing! I have to give up evening wall sessions often enough though. The last 9 months have been particularly busy though and I’ll be looking to redress the balance over the summer months. 

Depends. I’ve done some fairly complex stuff at 2am but you do tend to slow down. To be fair, I rarely go to bed before 2am anyway so working late is not an issue for me (hardly ever start before 9am though, in fact usually more like 10am). Also some of the work isn’t exactly complicated, just time consuming. Especially for the juniors.

Personally, in some ways doing brutal hours is piss compared to big Alpine or Scottish winter routes. I’ve done two routes which took 25 hours non-stop car to car and plenty in the high teens. Often combined with a big drive up to Scotland and back. Even after a normal day of Scottish winter climbing on a Sunday, I’m rarely home much before 2am and sometimes it’s more like 4am. Now that’s brutal! Then up at 10am if I can get away with it followed by a long day at work sometimes. Sometimes several weekends in a row doing that, though suspect I’m getting a bit old for that now!

Yes I suppose that would show up the unhealthy aspects of the industry, by dividing those who have different home fronts. That said, though, having an inkling of the culture running through it, it may only produce a new competitive attitude rather than address anything ie the works not going to go away so those who throw down for the job at the expense of life still fill the ranks to compete for the mighty dollar.

I see it like other grim jobs that pay big to keep going; off-shore O&G, pilot, international security etc. Dog eat dog. People are willing to risk the burn out for it it seems.

Apples and oranges I think. The human mind is able to push itself quite a bit further when it is 'for fun' (even if type 2) than when it is for the day-to-day grind of work, especially because it is a lot less frequent. 

We all should be having a better work-life balance. This means some will want to work more, others less. The cut-off point is about 50 hours a week. More than that and work quality starts to suffer massively. Look at Japan, where dozing off in the office is quite common and not generally frowned-upon but a sign of 'involvement in the company.' Bonkers.

It is counter-intuitive in some ways, but research and experiments have time and again proven that a good balance drives consumer demand for leisure, leads to higher-quality work, and better mental health. It will also be good for general employment as a lot of businesses will need more people to fill shifts. 

Those few people who are high performers on barely any sleep will still be able to do their thing if they want to - even though most people thinking of themselves as high-performers will also burn out in the end. 

Why? I really do not want second best messing around with investments etc. its like going to a below par doctor. Its the sort of wishy washy thinking that wipes billions of value and affects us all.

A depressing aspect of advising STEM students clearly more capable than oneself is finding out that a year before the end of their degree that they’ve secured a job in finance provisional on getting a 2:1.

We talk about the brain drain to the US in the sciences, but it’s not the only one.

Personally I'm quite happy to see the money I'm paying into my pension fund grow due the work of bright young things.

You mean thanks to central bankers ?

I mean thanks to growth in the markets where the bright young things running the investment portfolio place the funds having done their analysis to get the best return. The whole financial industry from central banks to investment funds to currency transactions etc works as one - I'd rather see it staffed by the best and the brightest and certainly don't agree with SFM's assertion that the generation of wealth is a waste of their talent.

Adjusted to make a point.

Granted it's glib and the situations aren't exactly analogous, but the issue as to the extent to which one individual is willing to tolerate the undesirable situation of another for gain still remains

Perhaps you make a fair point. However, this Goldman Sachs example is referring to highly talented individuals who choose to work there, with the prospect of earning considerable salaries and bonuses, instead of somewhere else. Your trainers example highlights a somewhat different scenario of workers who may have no realistic prospect of other employment and so are forced into taking whatever they can get.

So yes, I am happy to see my pension fund grow from the work of the bright young things who have CHOSEN that career and that employer. If they choose to move on somewhere else, that is up to them. It isn't a choice open to the workers in your trainers example. 

I don’t disagree. 

This is not actually what investment banks generally do, despite their name...

I remain unconvinced that a good measure of "best and brightest" is "making most money".

If their chosen career is in banking, it’s a pretty good measure. If it’s in animal husbandry, somewhat less so.

Any idiot can make a return in this market.

I’m glad you’ve managed.

How many identities do you have? 

I don’t invest in the stock market.

Seriously, you've got RomTheBear, RomTheBear2, alyson28, alyson28, Alyson30, malaka333, malice, do the voices in your head sound loud? 

Banks head offices are packed full of relatively intelligent people completely burned out doing stuff that is completely useless and of no value to anybody. 
Outside of the operational and reg stuff, you could fire 80% of the people in most British banks and they'll work the same or better. Guaranteed.
 

I wouldn't doubt it for a second. Similar for a few other sectors as well.

Well, judging by the amount of time you spend on here, your employers could sure fire you and they'd do fine or better!

I work for myself, so I do what I want. Irrelevant anyway.

Whereas if you got rid of 80% of your alternate ids?

Sounds like you’ve got a budding career as a management consultant for bank Boards. Clearly they’ve no idea that 80% of the people they’re employing at head office bring no value to their employer.

Incidentally, you’re thinking of a retail bank. Investment banks don’t have branches and so the operational / head office distinction doesn’t work in the same way. It’s more about front / back office ie client facing / support. There is research as well. I suppose you would advise them to get rid of 80% of all of the above. 

Believe it or not, this is exactly the case. That, or they are in on it, or unable to do anything about it. It’s a problem in most big business but this industry is the worst I’ve seen by a factor 10. 

I have dealt with investments banks as well. It’s the same, in some cases, worse. But I admit to a smaller sample there. And I know that it may well be quite different in the US.

I think it comes from the fact that by nature it’s a very complex business, that generates a lot of income, and there is plenty of opportunities for people to sell bullshit internally. 

Well, would probably be an improvement on his current career of online sock salesman.