”I am a banker. Why are the people on the street below me creating a ‘perp. walk’ of shame from the subway to my office?” Victoria Robertson has been there.
I am a banker. My nose is pressed against the glass of my office window as I stare down at the Occupy Wall Street protestors below me. Who do they think they are laying claim to my street? Creating a ‘perp. walk’ of shame from the subway to my office, making me feel bad for just turning up to work and trying to make a living. Little do they know, if I didn’t feel so trapped in this air-conditioned coffin of a banking career, I’d be down there with them sharing equal anger and frustration at the whole goddamn mess.
♦◊♦
This particular banker may be fictional but I guarantee that there are people sitting behind the stone and glass facades on Corporate Street feeling these emotions, right now. I know because these are my people; the banking class of 1997 and this is their story.
It was a Friday night in September 1997 and I found myself in the middle of this new class, propping up a bar on Moorgate in the heart of the City of London. The London Stock Exchange shouldered my new employer’s shiny office building on one side; the Bank of England protected the other. I had survived an induction week at a major investment bank; I was exhausted, elated and high on all of it.
We were all high back then. High on scoring our dream job; high on all the potential that lay ahead; and high on the years of strong economic growth that had just passed.
Most of us had joined for the same reasons: banking was the top job in finance; it provided an exciting environment in which no two days were the same; you gained the opportunity to work with many different companies and engage with their senior management; you got to travel the world; and, yes, but at the very end of the list, the money was good.
♦◊♦
Fourteen years on and the banking class of 1997 find themselves playing the part of Willy Loman in Arthur Miller’s ‘Death of a Salesman’: a washed out middleman, not old enough to be running the banking world yet not young enough to be blameless for the state that it is in. Where did it all go wrong?
The answer actually lies in when the seeds of wrong were sown rather than where. The when was November 12, 1999; the day the Glass-Stegall Act was repealed. On that Friday evening in 1997, we were in fact toasting a ‘Glass-Stegall’ world; a world that had learnt its lesson from the Great Depression in 1930 and created an act which banned banks from being an investment bank and a commercial bank at the same time.
In 1999, driven by frustration at watching securities firms make a lot of money, the big American banks used their political connections to arm-wrestle the act into repeal. We were less than two years into our careers and we didn’t know how that change would hit us; and hit us it did.
The first thing that happened was a wave of consolidation as the US banks swept into Europe and mopped up smaller investment banks with their billion dollar check books. Money flooded into the system and the banks all competed to steal the big game out of the investment bank’s mouths.
One minute we had signed up to the image of the trusted banker: a solid voice of advice and reason in a valued client’s ear; someone who puts their clients needs above their own commercial needs; a relationship banker whose word and judgment could help create wealth and be prized among industry leaders.
The next we were small, greasy cogs in a big commercial wheel. The trusted advisor became a technical salesperson selling Bigbank’s product set. A few short years later we were relegated to a ‘mouthpiece’ as our bonuses, promotions, many of our jobs were eroded. “You didn’t win that business,” said Bigbank as it turned on us “it was our strong balance sheet”.
♦◊♦
|
So, here we are—we’ve climbed up to the middle of this greasy pole only to discover that when you are almost at the top there is more grease than pole. The promotion system in banking has rewarded only the risk-taking political animals who have brought home the kill at the end of the day and they are at the top piling on the grease, scared out of their minds and protecting their positions at all costs.
|
So, here we are—we’ve climbed up to the middle of this greasy pole only to discover that when you are almost at the top there is more grease than pole. The promotion system in banking has rewarded only the risk-taking political animals who have brought home the kill at the end of the day and they are at the top piling on the grease, scared out of their minds and protecting their positions at all costs.
Many now are reflecting on whether or not that climb was worth it. Some of it was: most of my peers used any bonus they received wisely by paying off the rest of their parents’ mortgages, or buying their in-laws the car they really needed or investing in their own children’s education. Some of it wasn’t: the 16-hour days; the constant traveling; and the long term effects on relationships with spouses and children that you never see.
We could get let go of the greasy pole, you say, “Come and join us on the street below: Take a stand!” We could, but what happens after that? Few will give a banker who’s downgraded their financial skills to a balance sheet mouthpiece a start in a new career.
No need to start a ‘Hug-a-Banker-thon’ though—those are the breaks, aren’t they? Compared to many of the protestors, the banking class of 1997 has done OK. Some still have jobs; most said “No” to the 10 times earnings mortgage offers and bought affordable houses that we have managed to hold on to; and a few made the break to Sensible Street when they could.
♦◊♦
Back to the fictional banker with his or her nose pressed against the glass: whom does he or she see on the street below them? A bunch of freeloading hippies who’d rather turn up and sit around watching people who are clinging on to their jobs, than get one of their own? Just as some stereotypes of ‘greedy banksters’ are true but not the full story, it seems that the Occupy Wall St movement has a sprinkling of wacko undesirables of its own—but it also has a voice of reason.
Some protestors are simply saying: we have played by the rules; we’ve worked hard; and we deserve to win over greed and corruption. It seems to me the only thing standing between some of the bankers and some of the protestors, is a thick pane of stubborn corporate glass. If we drop the stereotyping and take the time to look in the whites of each other’s eyes, we might just find a common ground on which to reoccupy Wall St. from the inside out.
The banking Class of 1997 may be tattered and torn but we still have a role to play in this whole sorry saga. We should push from the inside for a return to the basic values of the banking industry that we joined: hard work; sharp judgment; sensible lending; and client relationships built on trust, not deal size. We should sack HR and replace it with a promotion and remuneration system that values ethics as well as economics. We should encourage our leadership to be fearless in their attitude to league tables; missing a deal is not as bad as losing your conscience. If we manage to do that, we will once again be able to walk down Wall St. with our heads held high.
About Victoria Robertson
Victoria thanks for this. I totally agree. Of course the same could be said of professions from health care to politics. We have lost perspective on what is really important and the centrality of human decency and fairness. I know plenty of bankes (mine would be the class of ’87 so I am an old man) who are in fact in dispair. The very founding of the GMP call was in part due to the late night calls from friends on WS when Lehman fell and for the first time really began to question if they had made profoundly wrong decisions with their lives, choosing money and career over time with kids and wives.
So that probing, that questioning of what is important lies at the heart of the conversation here at GMP. The stakes have just gone up. And gone up again since we started this adventure almost three years ago now.
You are welcome, Tom. I have seen the same despair with my own eyes – like friends who were the first of their family to go to college feeling that they had let their parents/family down, as being a banker was now something to be ashamed of. It hit many in a very personal way. On a positive note, the whole shake down has meant that truly great, talented people (like ya’ll at GMP!) are now putting their energies into profoundly more rewarding and brilliant things – so that post-Lehman soul searching that your friends experienced did not go to waste. I also assume it has had a big effect on graduate intake. The very best grads are now looking beyond Wall Street when choosing their careers and ultimately WS loss is society’s gain. (I’d really LOVE to hear from those who have actually done just that). Thanks for your comment.
Wow! Thanks…not many people are calling me the voice of reason this week. Means a lot. As it turns out…standing up for what you believe in is a quick way to make enemies out of friends.
I appreciate the perspective too. After reading The Big Short I meant to go back and read Liar’s Poker (both by Michael Lewis) so I could learn more about the practical impacts of the reversal of the Glass-Stegall Act. Thanks for sharing your perspective. The importance of your story and more voices like yours can’t possibly be overstated.
Ha! Well, I thought long and hard about putting my ‘bankers voice’ out there for that very reason – it sure is a good way to rack up the enemies. I did it because it is true and I wanted to say it for my own piece of mind. You read enough headlines about who you are as a person because of the job you do/did and it starts to replace your own reality. Thanks for your comment!
I don’t want to take any responsibility away from Wall Street bankers. There are enough ethical problems and corrupt practices in the big banks to keep protests alive for years.
I do think that it’s pretty lame to blame a tiny number of executives for all the economic problems created by unchecked greed, as if bankers are the only greedy people in our society looking to get rich quick no matter who it hurts. What the people on the sidewalk looking up at the skyscrapers don’t want to admit is that a huge number of average, everyday consumers contributed to things like the real estate crisis. It’s easy to blame a few obscenely rich fatcats for all of the economic problems, when our consumption and investment patterns are part of the problem. Millions of Americans took out loans to pay for houses that were bigger than they needed, houses they could not afford in the first place, with the hope that they could then flip the house, selling it later to another sucker for more money than they paid for it. When the housing market was booming and people were flipping houses like crazy, the cry was that these are assets, so government should leave it alone and let me make my money. Now that the housing market has tanked, these houses are “my home,” and now the government has to get involved to help me hang onto it. Strange how now that you can’t find a buyer it’s your beloved home, when before it was just this thing to buy and sell.
Wall Street is a handy target because it’s a single neighborhood in a big city. It would be just as appropriate to have protests at your local suburban housing development.
There’s an outcry against banks and other corporations thinking only of the bottom line for their shareholders, as if the only shareholders in the country all work on Wall Street. The reality is that tens of millions of Americans are shareholders in these banks. There are millions of us who are part of the problem. I don’t see many politicians or protest leaders stepping forward to suggest that greedy homeowners may have been part of the problem, because of course the consumer is always right. The right to be bailed out for making a really big financial mistake is apparently a God-given right.
I am biased because I’m a renter in a very expensive city. I did not buy a house here because, silly me, I responsibly calculated that I could not afford to buy one. I did not fall for the insane sales pitch that the mortgage broker threw at me. I did not allow my greed to overwhelm my common sense. Now I guess I’m supposed to feel sorry for those who did fall for the sales pitch, and I’m supposed to root for home prices to go up again even though I still can’t afford one. I’m supposed to level my anger at the big bankers, but I’m just not feeling it.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I completely agree with you and thanks for your spot on comment.
A few years ago I remember looking aghast at my mortgage broker who offered us 10x our combined income, inc. the discretionary [read: insanely random] bonus. We could have bought a stupid Mc Mansion like all the other greedy bozos. We didn’t, we went waaaaaaaaaaay more modest. So, when the bonus went our kids kept their home and we were able to sleep at night. Instead of rocking MTV cribs we helped family members finally pay off their mortgages so that they could go into retirement with one less worry.
Your point about the real estate industry taking some heat is a good one….but sadly I fear it is a little too close to home to make any progress. Thank you for sharing your perspective!
While I appreciate the perspective your piece adds to the discussion, I think it is important to continue to evaluate the tremendous harm caused by individuals seeking: “the top job in finance…an exciting environment in which no two days were the same…the opportunity to work with many different companies and engage with their senior management…travel the world; and…at the very end of the list, the money was good.” There is certainly a human side of the Executives and Managers (as you’ve pointed out) but in the list I’ve just quoted I see no mention of social responsibility or of an intrinsic ethos approaching anything with more depth than a child hoarding toys at playtime. I feel that anything beyond basic human sympathy for bankers divorces them from their role in this mess. To divorce these folks (even if just slightly) from their involvement in an industry engaged in ravenous self-serving greed (mind you, with tremendous effort on the part of these same bankers to lax regulation to the point of actually encouraging and favoring their penchant for self-absorption) is unfair to the rest of us. Many people have been hurt. The majority in ways much, much more severe than the emotional burden of the banker’s walk of shame from the subway. The fictional banker you created has a job to go to, a home to sleep in, and food to eat. The same cannot be said of his or her victims.
You make a good point and I have reflected long and hard about the motives that led me to begin a career in banking. They were just as I stated then in my article, I can’t dress them up and try to make them worthy. I was in my early 20′s and social responsibility was not as high on my list then as it became later in my life. I would argue though that not all jobs in society can have ‘social responsibility’ in the job title in the same way that say, a firefighter would have. Some jobs are there to create wealth. That wealth (if treated with social responsibility) can [should!] help society as a whole.
Your point about the fictional banker that still has a job to go home to is a good one and one that I made in my article.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
“I would argue though that not all jobs in society can have ‘social responsibility’ in the job title in the same way that say, a firefighter would have. Some jobs are there to create wealth. That wealth (if treated with social responsibility) can [should!] help society as a whole.”
eh. thats a slippery slope. it’s either socially responsible or it’s not. we should remember that the banking industry purchased its ability to “create wealth”, and, in that sense, the political systems that allowed that to happen are more to blame. and, by extension, the average voter. but factor in the marketing/cultural influence also purchased by an increasingly rapid accumulation of wealth, and we hit the bottom of that slippery slope pretty fast.
when a middle class consumer enters into an agreement with a more abusive bank because it offers better rates on checking accounts, they are compromising their social responsibility for something. when a young banker gets a job in the industry, they are doing the same thing. everyone has their price. if more upper-middle-class bankers took the initiative to step out of what has clearly become an abusive industry, the economic system we have would be easier to change. it just depends on how much of their personal gain they are willing to “sacrifice” for the greater good.
victoria, it takes a lot of courage to come at this from an honest point of view and even though i mostly disagree with you, i’m grateful for what you’ve said, because it adds to the discussion. we’re missing plenty of perspectives on this crisis, including perhaps, the point of view of someone who is willing to sell themselves and everyone else out for a better rate on a checking account, or a slightly more on-their-way-to-work bank branch. certainly we’re all to blame. but i do think that the people whose margin for error when it comes to making personal financial decisions is tighter than that of most young bankers should bear less of that burden. for many, a slightly better rate on a mortgage is the difference between putting a child in pre-k or not. if a slightly better career path is the difference between an apt with a doorman and one without (as an example), then that person should expect less sympathy, regardless of how innocent the decision seemed at first. i mean, if we’re going to blame people for not reading the fine fine fine print on their credit card or bank agreements, then we should also expect people to know a little bit about whats going on in the corner offices where they work.
what i dont disagree with you on (victoria) is that we’re all in this together, and any time any of us chooses to look in the eyes of their fellow community members, however big or small that community is, it’s a good thing. i just think that whats separating us isnt so much a window of someone or something else’s making, but rather the sometimes too-lazy and often too-frightened-to-look skin of our own eyelids. thanks for forcing mine open to you.
Sean, I really appreciate your perspective and you develop a point that I was only able to touch on in my article – the rapid accumulation of wealth. When Bigbank added their check book back in 1999 there was a whole lot of money suddenly sloshing around and some of that did end up in bankers bonuses. To be honest, I did see some pretty nasty ‘car crashes’ of people who let that go to their heads. No doubt. I agree with you that it contributed to the situation we are today.
Something I observed from the inside though was that to most bankers that money became “a number” (in fact that is the term bankers use to describe their bonus: “their number”). The number became a representation of who you were in the pecking order rather than a means to accumulate wealth. Now, I am not arguing that bankers did not want to earn big money but I am saying that I don’t believe that absolute money was the main driver. The driver was where you were ranked relative to your peers and therefore how safe was your job. If your bonus was x% below the guy/girl in office next to you, or x% down on the previous year then there was a high chance you would be getting a call from HR in the near future.
The problem with the ranking/reward system there was no consideration for anything other than the bottom line. If pay was linked in some way to your behavior as a responsible banking citizen then the slippery slope would have at least slowed down.
Thanks for taking the time to read and for making so many great points in your comment.
Even though I get why people are angry at the Wall Street types, I believe that most of this anger is misdirected. One of the big lessons I took away from “The Big Short” was the power of incentives (money being a big one) in motivating human behavior. Of course bankers are greedy and willing to do most anything to make an easy buck… guess what, almost all of us are on some level. Many of us would have loved to have been a Wall St. banker anytime over the past two decades — making obscene amounts of money for what many consider to be minimal work, family and relationship stress notwithstanding — had we the intelligence and forethought to do so. (Trust me I know… I turned down a chance to go to Wharton back in 1999… still can’t wrap my head around that decision).
No, my problem is with our elected officials. They had the power to stop all this mess before it happened, by simply saying “no” when the bankers came calling. We’ve paid them a lot of money and offered them benefits that kings and queens of years gone by couldn’t dream of so that they’d be above this sort of thing. Yet, they repealed Glass-Stegall — some of them knowing full well what the long-term effect on our economy would be. They passed laws incentivizing companies to pay outrageous bonuses to their senior management. They passed laws making it practically illegal for management to consider anything other maximizing shareholder value (read: pumping short-term stock prices) when making planning decisions. They passed laws corrupting the bankruptcy and credit systems, tilting the risk-reward factor for lending firmly in the banks favor. The bailed out banking system without public support, creating a moral hazard that will forever undermine the economic system of capitalism in our country. They passed laws and influenced our courts to make decisions that increased the profits, power, and influence of corporations, while simultaneously decreasing that of the common man. We, the people, did everything we knew to incentivize them to behave… and they still sold us down the river.
However, I’m not one of those anti-government types who thinks we should “throw out all the bums” and trash every regulatory agency. Quite the contrary. I think our economy did quite well in the 50 years between the end of the great depression and the mid-1980s — a period of relatively high taxation and regulation. Sure the rich weren’t as rich as they are now, but at least my parents had jobs and something resembling a social safety net. But now, even though I have a good job, a master’s degree (and a second on the way), a writing gig on the side, and minimal fixed expenses, I live in near-constant fear that the bottom will fall out any day now… and I’m not alone. I realize those days weren’t perfect, but I’m starting to believe that where at one of those rare moments in time where going backward (starting with re-enacting some form of the Glass-Stegall Act) might be exactly the right way forward.
DD, I agree that reinstating the Glass-Stegall Act will be a step forward. I also can relate to your feeling of living in “near-constant fear that the bottom will fall out any day now”. For many years bankers have lived with that feeling – I know some who keep a drawer in the desk for personal effects and documents that they will need to clear out in minutes should a call come from HR come asking them to go up to the ‘Firing Floor’. They know they are only ever 10 minutes away from being escorted by security out onto the street. Our family financial planning is impossible, with no job security and no clear idea on expected earnings but right now it is just about being in a job, any job and waiting for a time when we can make some positive changes in life so that we no longer live in constant fear – I hope you get there too.
Living in constant fear of the bottom falling out…same here.
“We should push from the inside for a return to the basic values of the banking industry that we joined: hard work; sharp judgment; sensible lending; and client relationships built on trust, not deal size. We should sack HR and replace it with a promotion and remuneration system that values ethics as well as economic”
LOL.Keep dreaming love.
In a system that is based on undiluted greed and a lust for profit and quarterly growth above all else that dismisses social consequences as mere “externalities”, this will only ever happen in “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
The problem is one of a rapacious system that rewards risk astronomically. Actually, with credit default swaps and knowing that the government would bail out banks, they had no reason other than to behave in a reckless fashion.
You should read that Michael Lewis book – The Big Short.
“Anyone with eyes open knows that the gangsterism of Wall Street — financial institutions generally — has caused severe damage to the people of the United States (and the world). And should also know that it has been doing so increasingly for over 30 years, as their power in the economy has radically increased, and with it their political power. That has set in motion a vicious cycle that has concentrated immense wealth, and with it political power, in a tiny sector of the population, a fraction of 1%, while the rest increasingly become what is sometimes called “a precariat” — seeking to survive in a precarious existence. They also carry out these ugly activities with almost complete impunity — not only too big to fail, but also “too big to jail.”
The courageous and honorable protests underway in Wall Street should serve to bring this calamity to public attention, and to lead to dedicated efforts to overcome it and set the society on a more healthy course”.
- Noam Chomsky
Sorry, Will, you lost me at “keep dreaming love”. Have you been taking tact and diplomacy classes from David Cameron?
If the top 1% of Wall Street brokers and bankers (i.e., economic terrorists) had endured the REAL perp walk they deserve, we wouldn’t have these protests. Thanks for an accurate and well written article on the need for public shaming of the financial industry, since our government seems too weak and corrupt to handle it through official channels.
I guess it is down to those both inside and out of the industry to make change happen but that will take time and I am not sure it can happen quickly enough to appease the building unrest. I for one don’t want hurried measures and easy scapegoats to be paraded out by the government just as a quick fix.
Thanks for your comment!
Just look at the mess created by the Banks in Europe http://www.scoop.it/t/euro-crisis/curate
and if they are not careful ,it will pull America down as well, ………….however you seek to place blame you cant get round the fact that governments have spent and are continuing to spend our money to bail the banks out , with no benefit to any one other than shoring up essentially bankrupt organisations who have been gambling , the problem for bankers are they dont actually make or do anything of value, most of it is one giant ponzi scheme , dress it up any way you want its fraud and it can only be good for society if we put a stop to this damaging activity and get back to making our countries and our industries Great again.
Steve, your point of view is a popular but confused one that you have been spoon fed by the media. There are many different aspects of banking; some of which do help to shore up and indeed stimulate the economy and some who don’t. Providing liquidity to companies via lending is good for the whole economy – you can see that the more liquidity a company has, the more it can grow, provide jobs etc. Helping companies to list of the stock market also plays an essential role in the economy; in fact allowing people to have the opportunity to buy shares in growing, listed companies is a corner stone of a strong market economy. Providing merger and acquisitions advice also enable the market to work more efficiently. Can you accept that we need banks to provide these services? The gambling, ponzi scheme, fraud I think you refer to is probably derivative trading and something that I agree does not have a direct impact on strengthening the wider economy. If the Glass-Stegall act was reinstated banks could ‘gamble’ away to their heart’s content without putting the ‘lending’ side at risk. Those great industries that you mention – they were funded by men like J.P Morgan and I argue they should still continue to be.
Its good to put a human face on the stereotype, however, I don’t believe most people go into the financial business to put into practise high minded ideals. Let’s face it, many of the benefits of banking boil down to status, money, and for the very successful, power. If you want a job with lots of travel, rarely seen family and new and exciting daily challenges that promote the best causes of humanity you could join doctors without borders, the peace corp or a missionary program. So let’s set that aside.
There is however, a point to be made that the banking system is the tip of the iceberg. There is not one aspect of our political or economic policy that isn’t based directly on exploitation. Short of moving back to Europe and living on a small farm with preindustrial technology you build yourself, every one of us is exploiting someone. The difference here is that joe average buys his products grown or made half a world away by someone he’ll never see. The ultra wealthy of the financial district can live in their little bubbles, but people they exploit can still make themselves heard and seen.
I wonder what the chinese workers think? You know, they ones that spend twelve hour days burning all the toxic parts from our computers, inhaling the fumes for eight dollars per day? Didn’t we tell them how grand it would be to have a stable job? How much happier their lives would be? So the average american citizen has gotten a small taste of what’s been doled out the poorest members of our own community and the rest of the world at large. How tragic.
Yes, Dr.without borders kick ass….I only wish I was smart enough aged 18 to have thought of it as a career!
You are allowing a crowd of angry radicals define you? If you are an honest person – which it seems you are – what are you worried about?
If you are so ashamed of being a banker then why not change careers? There is a strong element of maudlin self-pity in your comments that is difficult to take. Considering the suffering going on today, the ‘anguish’ of this ‘perp walk’ is questionable.
Just be an outstanding banker and stop agonizing about those protesters. They don’t know what they want anyway. Or find another profession where you enjoy it.
I just read through this very strange web site and I see that it is extremely politically correct. In fact, it is the distilled essence of PC. So I see where the hatred of bankers is coming from.
I didn’t realize it was a left-wing political site. My mistake and never mind the above comments!