Send As SMS
Shots In The Dark
Thursday, January 18, 2024
  On Investment Bankers, Second Thoughts
I was too harsh on investment bankers yesterday, as some of you pointed out, in declaring that the profession has no social value whatsoever. That was glib and unfair. It's correct, of course, that investment banking can provide access to capital that is essential for building businesses and creating jobs. And the financial tools—my 401k, for example— created by investment banking can certainly benefit individuals, as well as being of a broad economic good. On an individual level, plenty of investment bankers, hedge funders, and so on are extremely generous with their money. They give to charities, to museums, to schools, to hospitals, to many worthy causes.

That said....

I would wager that the percentage of their money which people worth over, say, $10,000,000 give away is significantly smaller than the percentage contributed by people making, say, under $100,000. Let's be real, here: While some of these folks are generous, they're not usually digging deep into their pockets.

I know a lot of investment bankers, and they all will tell you that they chose the profession for the money. (Some—not many—have an intellectual interest in it.) I have never met anyone who went into investment banking because he wanted to help other people.

So the social benefits of investment banking are entirely incidental to most of the people who practice it. As opposed to, say, doctors, teachers, social workers, members of the clergy, some lawyers, etc.

(In fairness, I must say this is increasingly true in the world of journalism; the inspiration of Woodward and Bernstein has waned, while the hope to work for US magazine and get on VH1 now seems journalism's great motivator.)

As a result, many investment bankers are as likely to do social ill as social good—as likely, say, to shut down a business as to build one. Because personal wealth is the prime motivator.

Moreover, there's no question that the culture of wealth they have created, particularly here in New York, is shallow, tedious, and self-absorbed. It's absolutely true that New York City benefits from the taxes paid by investment banks and their employees. At the same time, this has become a less interesting, less diverse city because of the legions of twenty- and thirty-somethings who make millions and spend it on penthouse apartments, $1,000 bottles of vodka at silly clubs in the Meatpacking District, Ferrarris, and lap dances. (Investment bankers have ruined the Meatpacking District.)

I also think that the lure of these millions is having a profound and unfortunate effect upon younger people. It is the case that many professions are losing talented young people—even well-paying professions such as business and medicine—because they simply can't pay what investment banks pay.

A friend of mine, a lawyer who is in her mid-30s and makes over a million dollars a year, said to me the other day, "I can't believe I work so hard and make so little money. I don't know why I didn't just go into investment banking."

This is a woman who could probably retire now, if she had to. But hers is not an uncommon sentiment. The rich are getting richer in this country—there's plenty of evidence to show the growing inequity of wealth in the United States. And instead of trying to do something about that, more and more young people just want to hop on board the gravy train.

So it was unfair to say that finance has no social value—of course it does. But the downsides are significant.
 
Comments:
You make some fair points, but you still seem to have an inherent mistrust in our capitalistic system, which affects your judgement of what is good and what is bad. You write, "As a result, many investment bankers are as likely to do social ill as social good—as likely, say, to shut down a business as to build one." Do you really believe that shutting a business down is necessarily a social ill? Not all financiers are Gordon Gekko, and besides I'll take old Gordon over the sanctimonious Martin Sheen character any day of the week.
 
Some issues. One, you appear to use the term "investment banking" to cover anything having to do with finance or investment. I-bankers raise funds for companies and municipalities. Wall Street covers much more ground than this. Probably a minority of the twenty- and thirty-somethings you decry are actually I-bankers. Two, to be a good I-banker you probably need to have a healthy desire for fast money. That such people typically don't follow the same trajectory as more "traditional" wealth builders -- i.e., people who make billions creating software companies from nothing and then spend their later years giving it away -- doesn't justify your singling out of this profession. Third, the meatpacking district is indeed a perversion of the Manhattan we all know and love, but I-bankers aren't making it so (real estate agents from Jersey, more like it) and anyway that scene will eventually die on the vine.

So why the hatchet job? One suspects that what you're really railing against here are broad cultural changes that have much deeper causes than you're choosing to explore. And last but not least: if Wall Streeters are singlehandedly keeping the world safe for lapdances, god bless em!
 
It is people like the above who give rise to the expression, "Never apologize, never explain."
 
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Sorry, but I'm going to censor anonymous, abusive comments, whether they're targeted at me or anyone else. If you want to slag me, go ahead—but put a name to your gripe.

And for all those criticizing what I write about investment banking/finance, I haven't yet heard anyone make an affirmative case. It is, of course, easier to criticize someone else's work than go out on your own limb. But it doesn't enrich the conversation.
 
While my erased comment was certainly quite snarky, to call it abusive is pushing the envelope quite a bit, especially given the shot you took at your commenters in your 11:16 posting to the comments section. But, it's your blog, so do what you want.

Also, you were the one who made the unsupported assertion that investment banking was worthless, so the onus is on you to support your point, not on your readers to refute it. And whether one posts anonymously or not, has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.

Going back to my earlier comment, please explain why shutting down a business is necessarily a social ill.
 
You want an affirmative case? Here goes: Let's say you're the governor of a state with a miserable education system and that is very poor. You have a bold education plan to upgrade schools around the state, build new ones, increase salaries for teachers and buy computers for every school. It's going to cost $2 billion. You know that you can't raise that amount of money through raising taxes because your state is not wealthy enough to create that kind of revenue flow. And in any case, you need the $2 billion right now. So you issue a municipal bond and you go to investment bankers to borrow the money. The investment banker may have been doing this because he gets paid well, but the end result is you get your schools built.
 
A scenario already suggested in the post itself...so you're not really making an argument, you're taking mine.
 
Richard -- the statement you wrote, "the financial tools—my 401k, for example— created by investment banking" is factually incorrect. Investment bankers do not create or manage 401k plans or other retirement plans. Asset managers (i.e. Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.) do that.
 
Oh, for chrissake, that is the definition of nitpicking. I accept that I used the term "investment banker" over-broadly. But I am amused that none of these posts address the criticisms that I make....

As to the poster above, I didn't say that shutting down a business is *necessarily* a social ill. You posited that statement and asked me to defend it. Which, while an astute rhetorical technique, is not really worth my time.
 
RB -- regarding your post at 2:57. I guess I felt that you had not really explained the good that occurs because of investment banking. Instead, you seem to think the bad (the greed of investment bankers, how they've ruined the good) outwieghs the good. I think a new school system being built in a poor state outweighs the fact that rich bankers have ruined the meatpacking district.

But I'll make the contrarian case I think you're seeking: Investment bankers (and other rich people) make an easy target, but they can not be blamed for every unpleasant change in society. Besides, constant, ongoing change is the very nature of New York. One hundred and twenty five years ago, rich people started building mansions on 5th avenune, displacing the farms that were there. Why no nostalgia for the farmers? Most of those rich people were greedy and selfish. Others created the Frick, the JP Morgan Library, the collections that make up the Met and so forth. The meatpackers left, not because the investment bankers chased them out, but because technological innovations made it more economically feasible to move to larger facilities in New Jersey, etc.
 
Actually, that's not what I really meant about the Meatpacking District. (Also, I'm not sure that your theory is true. Up until the past few years, there were still several meatpackers in the area, and I don't think there's been any profound technological developments since then.)

Do you live in NYC? If you don't, it's probably not worth talking about this particular point, except to say that the area has taken on a Hogarthian quality because of the wealth and attendant sleaze of the era, most of which comes from Wall Street.
 
It may be nitpicking, but I do think it is a problem in your argument that you lump a lot of different financial professionals together. A mergers and acquisition type is more likely to close down a business then an investment banker. It's just not part of their job.

I think a group that is much more worthy of your scorn and contempt are mangement consultants, i.e McKinsey or Boston Consultant Group. Their job is essentially to figure out for their clients, who have hired them to "improve efficiency", how to fire people. And they do so, move on, and it is rare that they actually really improve the company. (Remember -- all the senior people at Enron were ex-McKinsey). I know you are not a big fan of Chelsea Clinton, but I would argue that she is making a much greater contribution to society in her current job (at a hedge fund), than at her old one (at Mckinsey).
 
Two good points.
 
I don't live in NY, but visit there often. But I'll defer to you on the current decadent state of that neighborhood. Having said that, perhaps that is something to be celebrated? It seems to me that the big problem in NY today is that it has become just like everywhere else, with a starbucks on every corner, a banana republic on every block, etc. Don't we all miss the old sleazy Times Square instead of the new Disney Times Square? (Actually, I think I miss the Times Square from the 1920s to the 50s when it was really vibrant).
 
That's exactly what's gone...the area has become a scene of trendy clubs with long lines to get in, boutique hotels, and over-priced restaurants. A nightmare. It's like Times Square now; if you live in NYC, you don't go there. (Unless you work on Wall Street—and I'm not being sarcastic.)
 
But I recognize that my use of the term "Hogarthian" might have contributed to the misperception...
 
Yes, I got an image of buxom wenches and gout-plagued barristers.

Is there anywhere or anything interesting left in New York? Or has it all become overpriced mush?
 
Hmmm...Harlem, perhaps. The parks and the museums still amaze. The forthcoming Hi-Line redevelopment. Believe it or not, I actually love the physical Wall Street and its surrounding environs. Spanish Harlem hasn't changed too much, yet.

I'm thinking......
 
I'll let this go after this, but you're being somewhat disingenuous when you claim that you didn't say that shutting down a business is necessarily a social ill. While it's true that those were not your exact words, how else should one interpret the following sentence?

"As a result, many investment bankers are as likely to do social ill as social good—as likely, say, to shut down a business as to build one."

Granted, you just used it as an example of a social ill, so perhaps you are willing to concede that not all business closures are social ills, but the underlying assumption behind the sentence is that closing a business down is bad for society.

And that is a bad assumption, one which goes to the heart of investment banking (using your broad definition). The efficient allocation of capital is important and contributes to a better society, not a worse one. Sure, you can find individual examples of business closures which not benefit society (hence my reference to Gordon Gekko in Wall Street), but on the whole, "investment banking" decisions about allocation of capital benefit society, whether they involve building businesses up or tearing them down.
 
"Granted, you just used it as an example of a social ill, so perhaps you are willing to concede that not all business closures are social ills..."

Yes and yes.
 
Oh come on. Of course, business closures are social ills. They may be necessary in the long run, and may free up capital for more efficient uses, and they should, therefore, be allowed to proceed. But they certainly constitute a social ill -- resulting in unemployment, a lowering of standard of living, hardship etc.
 
Just as an aside -- this has been an excellent discussion. From Hogarth to the tradeoffs of capitalism to the decline and fall of NY neighborhoods. (and only one out of bounds comment). Not bad. Keep it up group.
 
Wow! Richard, your blog certainly touched a nerve in a few people, me included. I am a big fan of yours, but I have to agree w/the statement by anonymous 10:53am today: "you still seem to have an inherent mistrust in our capitalistic system..." I think this comment is right-on. That is, your comments imply that you distrust our capitalistic system, but I really hope that isn't so, and I don't think it fully is. Is it? Hey, God Bless our country - and the fact that we can even choose to be investment bankers (or analysts, or money managers, or m&a; attorneys, etc.) in the first place.

About NYC - What about Central Park??? To me, that's the most elegant, wonderful backyard one could ask for. Frederick Law Olmsted's vision and layout is pure genius. Time Square is gross, period, and the Meatpacking District? Well I do love Pastis... Actually, I love everything about New York - the good, the bad and the ugly. That's what it's all about, right? And the fact that things keep changing and all is fluid.

Also agree w/last blogger - fun back and forth reading these comments. Your blog is good, Richard! And sparks good conversation.

Ann O'Connell
 
Hi, Anne! Thank you for the compliments. I'm glad to have the blog spark some conversation.

Yes, absolutely I have a distrust of our capitalist system. I have a distrust of every system—whether it's one that claims that all workers are equal or one that pits members of society against each other in a brutal race to the top. I have a distrust of power—which may be something that comes from being a journalist, or may be why I became a journalist in the first place.

Agreed with you about Central Park, and I like Pastis as well. But I liked it better in the brief window before it became a mob scene....
 
I've lived in NY my whole life and I love the place, but the fact is, New York no longer matters. It is no longer the culture capital (that would be Los Angeles), the entrepreneurial capital (that's Silicon Valley), or even the food capital (San Francisco). Why, it's not even the city immigrants come to to make a start. But it is still the financial capital. Which is why it has been overrun with Wall Street types.
 
Interesting conversation. It makes me so glad (again) not to live in NY. I don't know much about investment banking, or McKinsey style consulting and what they do/don't contribute to society, but I do know that a comment from someone who makes a million dollars and is complaining about it, is loathsome and a sign not that capitalism is bad, but that our values have taken a turn for the worse. A society where a hard working smart teacher is viewed as an idiot, a nurse or occupational therapist can't afford a home, a minister or computer programmer can't afford a decent education for his kid. Luckily I live in a nice, major city where I know people doing all of the above jobs who actully own home and cars and can send their kids to halfway decent schools. You can so keep NY.
 
Piss off, all of you
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2024 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2024 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2024 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2024 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2024 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2024 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2024 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2024 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2024 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2024 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2024 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2024 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2006 / 04/01/2024 - 04/30/2006 / 05/01/2024 - 05/31/2006 / 06/01/2024 - 06/30/2006 / 07/01/2024 - 07/31/2006 / 08/01/2024 - 08/31/2006 / 09/01/2024 - 09/30/2006 / 10/01/2024 - 10/31/2006 / 11/01/2024 - 11/30/2006 / 12/01/2024 - 12/31/2006 / 01/01/2024 - 01/31/2007 /


Powered by Blogger