Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

Our Take: On Picking Cherries

Goldman Sachs is pulling still further away from the pack. That's not good news for the sea of candidates casting wistful glances in its direction.

Back in mid-November, we compared several top banks' pre-tax profits, investment banking revenues and firm-wide compensation expenses. Viewing those figures side-by-side, we were struck by how widely they varied - so much so, the old catch-phrase about banking being a highly cyclical industry seemed to miss the point.

"Cyclical" implies that competing firms' business metrics move together in lock-step, propelled by a common cycle. But although the ongoing mortgage and credit blowup did indeed shape the quarterly results released by four bulge-bracket institutions this week, that is true only up to a point. As we concluded last month, speaking of "the outlook" as something uniform and monolithic may be a misnomer when discussing the credit crunch's impact on this industry.

With that in mind, here are our initial takeaways from the latest round of bank profit and loss reports - worth considering as you mull your career moves in the new year.

Winners and Losers

The clear casualties were Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns. Both reported not just net losses, but negative revenues for the quarter ended Nov. 30. In other words, their mortgage asset write-downs exceeded not just their profits from all activities, but their complete revenues - from capital markets transactions, private wealth management, asset management, prime brokerage and everything else. Yet, even those two firms' results were scarcely carbon copies of one another.

Bear Stearns fared worst. In addition to a $1.9 billion write-down, fourth-quarter revenues from both equities and investment banking slumped precipitously, while clearing revenue (which includes prime brokerage) was near flat. Those weak comparisons appear to signify "a loss of franchise business," according to a Credit Suisse report quoted in Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Translation: Various classes of institutional clients may be losing confidence and withdrawing business - a potentially severe blow to Bear's fortunes for the long haul.

At Morgan Stanley, mismanaged sub-prime exposure overwhelmed strong performances in most other areas, from merger advisory to asset management. The resulting $9.4 billion write-down was much worse than management's $3.7 billion forecast. Coming off the top line, it left Morgan with negative quarterly revenue of $450 million and a $3.59 billion net loss.

Lehman Brothers managed to hedge the bulk of its mortgage losses, so it had a relatively small net write-down of just $830 million for the November quarter, after taking a similar $700 million write-down in the third quarter. Aided by stock trading revenue and private equity gains, Lehman reported a quarterly net profit of $886 million - down 12 percent from a year earlier, but a respectable performance in a tough market.

Once again, Goldman Sachs was the standout. Goldman's fourth-quarter profit actually surpassed its year-ago figure. As in the third quarter, much of its success can be traced to a series of short bets against a sub-prime mortgage credit index placed by a 16-person group responsible for structured-products trading

Expect Goldman To Be More Selective Than Ever

That brings us to this week's theme: cherry picking.

A few eFC users have expressed the view Goldman will vacuum up everyone good from Merrill and other firms who is dissatisfied with his or her bonus. Of course, cherry-picking raids will happen, as they always do on Wall Street. But is there any reason to think Goldman Sachs is poised to step up hiring, simply because its rivals are on the mat? Quite the contrary. Goldman already has their pick of anyone on the Street, and it's been that way for a long time. If anything, they can afford to get even more selective now.

Consider this: If you click "Careers" on the Web site of Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, UBS or Credit Suisse, you can search individual job openings for "experienced professionals" at each institution - in some cases, hundreds of current openings. Even Blackstone Group lets you do that.

Goldman Sachs, alone among U.S. bulge-bracket investment banks, never posts openings for professionals on its Web site. The firm provides plenty of information, but when it comes to applying, experienced candidates are asked to simply submit a general-purpose resume and let HR at Goldman decide if you're worth a look.

So if you're tempted to take a flyer on getting in the door at Goldman, here's our advice. Go for it...but only after getting a thumbs-up from a suitably qualified third party who wouldn't be afraid to tell you that chasing windmills is not a wise use of your time.

AUTHORJon Jacobs Insider Comment
  • an
    2 January 2008

    hmmm. sorry jt but as a london based short swaps trader we hardly see GS at all. Sorry to burst your bubble - and if you want to talk revenues it would be hard to find a short end / FX trader who hasn't printed a fortune this year. Even those that went to Holland Park comprehensive. Keep some perspective

  • Mo
    Mortgage Trader
    27 December 2007

    RB, you were also in IT. We are talking about people and positions that make money.

  • RB
    27 December 2007

    Jon, I missed the "(HF/PE)" at the end of Former GS' comment, thanks. But whatever, we manage $260 billion in mutual funds, so we are certainly not small in any sense on the buy side.

  • jt
    27 December 2007

    I can only speak intelligently about Goldman's FX group--which is simply the best on the street.
    Everyone there went to either Wharton or Harvard (with the occasional Chicago, MIT, Stanford or Columbia grad thrown in for good measure). They are all hyper smart, articulate and singularly focused on success--and they know it. It is, therefore, almost impossible to distinguish oneself--and even if you could, you better not be known for it. The result is a sort of quasi-libertarian socialist corporate culture---or as my former mentor there once told me, "There is no 'star' system here---here, the system is the 'star'".

  • Jo
    Jon Jacobs
    26 December 2007

    RB, Oppenheimer Funds isn't a big hedge fund or PE firm, last I heard (although I see they do advise and manage a series of hedge funds through an affiliate, Tremont Partners).

Sign up to our Newsletter

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Boost your career

Find thousands of job opportunities by signing up to eFinancialCareers today.
Latest Jobs
Octavius Finance
Private Equity VP Position – TMT, New York
Octavius Finance
New York, United States
Northern Trust
Northern Trust
Chicago, United States
Sr Manager Finance
Mooresville, United States
Selby Jennings
SR. Quantitative Researcher - Equity Stat Arb
Selby Jennings
New York, United States

Sign up to our Newsletter

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.