What happens to people who just started there. Are they going to be in a more precarious situation or is better off because they are cheaper?
technically, nobody is safe, and people that JUST started and have no prior work experience are equally likely to get laid off as the rest simply because they aren’t really adding value. usually it takes up to a year for people to start getting up the curve, so for example, even though second year IB analysts or research associates make more than first years, they are also much more likely to contribute whereas the less experienced people need to be trained and are actually costs to the system
It would seem logical to cut mid-tier workers (i.e. ADs/VPs); the reasoning is that you need your analysts to do the grunt work and they are cheap, and you need your Directors to bring in business. A lot of time the mid-tier workers are redundant from what I’ve seen, and you can cut here and there without losing any productivity.
DirtyZ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would seem logical to cut mid-tier workers > (i.e. ADs/VPs); the reasoning is that you need > your analysts to do the grunt work and they are > cheap, and you need your Directors to bring in > business. A lot of time the mid-tier workers are > redundant from what I’ve seen, and you can cut > here and there without losing any productivity. Yes, traditional thinking is that associates and junior VP’s are the most at risk. However, speaking from somebody that is working at a shop that has been cutting jobs; nobody is safe. I’ve seen first year analysts shown the door as well as MD’s that brought in more than an average amount of business.
DirtyZ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would seem logical to cut mid-tier workers > (i.e. ADs/VPs); the reasoning is that you need > your analysts to do the grunt work and they are > cheap, and you need your Directors to bring in > business. A lot of time the mid-tier workers are > redundant from what I’ve seen, and you can cut > here and there without losing any productivity. Citi in particular is very top-heavy – there are a lot of VP’s and directors, and a fair number of them have been cut and more will be cut too because of the redundance that you were referring to. There are no associate directors at Citi. And actually, I’d say first-year analysts and first-year associates out of business school are the LEAST productive, and actually take up resources. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the learning curve can take a year or more, so you can be sure that some of them will be cut too.
Citi’s culture creates “VP - power supply” and “VP - Uninterrupted power supply” :)-
for what it’s worth, a number of assistants and associates on the research side at Citi have been let go over the last month…so nobody is safe! now what they should really do is to can more of the admins who don’t do any work whatsoever, except the VP’s and up always have to stick up for them because otherwise they wouldn’t get reimbursed for their expenses…
Boy you’re right about ADs and VPs being redundant. We’ve got a few of these phony balogna idiots just sucking down cash in bags. Bags! And what do they produce? Easy: lousy sales figures, ludicrious business plans [i.e. $100 Bazillion Gillion in sales this year alone…really?..from who?..idiots] and projects that are MONTHS behind [i.e. CEO "So Willy, I’ve got a client I want you to meet, he’s going to be investing in that new H-Fund product you run, you know, the one the VP of Products was telling me was online and ready to go…idiots…that H-Fund product was and is a chalk drawing in that VPs office and the only progress that has been made in 9 months is that I had to tell the VP of Products that Hedge Funds have nothing to do with the Forestry Industry]. Willy