If 'The City' does well the country does well?

D.P. said:
Agreed, also annoys me when people are just purely jealous that someone has a highly respectable well paying job and try to justify their lack of career achievements by saying inane comments like "but I'm from a working class background", "it is not what you know but who you know", "It is just an old-boys club".

All the CEOs/top managers/IBs etc. that earn high salaries (e.g. 200k> more + bonus) who I know personally achieved that by working from the bottom up, from a working class family at the poverty line. They all share similar traits:

  • All are very smart, very adaptable, outright intelligent people
  • All are very hard working, to the point of workaholics and will enjoy spending most of their evening and weekends working (normally split between their actual work and side projects).
  • Are confident, well spoken, often a slight arrogance that helps them succeed. Good communication skills and ability to debate, reason, and defend their PoV.
  • Gave 110% to everything they do from when they were at primary school. They studied hard to get their first class honours etc. Since they were smart and hard working a lot of them finished school/uni/phd early.
  • They made their own luck through perseverance , positive attitude, not getting caught up in failures but focusing on the next success. E.g., one of them has set up 3 start-ups all of which have failed but he picked himself up and his 4th attempt quickly succeeded in making him a millionaire. Most people would have given up on the first or second failure!


The people that do the complaining typically have these values:
  • Try to do the minimum effort to succeed. Never over deliver, merely provide what is requested.
  • View the working day as a strict 8 hour limit, when 5pm hits they race home.
  • View work has a boring necessity rather than a fun challenge.
  • Would rather drink beer with friends than try to solve a difficult problem.
  • Count down the days until their next vacation
  • View taking a dump at work as winning 10 minutes of the companies time.
  • Work out how much money they earned during their 15min fag break
  • Will only work overtime if they get paid additional money
  • Hates when a project deadline is due and longer hours are required (winners love the challenge and experience of working furiously to meet tight deadlines)


Also it is not obvious that being the type of person in the first list is really a positive. I don't think being a workaholic is healthy.
A simpler questions is do you work to live or live to work. Most successful people are of the latter, while most of the rest of us are of the former.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to quote this as I thoroughly agree with it.

Something else to add is that if you're doing something you hate (as in "I really don't enjoy this", not "I find this too hard"), stop it. You'll fall into the second list otherwise. The most successful people I know all genuinely love what they do. This makes falling into the top category "easy" - while they work incredible hours, often under immense stress, they do so because they find what they do an interesting challenge.
 
Also trading on foreign markets brings in significant revenue.

I work in IT for a bank and get to see the huge hours and stress that a lot of people there work under. It is also a very hire and fire environment. So while the money can be good there for some people, it isn't all a bed of roses.
 
This wasn't in the UK - it was in France, where there was a rather unsavoury incident when Michelin laid off a large number workers because it had made a loss. This caused the share price of Michelin to skyrocket causing French bankers to start quaffing champagne on the trading floor. A nice PR disaster that I think resulted in a windfall tax being applied to the banks :p Unfortunately there's literally nothing that our banks can do that will cause a similar reaction from a UK government, I mean our banks have actually been directly responsible for the deaths of people in the third world by artificially increasing the price of food - has anything changed to stop them doing it again? Hell no. I get a bit sick of sycophancy shown to the 1% world elite that happens on this forum.
 
D.P. said:
Agreed, also annoys me when people are just purely jealous that someone has a highly respectable well paying job and try to justify their lack of career achievements by saying inane comments like "but I'm from a working class background", "it is not what you know but who you know", "It is just an old-boys club".

All the CEOs/top managers/IBs etc. that earn high salaries (e.g. 200k> more + bonus) who I know personally achieved that by working from the bottom up, from a working class family at the poverty line. They all share similar traits:

  • All are very smart, very adaptable, outright intelligent people
  • All are very hard working, to the point of workaholics and will enjoy spending most of their evening and weekends working (normally split between their actual work and side projects).
  • Are confident, well spoken, often a slight arrogance that helps them succeed. Good communication skills and ability to debate, reason, and defend their PoV.
  • Gave 110% to everything they do from when they were at primary school. They studied hard to get their first class honours etc. Since they were smart and hard working a lot of them finished school/uni/phd early.
  • They made their own luck through perseverance , positive attitude, not getting caught up in failures but focusing on the next success. E.g., one of them has set up 3 start-ups all of which have failed but he picked himself up and his 4th attempt quickly succeeded in making him a millionaire. Most people would have given up on the first or second failure!


The people that do the complaining typically have these values:
  • Try to do the minimum effort to succeed. Never over deliver, merely provide what is requested.
  • View the working day as a strict 8 hour limit, when 5pm hits they race home.
  • View work has a boring necessity rather than a fun challenge.
  • Would rather drink beer with friends than try to solve a difficult problem.
  • Count down the days until their next vacation
  • View taking a dump at work as winning 10 minutes of the companies time.
  • Work out how much money they earned during their 15min fag break
  • Will only work overtime if they get paid additional money
  • Hates when a project deadline is due and longer hours are required (winners love the challenge and experience of working furiously to meet tight deadlines)



Don't get me wrong, many of the traits in the second list a natural and I have many of them (im counting down the days until I honeymoon in Maui, my boss was in Maui at Christmas and took a laptop to work form the hotel for most of it, there is the difference!). But that is what separates me from people with highly successful careers. I do however have enough of the traits in the first list to put me into a career that is paying in the top 5-10%.

Also it is not obvious that being the type of person in the first list is really a positive. I don't think being a workaholic is healthy.
A simpler questions is do you work to live or live to work. Most successful people are of the latter, while most of the rest of us are of the former.
Click to expand...

/puke
 
I trade, but I would not get involved with any basic foodstuffs. It shouldn't be open to speculation as if it were any other sort of goods, but then that would have an impact on the agricultural sector accordingly who do see some benefit from it. But that isn't any consolation to rocketing staple food prices for the poorest in the world during an otherwise economic downwards trend.

These things, once allowed to pass, are hard to gain control of again. Try to reign it in, and you are held hostage or simply out lobbied.
 
And I am not claiming that is is good to be a person in the first, just an observation that people who are successful that I know are intelligent, exceptionally hardworking (e.g., will happily spend all weekend in the office without thinking twice) and have a very positive attitude - concentrating on future success rather than dwelling on past failures, see work as a fun challenge than a boring necessity that is only done for money. Some of them do a lot of charity work because they like the challenge.
 
As for the trickle down theory, it clearly has limitations and issues, especially the super rich, but for an investment banker, type professional there very much is a trickle down.

For starters at source they will loose around 50% due to IT and NI (as you go up the pay scale the % take of total income gradually increases, tax free allowance becomes less significant etc.). They likely spend a lot of money on luxury items taxed at 20%. They go out and buy a 50K car and 10K + goes straight to government coffers.

Then there are secondary things. They have a much higher probability of paying for a Gardner, cleaning person, accountant etc. When you have lots of money but little time you tend to pay other people to do those tasks. They will eat out much more often and pay , pay gym memberships, and in general spend plenty of their earned income. They are also less costly on the state.

So not ideal but they do pass on their earned assets either directly or indirectly to the state. You can look jealously at their lifestyle and inequality but any extravagances is really sending money back into the economy.
 
I work in Shoreditch in the tech area just up from The City. We are way cooler, earn very good money but thanks to The City no one notices ;) I meet my brother several times a week who is treasurer at a bank down in the city - him in his pinstripe suit and me in my baggy cargos and T-Shirt.. I am pretty sure he looks like he is taking part in an out reach program.

His particular bank did very well during the banking crisis and were considered one of the safe places to keep ones money. Many others were the same, there are actually relatively few places that are doing the crazy crazy and those are the ones hitting the headline.

My point being saying "all bankers are scum!" is like saying "all checkout workers are scum!". Some are and some are not. Many are doing very well, doing a good job with our money and receiving very little recognition but are also being screwed over by the Daily Mail/Sun mob mentality.
 
Considering 70% of tax (something like that anyway!) comes from London, yes I think it'd fair to assume if they're doing well so is the rest of the (essentially subsidised) country.
 
Chris1712 said:
Considering 70% of tax (something like that anyway!) comes from London, yes I think it'd fair to assume if they're doing well so is the rest of the (essentially subsidised) country.
Click to expand...

How much of those taxes had to go back into the city to prevent the banks from collapsing?
 
Chris1712 said:
Considering 70% of tax (something like that anyway!) comes from London, yes I think it'd fair to assume if they're doing well so is the rest of the (essentially subsidised) country.
Click to expand...

I think that the implication that if London disappeared so too would all the country's wealth is misleading. Consider a Tesco superstore in say, Burnley. Every pound spent in that store goes to HQ in the South East, who send a bit back for wages, rent etc but the rest of the money stays there. London acts as a big hoover in the UK, sucking up all the wealth and opportunity. IMO we'd be better off if the country's wealth was more equally spread around the country and not just concentrated in one city and surrounding areas.
 
D.P. said:
Agreed, also annoys me when people are just purely jealous that someone has a highly respectable well paying job and try to justify their lack of career achievements by saying inane comments like "but I'm from a working class background", "it is not what you know but who you know", "It is just an old-boys club".

All the CEOs/top managers/IBs etc. that earn high salaries (e.g. 200k> more + bonus) who I know personally achieved that by working from the bottom up, from a working class family at the poverty line. They all share similar traits:

  • All are very smart, very adaptable, outright intelligent people
  • All are very hard working, to the point of workaholics and will enjoy spending most of their evening and weekends working (normally split between their actual work and side projects).
  • Are confident, well spoken, often a slight arrogance that helps them succeed. Good communication skills and ability to debate, reason, and defend their PoV.
  • Gave 110% to everything they do from when they were at primary school. They studied hard to get their first class honours etc. Since they were smart and hard working a lot of them finished school/uni/phd early.
  • They made their own luck through perseverance , positive attitude, not getting caught up in failures but focusing on the next success. E.g., one of them has set up 3 start-ups all of which have failed but he picked himself up and his 4th attempt quickly succeeded in making him a millionaire. Most people would have given up on the first or second failure!


The people that do the complaining typically have these values:
  • Try to do the minimum effort to succeed. Never over deliver, merely provide what is requested.
  • View the working day as a strict 8 hour limit, when 5pm hits they race home.
  • View work has a boring necessity rather than a fun challenge.
  • Would rather drink beer with friends than try to solve a difficult problem.
  • Count down the days until their next vacation
  • View taking a dump at work as winning 10 minutes of the companies time.
  • Work out how much money they earned during their 15min fag break
  • Will only work overtime if they get paid additional money
  • Hates when a project deadline is due and longer hours are required (winners love the challenge and experience of working furiously to meet tight deadlines)



Don't get me wrong, many of the traits in the second list a natural and I have many of them (im counting down the days until I honeymoon in Maui, my boss was in Maui at Christmas and took a laptop to work form the hotel for most of it, there is the difference!). But that is what separates me from people with highly successful careers. I do however have enough of the traits in the first list to put me into a career that is paying in the top 5-10%.

Also it is not obvious that being the type of person in the first list is really a positive. I don't think being a workaholic is healthy.
A simpler questions is do you work to live or live to work. Most successful people are of the latter, while most of the rest of us are of the former.
Click to expand...

Yes and No. You need these traits, but also you need to be good at positioning yourself into the right situation.

For example, you could work your ass off for company and expect to get promoted. However you need look at it from the other side too. Would you rather let them carry on working their ass off for you on a lower salary, or a higher salary? They will keep dangling carrot, because it is in their self-interest and they are not idiots but it doesn't they will act on it. Asking for it won't work(Implicit threat), and saying your going to leave(Explicit threat) is a threat which most bosses hate.

They need a good reason for them to get promoted which is something other than intelligent, hard working and so forth.

Often this reason is political like being good friends with a large client(I have personally used this) or knowing information no one else knows and so on. It not merit based process. Obviously being intelligent/persistence helps you manipulate your way into these situations but no always.

I can show a list of people with these traits, who have gotten nowhere. For a lot of people their salary will just keep inline with the market rates because its the only genuine leverage they have, even if they are highly intelligent and hard working.

I think you have survivorship bias, just because you have those traits doesn't mean its going to get you there. So you end up working your ass off, and getting nothing.
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
I think that the implication that if London disappeared so too would all the country's wealth is misleading. Consider a Tesco superstore in say, Burnley. Every pound spent in that store goes to HQ in the South East, who send a bit back for wages, rent etc but the rest of the money stays there. London acts as a big hoover in the UK, sucking up all the wealth and opportunity. IMO we'd be better off if the country's wealth was more equally spread around the country and not just concentrated in one city and surrounding areas.
Click to expand...

If the city was just reliant on UK based businesses then it would be a heck of a lot smaller than it is at the moment.

edit

We don't have an empire any more but we do grease our hands with a disproportional amount of global trade. 38% of the volume of the global FX market is traded via London for example.

http://www.euromoney.com/Article/30...illion-a-day-Londons-dominance-continues.html

FX market is worth 4.9 trillion a day.... its not just the likes of Tesco etc.. its banks, corporate treasuries from all over the world

Twice as many dollars are traded on the FX market in the UK than in the US, and more than twice as many euros are traded in the UK than all the eurozone countries combined. That reflects London’s position as Europe’s leading financial centre and the world’s leading global international financial sector. The report notes that around half of European investment activity is conducted in London. Meanwhile, about 80% of Europe’s hedge funds are managed in London, which is also Europe’s main centre for FX prime brokerage.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
All the CEOs/top managers/IBs etc. that earn high salaries (e.g. 200k> more + bonus) who I know personally achieved that by working from the bottom up, from a working class family at the poverty line. They all share similar traits:
Click to expand...

This. Our CEO at work wasn't born CEO, he joined as a graduate on the trainee scheme.
 
What a great deal of people don't realise is that not everyone who works for a bank takes risk. Having a go at a random employee at a random investment bank for the bonus culture/risk-taking culture makes about as much sense as berating the Under 18's Accrington Stanley Reserve goalkeeper for the excessive salaries that Premiership footballers earn.

Unfortunately the targeting of bankers is systematic. Take RBS for example.

RBS' CDO Structuring business, both cash and synthetic teams, lost a great deal of money during 2007, 2008 and 2009. Almost all of the people involved in these businesses left immediately. RBS were then left to clean up the mess.

In 2010 and 2011, RBS had the worlds highest grossing Interest Rate Derivatives and Hybrids operation. This turned over £700m per year of profit across just over 100 personnel. The personnel, by virtue of working at RBS, were largely attacked in the public domain and had their pay scrutinized (and reduced) heavily - banker-bashing and all that. As a result, the majority of these RBS employees jumped ship. There's not much point in playing a major role in the redevelopment of a business when you're going to face derision and abuse by virtue of being an RBS employee - regardless of whether you played a role in the credit crunch or not.

As such, the IRD & Hybrids business at RBS makes a fraction of the previous amount, simply because the politicians and the uneducated public wanted a say-so.

In 2008, the average percent of staff at an investment bank that focused on Credit as an asset class was about 12% (Credit was largely at fault for everything that's happened over the last 5 or so years). Of those 12%, many were back office, IT professionals, lawyers, middle office, juniors and other peripheral staff.

Of the remaining professionals within Credit teams, many at Analyst and Associate levels had absolute no authority to make investment decisions. Those decisions were made largely by VPs, Directors and MDs. As you can guess, there are a hell of a lot more Analysts and Associates than there are Directors.

Therefore, the remaining 88% of staff at the IB played no role in the credit crisis - they worked across equities, interest rates, FX, funds, commodities, hybrids, private equity, asset management, wealth managers, M&A and investment banking, etc. All largely profitable businesses. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather attract talent to a business primarily designed to make money by decent salaries, than bow to public demand, shoot the bank in the foot and lose profitable businesses and employees just to satisfy the ill-informed. Unfortunately, and obviously, it's not quite as simple as that though.

So, in my opinion, it's difficult and spiteful to blame those 88% for all the troubles that have been faced since the credit crisis. And of those 12% who sat in the Credit teams, very few of them had any real investment authority too!
 
I've worked in financial services for over a decade. Personally, I'm quite fed up of everything in financial services being conveniently labelled as city bankers and fat cats. There are plenty of organisations and employees in financial services that are completely detached from traders and speculators.

The UK, including London, has some fantastic financial firms. Don't demonise them because their industry is money. The equivalent would be supermarkets and horsemeat, and suggesting that all the non-meat / food products sold by those retailers are suddenly tainted as a result.

Have a go at 'bankers' if you wish. Don't tar 'the City' and all firms that work within financial services with the same brush though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom