Managers are apparently looking at “weekly entry data” rather than average rates, so you can’t come in every day for the first week and take the rest of the month off. It doesn’t say whether it distinguishes between swipes in or swipes out, so junior bankers pulling an all nighter might be able to get two for the price of one. However, it appears that some Citi bankers have been taking advantage of their employer’s good nature, and so from August onward, the bank’s London office is going to be tracking swipe cards to look for “employees with consistent office absences”.Īpparently the system is going to capture “one swipe, per person, per day”. At times, CEO Jane Fraser has even given an indication that they regard this as a unique selling point when it comes to attracting top talent. But wouldn’t it be hilarious if it was the second? It’s not wholly unknown for an investment bank to have a reputation and influence out of proportion to its true financial weight, and of course if that was true, Centerview would definitely want to keep it quiet, to stop everybody trying to poach from them.Įlsewhere, Citi has so far stood out a little from the pack in terms of being a bit more favourable to hybrid working than the other big banks they only require office attendance for three days a week, and they’re reasonably easy about Mondays and Fridays. In all probability, in this case it’s the first – if the information comes out about how much the top partners are getting, the MDs and bankers just below that level will start grumbling for more. When someone doesn’t want to talk about money, the amount is likely to be either embarrassingly huge, or embarrassingly little. Apparently, “Publicising this information would also provide other industry participants with otherwise unavailable insight into Centerview’s personnel decisions, organisational economics, and internal operations.” And now the case is having hearings this week, but Centerview has asked (and the judge has agreed) that specific remuneration and financial figures aren’t to be referred to in open court or in visual exhibits. One of the original things that Handler was suing for was the right to inspect the books and see if he’d been paid enough.

The really interesting thing about it, though, is that although it’s pretty obvious that the sums of money at stake are huge, nobody seems to want to say exactly how huge. Then he … didn’t sign the new deal, but nonetheless continued working there for years, until everything (to use a technical term) went to hell, and he resigned to launch a new boutique while suing his former partner/employers. He came in on what seemed like an insanely lucrative deal giving him a percentage of revenues, then in 2012 he agreed to swap that deal for an agreement that he would be one of the top equity partners. This undeniable fact tends to lead to a lot of bad feeling between partners and non-partners, of which the current litigation between David Handler and Centerview is an extreme example.įor people who haven’t been following this case basically, David Handler joined Centerview as a rainmaker in tech banking, way back in 2008. The big difference between a partnership and a big bank with shareholders is that in one case but not the other, any money that goes into your pocket is coming directly out of the top management’s.

If you’re ever in that pleasant and potentially lucrative situation, the advice from people who have been there is usually unequivocal and often heartfelt. At some point in their career, many bankers will end up either working for a boutique, hedge fund or some other kind of partnership, or seriously considering doing so.

Bitsafe