NYC securities firms added 1400 jobs

My firm (private) had cut staff and hired more talent in the past 18 months.

so...net ? up or down?

Well, net up, but that is less my point. More significantly we have more higher income people (and producers for the company) and fewer staff or wage earners or middle class types. For firms in our industry under 500 people, this seems to be the pattern lately. I don't really feel good about the staff, but this is the situation we are in. And probably more likely to continue this way if taxes rise.

"I don't really feel good about the staff"

what does this mean?

I don't really feel good about the situation facing the staff. Better?

It is hard to read tone online, but I'm suspecting an agenda here.

i have no agenda. i am trying to understand what many here are actually saying. so....your point is that your firm is hiring but ?

Hiring producers.

But the situation doesn't help the average Joe.

so...these producers are currently producing elsewhere, right? so, we're not talking about any kind of net increase in jobs, right?

i take it back...I do have an agenda...cutting through the happy horseshit and getting to the point.

I'm not criticizing your firm....I'm trying to point out that your post about hiring really is misleading.

If you think plain factual statements are misleading.

which one was the plain factual statement?

My firm (private) had cut staff and hired more talent in the past 18 months

Sorry if referring to producers or higher earners as talent is offensive.

OK.

so...based on your plain factual statement...what conclusion should we reach?

My intuition on you having an agenda seems to be proving itself out.

"i take it back...I do have an agenda...cutting through the happy horseshit and getting to the point."

so...what's your point?

Oh, right, I forgot, it's late, forgive me. But I do appreciate your honesty after your dishonesty.

.....ok

but if you keep reading this article past its headline you eventually come to this

" The sector had 315,900 employees in June, a loss of 37,700 positions from August 2007, Weissenstein said.

"There have been months where there have been increases but overall it's a huge loss," he said, adding that the sector has shed jobs every month this year."

and then this

"New York City employers overall added a total of 5,900 workers June, compared to 11,000 people hired a year-ago, Weissenstein said."

huh? what's your point?

I'm quoting myself from above.

quoting yourself, that is a rare talent my friend.

still not getting your point.

and...i am not your friend and we both know that...

like they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And you imitate yourself well.

surprising you aren't my friend, we only met within the hour.

still not getting your point. what was the point of your post?

You are good at asking questions, for what purpose I don't know.

hard to fathom because i assume you are a lawyer....but i am asking to get an answer. what was the point of your original post?

oh for god's sake!
columbiacounty wants to know that since you're calling them "producers", is it fair to assume they were already gainfully employed before coming to your firm.

thank you...the name of this string is about adding jobs. trying to get clarity about this.

You assume I'm a lawyer, that would be a foolish assumption. The topic was clearly stated, "NYC securities firms added 1400 jobs."

And my post, "My firm (private)..." should really have erased any other assumption on your part, as law firms in the U.S. can't be publicly-traded.

alex09
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse oh for god's sake!
columbiacounty wants to know that since you're calling them "producers", is it fair to assume they were already gainfully employed before coming to your firm.

about 60% were.

columbiacounty
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse thank you...the name of this string is about adding jobs. trying to get clarity about this.

so you got the name of the string for adding jobs, but you missed the part about the securities industry and assumed I'm a lawyer?

You are good at selectivity, but you've already admitted that when you said you have no agenda and then reversed yourself on your agenda.

sorry...so you are a lawnworker?

yes, I'm a lawnworker. Thanks for helping me with the words I had trouble identifying.

from you: "If you think plain factual statements are misleading."

from you: "yes, I'm a lawnworker"

so...

columbiacounty you have poor social skills. the word retard comes to mind.

Where is nyc10022 to shoot this down?

what a stupid discussion, columbiacounty you sure know how to pick a fight for no reason?

Columbia
You've clearly made the point that nobody would hire you with your obnoxious attitude and useless time wasting skills. zip it.

tomlawner -- you were spot on with your instinct that cc has an agenda.

I'm on SE less than I used to now that I'm well settled in to my rental and a long-term buyer rather than short term. Also, discussions like this (I work on Wall Street but nothing high-falutin(sp?)) used to attract me and now, look what crap they are. columbiacounty, you didn't even have an opposing POV that you shared but still managed to fight (losing badly it appears mostly from your own undoing). And no one else had a POV probably because they were crowded out by the fight.

some 'splainin might be helpful

"so...net ? up or down?"

See, this is really the wrong way to look at these numbers. The industry shed so many jobs dor a number of months that it is going to be net down for a time. The important thing is that, as tomlawner pointed out, firms are starting to hire people. This is not going to alter the employment scene in 2 months time, but this is how the process plays out:

- shed lots of jobs (usually more than they needed to)

- sit tight for a bit

- start to hire back "talent", "producers", whatever term you are comfortable with. These will be a mix of quality hires that got the axe at competitors and employed people.

- sit tight for a bit

- hire more back-office, support, "regular joes" or whatever term you are comfortable with. These will be a mix of quality hires that got the axe at competitors and employed people.

- sit tight for a bit

- the hiring across the industry of all types and levels of people will pick-up more steam as the firms have now made money for several quarters, absorbed new hires and are ready to use their capital to make a larger step forward.

- Now you get a net positive.

This is good news and this is what is happening. I have seen an increase in business in the last 2 months and it (hopefully) will continue to slowly improve. Does this mean unemployment will not continue to rise? No. Does this mean that it appears like we are moving in the right direction? Yes. I don't understand why someone cannot accept that this is good news and also realize that it doesn't mean that it is 2007 all over again.

-

Morgan Lewis (12th largest revenues among US law firms in 2008) and Orrick just cancelled their 2010 summer associate programs. Cancelled. Nada. Zip. Not even appearing at on-campus interviewing.

And my job (law firm) keeps cutting people, a few here, a few there - some support staff, some attorneys. We've added a few big guns, but net spending or buying heft for the entire firm has certainly dropped (if you want to quantify that way).

My wife's job is also planning more layoffs (advertising for big retailer). Again not $200K jobs (that already happened), but many people earning $60K or more.

Hard to see that the net trend is positive yet. I take your point, Waverly, but the million dollar question for this board is how soon do you get to (or even near to) overall 'net positive'? I think we're still a long way off.

JKB - that is definitely the $million question. I think that we will see job losses in the NY metro-area through the 1st quarter of next year and possibly until the end of the 2nd quarter. Historically, staffing agencies will see an increase in activity for 2-3 quarters while unemployment still grows. We have started this process, albeit slowly, and I think it could be more like 3-4 quarters since this downturn is more severe. There is hiring out there, but it is going to take another 3-4 quarters before it starts to gain any enormous momentum. At least that is what I can share from what I see, as a person who runs a stffing agency and from my experience in surviving downturns. I don't have all the answers, but that is my .02.

Sounds about right, Waverly. I have no insider knowledge here, just observation and anecdotes. Big Law is still in entrenchment mode, and isn't likely to turn a corner for a while, as aboutready notes.

What I see is fewer people staying moderately busy. No craziness, not a lot of OT and a slow bleed of jobs. I think preservation is our M.O., not growth.

if all this happy talk somehow comforts you, go for it. can we at least agree that this is no longer a "downturn?" according to an earlier UD post on another thread today, he characterized it as the longest and most severe post WWII recession. no need for end of the world talk, but referring to the current situation as a "downturn" seems significantly misleading in the other direction.

waverly, i respect your input and knowledge. but i doubt there will be "enormous" momentum anytime soon. today i saw a report that said that a "normal" unemployment level wouldn't recur until 2015.

and, equally importantly, there hasn't been this level of furloughs and salary cuts in decades, literally decades. that doesn't, of course, even begin to account for the more typically underemployed. this isn't a typical recession. we can't lower interest rates to juice things along. and we don't have much more credit to borrow our way out of it. the states (about 20 of them) are an f'ng time bomb just waiting to blow.

I don't see why using the word "downturn" added to everything else that I said sticks in your craw. A severe recession is a downturn. It certainly isn't prosperity and no one seems to be suggesting it is.

It's not "happy talk". This is reality.

I don't get why you NEED to have things stated in certain ways and ONLY in those certain ways.

AR...happy Friday!

I should have qualified better, AR. When I say enormous momentum I mean we will be putting positive numbers on the jobs ledger (125k+ for a month). This will likely follow a couple of modestly positive months (less than 100k). I think we are 3-4 quarters away from this happening. I don't think we will see month after month of 400k+ jobs created, but rather a slow and steady 200k as we recover with a sub 125k month or two mixed in there.

I also agree the underemployed numbers are not good. I think they will work themselves out as well as more jobs are created, but it may take more time for the people in this group to see a giant reversal of fortune.

I do hope I am wrong and things come back quicker. Maybe the banks will do better. Maybe there won;t be a double-dip. Maybe the green jobs created will help rocket the economy back. Maybe. I wouldn;t bet on it, but I will hope for it.

waverly, friday is special. it's FDIC day.

we do wish for the same thing. what i'd like to see is real job creation in new areas. there's so much potential and so little money.

i'm afraid that the underemployed number will lead to far fewer people being employed, as those who are part-time get more hours. but here's to hoping. btw, have you seen the income tax receipts chart? i think ritholtz has it. i'll go retrieve it.

here it is, makes the unemployment numbers seem a bit underestimated.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/withholding-taxes-chart-july-15-2009/

to me, using the term downturn implies that what we are currently experiencing is a subset of prior experiences, i.e. downturns.

kind of like calling pneumonia a chest cold. yes, similar but many degrees different and calls for a very different response.

suppose that we actually need to raise taxes across the board (yep, for everyone) in order to forestall a even worse disaster. isn't it important that we understand the actual depth and intensity of the problem so that an appropriate solution can be attempted?

> Where is nyc10022 to shoot this down?

What do I have to shoot down? The "positive" article notes we have the highest unemployment since '97 (and still growing) and we're lost 40k jobs since August.

Why would I shoot that down?

The horrible news gels with what I've been saying.

"here it is, makes the unemployment numbers seem a bit underestimated.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/withholding-taxes-chart-july-15-2009/"

Oh my fing lord.

Yeah, not much to shoot down there, either.

What else you got, wonderboy?

so...downturn---does that work for you?

"suppose that we actually need to raise taxes across the board (yep, for everyone)" -- hmm does that mean half the people will have to pay more than 0? nah, we live in a social democracy - will never happen

Aboutready - that chart is worth a thousand words and then some!

Hmmm... still no wonderboy. 2 days later, no comment.
No yawn.

Nothing.

WHoops.

There is SO much demand for non-trading professionals on Wall Street. Right now the mid and boutiques won't hire because it is the 2nd half of the year and the need to preserve compensation for our core team, but next year the hiring caps are off. There's a possibility I'm wrong and someone like Jefferies will ruin the typically slower hiring season in which case all bets are off and we all get aggressive and watch out for the hiring and comp packages.

Look, market is up, the stimulus and cash for clunkers is strong. More transactions = more hiring. That there is more unemployment doesn't matter because, this isn't meant to be rude, but those guys aren't supporting Wall Street volume anyway.

I'm pretty bullish, the market is well, activity is up. There are pitfalls and higher risks but with more people taking risks, this means more fees and activity for Wall Street.

> There is SO much demand for non-trading professionals on Wall Street.

except all the stats show those are the areas that are tanking, M&A, etc.

M&A is definitely not taking. It is replacing mega deals with medium size deals. And it is replacing mega fees on contingency with more stabile quarterly advisory fees.

The stats (regularly reported by crains) show its tanking.

If you don't think replacing mega deals with medium doesn't change fees DRAMATICALLY...

Poster child for How to Win Friends and Influence People

columbiacounty, 9 days ago

jeeez...tom if you're gonna beef, let's get it straight:

you were trying to make the point that because your firm was starting to hire that this was a solid indication of the economy turning around. i disagreed then and i still do. i never suggested that there was anything wrong other than your generalizing.

and...yes, i did attempt to make a (bad) joke re: your anonymous name. some of my best friends are lawnworkers.

-
check it out for yourself
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/13821-what-is-columbiacountys-problem?page=2