Wall Street Hiring Rebounding

Great reporting. The hiring is basically done.

"Since employment bottomed out in February, New York securities firms have added nearly 2,000 job ... The financial work force in New York has shrunk by more than 28,000 since its peak in January 2008, but is still slightly above its level in 2003 after the tech bubble burst..."

At this rate, it will only take 14 years to get back where we were 2 years ago.

hey great news! Aint it great news stevejhx are you one of those people who loves other people's misery and what better misery than people being out of work huh guy!?

The bears on these boards don't want people going back to work. That is no good for them b/c the more people out of work the better for them. Aren'tthey just great human beings

That was a very useful comment, steveF.

Stevejhx, it's still great news right? 2000 people put back and positive sentiment building, awesome right?

Get ready, New York, for smaller Wall Street

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100711/FREE/307119998

Stronger regs, weaker profits could shrink industry to 1993 size.

etc. etc.

Wait, steve had said that Charlotte, North Carolina was going to become the Finance Capital of America, and tons of NY jobs would be sucked down there.

Hmm, steve was wrong again. Shocking.

It must be making his head explode that the job market and the real estate market in NY hasn't crashed the way he had hoped.

Charlotte wouldn't make any sense as a finance capital. Finance will stay in NY, CT, MA. NJ and PA is an option.

"Look How Much Better The Wall Street Jobs Recovery Is Than The Rest Of The Economy"

"Goldman Sachs- added 600 jobs in 1Q (globally)

JPMorgan’s investment bank - slightly more than 2,000 jobs since the beginning of the year (globally)

Credit Suisse’s investment bank - 600 jobs in 1Q

Deutsche Bank - 414 jobs recently (New York)

Nomura's securities unit - 700 jobs since March (looking to hire 300 more)

Compare this to some blue collar industries and Wall Street's job market looks downright fantastic."

http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-job-recovery-improving-so-much-faster-than-other-2010-7

"hey great news! Aint it great news stevejhx are you one of those people who loves other people's misery and what better misery than people being out of work huh guy!?"

Ironic, given how much SteveF wants apartments to be unaffordable for most city residents.

So, I see, THAT kind of misery is perfectly fine for SteveF, because it benefits him.

SteveF, you are a hypocrite.

it's the snowball effect pulaski... :)

sme- your argument is not a good one. You are saying that a good job market is bad because it makes apartments more expensive. It also isn't true that homes are unaffordable for most city residents.

steveF: "snowball effect" - for Wall Street, maybe. Main Street is far behind and dropping back further.

pulaski, increased Wall Street jobs brings prosperity for everyone. Wall Street leads the way for the rest of Main Street USA. I's all been done before many times over.

SteveF, I guess you were sleeping during the last decade, when wall street went crazy but everyone else had declining purchasing power.

Trickle down is so '80's.

"sme- your argument is not a good one. You are saying that a good job market is bad because it makes apartments more expensive."

No, I'm not. Have fun making up things I didn't say and arguing them though.

while 2000 jobs is obviously not going to move the meter in and of itself, don't overlook the impact it has on those already with jobs who now feel much more secure in their employment. A drastic change from 15 months ago when anyone in finance rightly worried for his/her job prospects. Now that employers are on the margin hiring, not firing, it makes those already employed more secure to ask for a raise/bigger bonus, seek out that bigger bonus at another firm, put down that big downpayment and take on a mortgage on a new or bigger place. Combined with the also noted improvement in the jumbo mtge market, and it is no surprise that median prices are up in Manhattan.

and people are out spending that money in restaurants in hot areas of the city; they are packed all week long. Doomsday is so last year.

Definitely -- 2009 is over ... it's 1933 now, the Great Depression is ending.

The great thing Alanhart, is that we've learned our lesson, and won't make the mistake of re-electing the incumbent President come 2012.

It being 1933, immediately following the 1932 election, the incumbent President will be voted in three more times.

"about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse while 2000 jobs is obviously not going to move the meter in and of itself, don't overlook the impact it has on those already with jobs who now feel much more secure in their employment. A drastic change from 15 months ago when anyone in finance rightly worried for his/her job prospects. Now that employers are on the margin hiring, not firing, it makes those already employed more secure to ask for a raise/bigger bonus, seek out that bigger bonus at another firm, put down that big downpayment and take on a mortgage on a new or bigger place. Combined with the also noted improvement in the jumbo mtge market, and it is no surprise that median prices are up in Manhattan."

Of course, say this all ends up being true... all of it was true in 1988 (stock market actually ended UP in '87)... and yet RE prices declined for 4 more years.

The end of doomsday doesn't mean the return of bubble prices, thats a pretty fundamental mistake.

Do you think we are going back to 2000 murders a year and the high crime of the late 80s/early 90s? Not likely.

alanhart

It being 1933, immediately following the 1932 election, the incumbent President will be voted in three more times.

and no doubt Matt is complaining about those newfangled rotary phones

Licc, are you on drugs? Who said that?

'the end of doomsday doesn't mean the return of bubble prices, thats a pretty fundamental mistake'

for someone who complains of strawman arguments, you've just made a pretty huge one yourself. where did i EVER state that we were returning to '07 pricing anytime soon?

in certain markets, low-end luxury comes to mind,, places are going for asking or close if the property has that something special.

This was a porno shop, now its all covered with flowers.

Orchids

"Do you think we are going back to 2000 murders a year and the high crime of the late 80s/early 90s? Not likely."

Again, fundamental mistake. You don't need a return to the worst ever to have prices drop from highest ever to slightly behind highest ever. We're not talking about late 80s, prices, are you?

NYC was in great shape in the late 90s, a return to those prices would be an incredible fall.

Here's a complex housing price data formula for everyone: Historically speaking odds are heavily favored that prices will double from here in the next 5-7 years.

Remember when you could have bought a house for a $1000 bucks in 1930, $5000 in 1950, $25,000 in 1970, $150,000 in 1990(little hyperinflation) and 600,000 in 2010, and 2,500,000(?????) in 2030.......whoa, I like it!

Simplistic. Very.

in 2030 someone will say "remember when you could have bought that condo for 600,000" the next guy will say "YA" then the first guy will say "geez!" then the second guy will say "ya well, I remember when bread was 2 bucks a loaf now it's 10" and the first guy will say "YA" and the second guy will say "geez!"

:)

But then they will admit that they didn't have secure income and the resources to buy the 750 sf apartment at the time.

And probably that's good.

They could have bought it from Ty Byrd.

Definitely seeing more jobs, M&A is really picking up, MS starting a couple new divisions, and friends that have been out of work for over year recently finding good jobs. I for one am very happy and relieved to see this and this has little to do with my real estate holdings.

"for someone who complains of strawman arguments, you've just made a pretty huge one yourself. where did i EVER state that we were returning to '07 pricing anytime soon?

printer, printer... dear, dear steveF did... within the next few years he said.

This is very similar to what happened in 1987. The best were offered jobs at other companies - so some of the jobs are net. My friend was offered a job at a big bank from another big bank - so offering bank adds that offer as a new job and it's counted. Another one - a broker was asked to change companies with a bonus so it's net to the new company if he chooses to move. I would like to know totally new hires - not transfers. Like out of college new hires. Remember also although hiring increased after 87 RE fell for another 5 years or so

Yeah, I know someone moving from RBC to Wachovia. Add one new job, right?

Wrong - a not-so-good financial advisor becomes a branch officer and pays back his hiring bonus.

I still know lots of people unemployed since Bear Stearns - and when you add AIG as the other company they worked for, it's not looking pretty.

What a difference four weeks makes: "Barclays Layoffs: The First of Many Axes to Fall?"

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/08/11/barclays-layoffs-the-first-of-many-axes-to-fall/

From the very same article:

'Barclays says it is staying the course on its plans to increase its overall headcount by the end of the year as it builds out the front office of its investment-banking operations'

...although, this article is about front office cuts at Credit Suisse, although in London, not NY. For now anyway.

Credit Suisse, Barclays to Cut U.K. Jobs as Revenue Slides
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSfrOqme34Pw

I think the picture is mixed. With all the appropriate caveats about extrapolating a few data that I see personally to the whole market, I know someone who in the last month has fallen into each of these categories:
- IB MD at bulge bracket firm; slow industry sector; let go (one off - not a round of layoffs)
- IB MD at same firm; moved to competitor; two year guarantee at big $
- IB Director at middle market advisory boutique; flushed out of bulge bracket in 2008; moved back to large firm 2010
These are in NY

THe bulls love to extrapolate ANY good news ANYWHERE in the Universe as bullish for NYC. But I gurentee you with absolute inside certainty that nothing like this JUST happens at two firms in London if its not happening in NY as well. Volumes are down and spreads have narrowed in credit on BOTH sides of the Atlantic. Overall FICC revenue is down just about equally on BOTH sides of the pond. Will that mean mass layoffs? Probably not, at least not yet. But the areas mentioned in this article in all the recent research reports from the analysts don't discriminate between NYC and London.

The safest bet remains Singapore and Hong Kong. I.E. look at how Standard Charter and HSBC did versus the other large banks, or look at APAC revenue growth yoy in 2Q for any of the bulge brackets.

having watched too many of these cycles, i can assert that now (August, which is the wrap-up of vacation season, and continuing into September) is exactly when investment banks start taking a hard look at what bonus compensation is going to look like. how they divvy up that pie is always very strategic - - they try hard to make sure they don't miscalculate and underreward the stars or overreward the average performers. (and cutting people before 3rd quarter is over makes it harder for those laid off to argue that they're still entitled to the whole (hypothetical) bonus that they expected to see - - banks can get by with giving severance only at this point in the year).

rumors of layoffs are like trial balloons, in a way (though i have no idea if that's the motivation behind these recent murmurs). they represent a sort of firing the first shot across the bow of employees who are starting to set their expectations of what sort of bonus money they might see at year-end.

if 2010 turns out to be just an o.k. year (for a given bank, or business line) and not a rip-roaring year, a bank can decide to lay off some people as a sort of insurance that they'll have enough money to amply reward the rainmakers, the people they MUST hold on to. it's just a matter of how deep the cuts go, but of course the downside for the bank is that they might wind up miscalculating and leaving a business line understaffed (or even demoralized if they skimp on pay) to a degree that they consequently miss out on business for lack of bodies to chase and close it.

it's all a calculation. but any year that you're midway through 3rd quarter and there's doubt about the economic outlook, the drumbeat of layoffs will begin. i think you want to take it seriously as a possible but potentially real phenomenon that could be around the corner, because 'tis the season. you can't call it a true signal of the macro nyc economy, though, until and unless the cuts actually happen. but the -> exercise <- of "how many people can we cut?" is definitely real. and happening now, i'm fairly sure, in certain high-dollar departments of the banks.

last line above got messed up. should have read:

"but the -> exercise <- of "how many people can we cut?" is definitely real. and happening now, i'm fairly sure, in certain high-dollar departments of the banks."

damn, again - - o.k., this time for sure:

but the EXERCISE of "how many people can we cut?" is definitely real. and happening now, i'm fairly sure, in certain high-dollar departments of the banks.

The funny thing is all of this is distorted by the hundreds of multi-year guarantees they just signed. I saw it back in 2001 - when hundreds of tech/internet people who had been signed in 1999 and 2000 to multi-year $1M+ deals sat idly doing NOTHING all day long, while people without gurentees in areas that the bank actually needed were laid off. It was nutcakes. Its happening now - Credit and Rates guys, FIG bankers, even a lot of equity research folks, etc, have all been JUST signed to multi-year deals, so the banks will have to struggle to figure out who they even CAN fire.

If you are back office, be VERY afraid.

Well not only was this story reported after the fact, it basically came at the trough.....
And I wrote yesterday that NIM has been declining suggesting trouble ahead. Now Whitney is chiming in...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Securities firms around the world will cut as many as 80,000 jobs in the next 18 months as revenue growth begins to slow, said Meredith Whitney, the former Oppenheimer & Co. analyst who now runs her own firm.

The reductions, about 10 percent of current levels, will come after 2010 compensation payments, Whitney, 40, said in a report dated Aug. 31 and obtained by Bloomberg News today. The industry’s payouts will be “down dramatically,” said Whitney, who started New York-based Meredith Whitney Group after correctly predicting Citigroup Inc.’s dividend cut in 2007.

“The key product drivers of Wall Street’s revenues and profits over the past decade have been in a structural decline over the past three years,” Whitney said in the report. “2010 marks the first year in many in which Wall Street-centric firms will go through structural changes.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-07/wall-street-firms-will-cut-up-to-80-000-jobs-over-18-months-whitney-says.html

She may turn out to be right, but that doesn't mean that her case is well argued. For example, the idea that cuts, if they are coming, will come after 2010 comp is paid is nonsense. The whole point of cutting heads when revenues and bonus pools are down is to preserve what's left of the pool for top performers who remain. That's why if you cut you do it in the fall to get the headcount down before year end (or even if not technically off payroll by year end because of notice periods, etc. you squeeze people out of meaningful participation in the 2010 pool, which is where the real $ are saved in this process). A variation that is technically consistent with her theory but practically very different is to keep people around but pay them little to no bonus in hopes that they get the message and leave voluntarily in the spring (at which point you formally cut them anyway if they haven't moved on). On paper, cuts like this come after 2010 comp, but the real economics (no bonus) kick in before, which, again, is the point of the exercise. This variation has the disadvantage of putting the firms in a worse position from a litigation/arbitration standpoint because the employee worked out the whole year and got no/little bonus while the 90% or whatever who are still around all got paid. It's cleaner if the cuts came in, say, October.
I'm not advocating or cheering any of this, by the way, just describing. It's a brutal business.

speculation in my company is that bonuses will be down from last year. :(

Sept. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Morgan Stanley froze hiring at its investment banking division for the rest of 2010, a person briefed on the decision said. The firm ruled out layoffs through the end of the year, the person said, speaking anonymously because the matter hasn’t been publicly disclosed.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-27/morgan-stanley-said-to-freeze-investment-bank-hiring-for-2010.html

Hiring freezes come right bf ? Fill in the blank.

Hiring freezes come right bf ? Fill in the blank.

Didn't you get fired from Dean Witter Reynolds Discover?

D.E. Shaw dropped 150 people today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/d-e-shaw-is-said-to-cut-10-of-workforce-as-hedge-fund-investors-pull-out.html

That $20B drop in assets is about $400M less in fees per year vs. 2008.

I think the DE Shaw news is a pretty significant headline. The standard narrative these days is that it's the mega-funds that are/will be the winners in the hedge fund world. If this is what winning looks like, it's an ugly picture

Agreed. The fact is, folks are pulling out. That to me is a sign of a macro trend, not just one place seeing its margin decline. This is *demand* waning.