Posts tagged ‘Banking’
Females in Finance – Coming Out of Hibernation
I’m not sure if you are like me, but the annual media ritual of myopically breaking down the sale of every shoe, belt, cell phone, television, and pair of underwear during the November/December holiday season can become very grating. What makes it a little easier for me to swallow is the stable of attractive female retail analysts who are finally unleashed from their long hibernation slumbers to review their mall traffic and parking satellite findings. I’m a happily married man, but I still cannot complain about seeing these multi-threat beauties dissect sales trends and fashion fads. However, in this day and age, I’m not so sure that females feel the same way about their under-representation in the finance field?
If there are 155.8 million females in the United States and 151.8 million males (Census Bureau: October 2009), then how come only 6% of hedge fund managers (BusinessWeek), 8% of venture capitalists, and 15% of investment bankers are female (Harvard Magazine)? Is the finance field just an ol’ boys network of chauvinist pig-headed males who only hire their own? Or do the severe time-demands of the field force females to opt-out of the industry due to family priorities?
Although I’m sure family choices and quality of life are factors that play into the decision of entering the demanding finance industry, from my experience I would argue women are notoriously underrepresented even at younger ages (well before family considerations would weigh into career decisions). Maybe cultural factors such as upbringing and education are other factors that make math-related jobs more appealing to men?
If underrepresentation in the finance field is not caused by female choice, then perhaps the male dominated industry is merely a function of more men opting into the field (i.e., men are better suited for the industry). More specifically, perhaps male brains are just wired differently? Some make the argument that all the testosterone permeating through male bodies leads them to positions involving more risk. If you look at other risk related fields like gambling, women too are dramatic minorities, making up about 1/3 of total compulsive gamblers.
Women Better than Men?
The funny part about the underrepresentation of females in finance is that one study actually shows female hedge fund managers outperforming their male counterparts. Here’s what a BusinessWeek article had to say about female hedge fund managers:
A new study by Hedge Fund Research found that, from January 2000 through May 31, 2009, hedge funds run by women delivered nearly double the investment performance of those managed by men. Female managers produced average annual returns of 9%, versus 5.82% for men and, in 2008, when financial markets were cratering, funds run by women were down 9.6%, compared with a 19% decline for men.
The article goes onto to theorize that women may not be afraid of risk, but actually are better able to manage risk. A UC Davis study found that male managers traded 45% more than female managers, thereby reducing returns by -2.65% (about 1% more than females).
Regardless of the theories or studies used to explain gender risk appetite, the relative underrepresentation of females in finance is a fact. I’ll let everyone else weigh in why that is the case, but in the meantime I will enjoy watching the female analysts explain the minute by minute account of UGG and iPad sales through the holiday shopping season.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Related Articles:
BusinessWeek article on female fund managers
Bashful Path to Female Bankruptcies
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds and AAPL, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in DECK or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.
Surviving in a Post-Merger Financial World
The financial institution dominoes have fallen.
Over the last two years we have experienced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As a result, financial institutions have come under assault from all angles, including its customers, suppliers, and regulators. And as we have watched the walls cave in on the banking and brokerage industries, we have seen a tremendous amount of consolidation. Like it or not, we need to adapt to the new environment.
The accelerated change began in early 2008 with the collapse of Bear Stearns and negotiated merger with JP Morgan Chase. Since then we saw the largest investment banking failure (Lehman Brothers), and the largest banking failure in history (Washington Mutual). Other mergers included the marriage of Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, the combination of Wachovia into Wells Fargo, and most recently the blending of Smith Barney into Morgan Stanley. These changes don’t even take into account the disruption caused by the government control of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.
So what does all this change mean for consumers and investors?
1) Rise in Customer Complaints: Change is not always a good thing. Customer complaints rose 54% in 2008, and climbed 86% in the first three months of 2009 according to FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), a nongovernmental regulator of securities companies. The main complaint is “breach of fiduciary duty,” which requires the advisor to act in the best interest of the client. Making the complaint stick can be difficult if the broker only must fulfill a “suitability” standard. To combat the suitability limitation, investors would be well served by investigating an independent Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) who has a fiduciary duty towards clients.
2) Less Competition = Higher Prices: The surviving financial institutions are now in a stronger position with the power to raise prices. Pricing can surface in various forms, including higher brokerage commissions, administrative fees, management fees, ATM fees, late fees, 12b-1 fees and more.
3) Customer Service Weakens: The profit pool has shrunk as lending has slowed and the real estate gravy train has come to a screeching halt. By cutting expenses in non-revenue generating areas, such as customer service, the financial institutions are having a difficult time servicing all their client questions and concerns. There is still fierce competition for lucrative accounts, but if you are lower on the totem pole, don’t expect extravagant service.
4) Increased Regulation: Consumer pain experienced in the financial crisis will likely lead to heightened regulation. For example, the Obama administration is proposing a consumer protection agency, but it may be years before tangible benefits will be felt by consumers. Financial institutions are doing their best to remove themselves from direct oversight by paying back government loans. In the area of financial planning, proposals have been brought to Congress to raise standards and requirements, given the limited licensing requirements. Time will tell, but changes are coming.
Investing in a Post-Merger Financial World: Take control of your financial future by getting answers from your advisor and financial institution. Get a complete list of fees. Find out if they are an independent RIA with a “fiduciary duty” to act in the client’s best interest. Research the background of the advisor through FINRA’s BrokerCheck site (www.finra.org) and the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure Web site (www.sec.gov). Get referrals and shop around for the service you deserve. Survival in a post-merger world is difficult, but with the right plan you can be successful.
For disclosure purposes, Sidoxia Capital Management, LLC is an independent Registered Investment Advisor in California.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Banking Pigs Back at the Trough
Sooey! With some of the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) government loans paid back, it appears that the malnourished pigs of the banking sector are hungry again and back at the trough for loftier pay packages. A recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out Goldman Sachs is on track to pay its employees $20 billion in 2009, almost double the compensation of 2008, and forking out even a higher average ($700,000 per employee) than 2007.
Beyond gluttonous appetites, these banking execs are attempting to make pigs fly as well. Like a magician using the art of illusion to move an object from one shell to the next, or divert attention with smoke and mirrors, these large Wall Street banks are shuffling around their compensation plans. A recent Bloomberg article noted that Citigroup Inc. is moving to raise base salaries by as much as 50% to help counterbalance reductions in annual bonuses. Citigroup is particularly in hot water because the U.S. bank received $45 billion in government fund assistance. According to the Wall Street Journal, similar trends are bubbling up at Zurich-based UBS, where executives raised banker base pay by 50%. Bank of America also said in March 2009 it may boost salaries as a percentage of total compensation. The banks are hoping that reducing bonuses tied to risky behavior, while raising salaries, will appease the regulators.
The governments “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg, may have something to say about these inflating compensation trends. The WSJ points out:
Feinberg will have the authority to regulate compensation for 175 executives at seven companies, including Citigroup, that received “exceptional” government help.
As a rule of thumb, securities firms generally pay out approximately 50% of revenue in employee compensation. Bonuses have traditionally made up about two-thirds of bankers’ total compensation. Compensation consultant Alan Johnson in New York says salaries typically range from $80,000 to $300,000, with bonuses often adding millions of dollars. The article goes onto highlight the five biggest Wall Street firms awarded their employees a record $39 billion of bonuses in 2007. Sparking some of this heated debate stems from the eye-popping bonuses paid out to Merrill employees before the Bank of America merger. Merrill Lynch emptied $14.8 billion out of its wallet for pay and benefits last year before it was acquired by Bank of America – the New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating $3.6 billion of the bonuses (tied mostly to payments made in December 2008).
To protect themselves, firms like Morgan Stanley and UBS have also added “clawback” provisions that allow portions of a worker’s bonus to be recouped under certain scenarios if the firms are harmed by an employee in the future. Perhaps this will create a disincentive for harmful behavior, but likely not enough to pacify the regulators
The pigs have regained their appetites and are eagerly awaiting for some more fixings at the trough. Time will tell if 2009 can produce squeals of swinish satisfaction or will regulators take the bankers to an unfortunate visit to the butchers?
Investing Caffeine 
