Heard this on the radio driving home last night. Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Barclay's, UBS all cutting back on staff numbers. Australia will be spared the brunt of the layoffs due to tighter restriction on risky investment products here, but they're definately starting to sink their teeth into their own now. The news articles (attached) report how staff numbers and salaries swelled with the introduction of those risky financial products in the lead up to 2008 (and they thought they were paid so much because they just plain smart). Obviously they now can't carry around that fat any longer and are trimming down. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...04/Credit-Suisse-to-cut-further-500-jobs.html http://www.businessinsider.com/layoffs-hitting-credit-suisse-across-the-board-right-now-2011-6 http://m.theaustralian.com.au/BusinessBreakingNews/fi316035.htm http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...nue-plunges-18pc/story-e6frg90f-1226098264571 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/us-layoffs-wallstreet-idUSTRE75K6HE20110621 Even through the GFC they kept on these extra numbers... but not till now have they decided to cut back and bunker down. What do you think this signal says about times ahead?
This will have a flow-on effect on other industries that depend so much on Wall Street especially this
I remember back in the olden days when the Bank of New South Wales "merged" (RAPED) with the Commercial Bank of Australia. By the end of the 'merger', there were something like 40,000 people on the payroll. In the roughly 27 years since the RAPE occurred, the new banks is 10+ times the size and has about 20,000 slaves at the oars. I was bluntly told by my boss that I was to "staff my Department as though I was paying the wages bill out of my own pocket". OC
Seriously though, the 2010 financial reports say 45k, and I happen to know it's grown rather than shrunk over the past year.
fiatphoney, Banks have operated to the same basic principles for well over 400 years. They are nothing more than the borrowers and lenders of money, BOTH at interest. Yes, they charge fees but they were doing that on the 13th January 1955, when an innocent young lad called 'Old Codger' began his 36 year career. They have refined it a bit and far expanded the opportunities to charge for a service. NOTHING is 'free' anymore! Even fiatmoney does not work for nothing. ...and if ALL fees were banned, then the banks would simply adjust the margin on the interest rates. One keeps the other down. OC
Sorry that does not compute Financial sector is a ravenous beast and parasitic blight If only we had a choice not to pay into their coffers; in a world where their profits are privatised and losses are socialised If only we could pay them generous service fees for the basic banking function, if we so chose. Gold the currency of kings, silver of gentlemen, trade of peasants, and debt of slaves. Today, if you don't get into debt you will never be able to become a gentleman, by stealing the purchasing power from the old codgers whose life savings turn to dust, at interest ofcourse. We live in a cleptocracy
i used to work in financial services for 11 years and got out in october 2010 to re-train in another industry. main reason was that back office operations of the main global players are/were/going to relocate to asia. simple maths really, why pay people in sydney high pay packets when same work can be done in india or the like for peanuts..
FED: NY Fed has released its annual report, where a note from Pres ... 23. July 2011 0:15:24 FED: NY Fed has released its annual report, where a note from Pres Dudley says, "We foresee occasions when promoting financial stability will require actions that are opposed by parts of the financial services industry. In such circumstances, we should listen carefully to industry perspectives, but we should make our decisions based exclusively on our assessment of the public interest." See http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/annualreports.html Is that means not too big to fall?
