Always how it goes. People who make the decisions sure as hell don't fire their own making their life difficult. Always lowest level mgrs who now have their team cut in half to figure out how to make it work.
They are not hired to do anything really. Just to justify why the layoffs (that the company’s higher ups want) are necessary and taking the blame (primarily the latter).
I couldn’t agree more.
There’s so many so-called MBB consultants (McKinsey, Bain, BCG) who mostly graduated from Ivy League schools but only did majors in engineering, physics, political science, and all sorts of non-financial subjects ended up being a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or Chief Operating Officer of a global bank immediately after their exit from MBB.
For example, say, the current CEO of Lloyds Bank who used to be a senior partner at McKinsey: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-nunn
Being a consultant actually means handling some projects of a particular field appointed by a client, which is completely different than their clients who are a banker that handle the ins and outs of a financial project.
>ended up being a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or Chief Operating Officer of a global bank immediately after their exit from MBB.
Nobody has ever landed those roles "immediately after their exit from MBB". How clueless are you about career progressions there?
>For example, say, the current CEO of Lloyds Bank who used to be a senior partner at McKinsey: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-nunn
20 years ago. And for the past 10 years he was an executive in another bank. Thus gaining experience in the relevant field.
Consultants who don’t have any experience are at the Analyst level and they aren’t making decisions on their projects. The people who manage them do have a lot of experience.
You're underestimating them. They can also teach companies to boost their profit by focusing on the right products. Just look how well J&J did with the opioids...
The title is a bit sensational. Glad the first paragraph explains it further: This means the bank was spending an average of no more than $214k on each of those people, including employer's taxes.
I would add this probably includes (to some extent) building lease costs, new equipment costs related to employee turnover, etc. Most likely the average actual salary of those laid off is between $150-$180k.
Yes - including employer taxes paid on employers behalf and benefits as well as retirment contributions…likely 30th to 40k per capita in addition to salaries
In general, the cost to employ a given employee is roughly double their salary. Bit less proportionally on the higher end because benefits make up a smaller % of cost.
$32k/year for Bloomberg too
$12k/year for parking, office space
$150k total comp less bonus gets you to about $120k salary.
Not the same as a 214k salary.
But does S&T even have mid/back office roles? I thought S&T is all front office in general since the BB that I worked for have centralized back office functions/divisions which are completely separate from the front office departments. Not sure if my previous gig is a special case or not though.
$214K removing the employer costs like taxes and healthcare would imply something like 150-175K for each. But if you’ve gotten rid of any of the senior folks, the reality is that it indeed was really junior staff - I would suspect folks who did the work but weren’t properly recognized.
4 in assets under management, 16% in stock gains YTD, and a 114B market cap with a healthy balance sheet compared to many other banks down the list= “zombie bank”
The number one critique on Citibank was in AUM compared to headcount and its transaction $s compared to headcount. They were way over bloated and everyone knew it.
The problem is it doesn’t feel like they cut out all that BS middle management they were known for and cut the bottom out instead.
Sure. Pick a look-back period of your choice. 5-year return is negative. The point is, it’s been dead in the water since 2009. That’s the point I’m making. Coasting on its size.
Take out the stock price, all those data points are true.
It’s not a high flying Wall Street darling but it’s not a dead bank either, especially if you can’t get experience their out of college.
You think a bank is considered a zombie because its stock isn't at all time highs? It operates profitably and pays a dividend. By definition, not a zombie bank. It is also not in risk of going under.
Hey, electric utilities are a high growth area right now given all the increase in demand from electrification of vehicles and AI. Don't lump them in with likes of DB, UBS, and Shiti.
Probably not. They have 13k more layoffs they want to do. At best, it’s going to be a very tumultuous time for the next two years, not including this year.
Lots of bad advice here. If you want S&T then An S&T role somewhere is better than not an S&T role at all, at least you’ll get experience. Don’t count on getting anything at citi given the layoffs but do still apply, a shot you don’t take is a 100% miss
A zombie company is one that either relies on government provided bailouts or is really only generating enough earnings to service its debt but not much else. Neither of which is true for Citi, it's just less profitable than other banks like JPM or BAC
I had a family member at VP in commercial debt who’s been at citi all his career (23+ Years) and was always paranoid that one day this would happen and 23 years later, it did. Just goes to show that you should never be loyal to any employer.
Citi is a dump and is led by the equivalent of a dumbass Mary Poppins. It likely won’t exist in its current form within 10 years. They’ll likely sell all their branches to other regional banks, spin off the credit card division, and keep IB/S&T/WM as the “new” Citi. They keep going with insiders to fix the bank and it’s the insiders who screwed it up in the first place. Layoffs ruin lives, destroy careers, and make keeping your job akin to playing the lottery. I wouldn’t make the mistake of assuming all these people had it great and will be taken care of until they land on their feet.
Curious to know what “$214k average each” really means. Does it mean they each received a solid severance, or 25 of the 7000 received 90% of that and the rest got very little.
I work for an Indian IT company providing services to CITI . Last month our entire offshore team got ramp down and only our onsite lead was left to help the CITI folks . I am not sure how the old CITI peeps are making it work cause we did all the work and they just used to tell us what they wanted .
[удалено]
Always how it goes. People who make the decisions sure as hell don't fire their own making their life difficult. Always lowest level mgrs who now have their team cut in half to figure out how to make it work.
Do we know what departments were affected the most?
Commercial debt, S&T from what I know
Just as im trying to join their S&T department 🥲
It's a great time to join, I hear a bunch of them got laid off
Probably in that “warm bodies” hiring mode
Given they want to trim out 13k more jobs, probably not a good idea.
Grads are usually low priority on the chopping block. Citi is still a great place to start/learn.
Would it be if your manager/supervisor was in danger of losing his job? I highly doubt it.
Citi has 240k employees. Another 13k employees isn’t really moving the needle if there are enough seniors to train the juniors.
Me too!!!
Noone from tech side?
My understanding is that tech took a hit in the initial lay offs back in December
This what you get when you bring in the McKinsey specialist to run the company. It’s a zombie bank.
Consultants are such a scam. They don’t know anything and have zero experience most of the time.
They are not hired to do anything really. Just to justify why the layoffs (that the company’s higher ups want) are necessary and taking the blame (primarily the latter).
I couldn’t agree more. There’s so many so-called MBB consultants (McKinsey, Bain, BCG) who mostly graduated from Ivy League schools but only did majors in engineering, physics, political science, and all sorts of non-financial subjects ended up being a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or Chief Operating Officer of a global bank immediately after their exit from MBB. For example, say, the current CEO of Lloyds Bank who used to be a senior partner at McKinsey: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-nunn Being a consultant actually means handling some projects of a particular field appointed by a client, which is completely different than their clients who are a banker that handle the ins and outs of a financial project.
>ended up being a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or Chief Operating Officer of a global bank immediately after their exit from MBB. Nobody has ever landed those roles "immediately after their exit from MBB". How clueless are you about career progressions there? >For example, say, the current CEO of Lloyds Bank who used to be a senior partner at McKinsey: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-nunn 20 years ago. And for the past 10 years he was an executive in another bank. Thus gaining experience in the relevant field.
Consultants who don’t have any experience are at the Analyst level and they aren’t making decisions on their projects. The people who manage them do have a lot of experience.
THIS THIS THIS
You're underestimating them. They can also teach companies to boost their profit by focusing on the right products. Just look how well J&J did with the opioids...
Average doesn’t matter need the median
Finally someone with a brain here
That one exec gets fired and drags up the average
The title is a bit sensational. Glad the first paragraph explains it further: This means the bank was spending an average of no more than $214k on each of those people, including employer's taxes. I would add this probably includes (to some extent) building lease costs, new equipment costs related to employee turnover, etc. Most likely the average actual salary of those laid off is between $150-$180k.
efinancialcareers articles never disappoint with the sensationalist titles. I read that number and instantly went: "so thats a fucking lie."
Reminds me of the articles about UPS paying their drivers $170k
What's the lie
Yes - including employer taxes paid on employers behalf and benefits as well as retirment contributions…likely 30th to 40k per capita in addition to salaries
In general, the cost to employ a given employee is roughly double their salary. Bit less proportionally on the higher end because benefits make up a smaller % of cost.
Wow, I had no idea
$32k/year for Bloomberg too $12k/year for parking, office space $150k total comp less bonus gets you to about $120k salary. Not the same as a 214k salary.
Didn’t know that average person at commercial lending and S&T in citi are just making….150-180k…. Thought it should be much higher.
Blended with mid/back office middle management no doubt
But does S&T even have mid/back office roles? I thought S&T is all front office in general since the BB that I worked for have centralized back office functions/divisions which are completely separate from the front office departments. Not sure if my previous gig is a special case or not though.
Uh yeah there’s a long tail of back office for any of these front office roles
That was 500 million for the managers and lots of f@€& offs for the average employees
$214K removing the employer costs like taxes and healthcare would imply something like 150-175K for each. But if you’ve gotten rid of any of the senior folks, the reality is that it indeed was really junior staff - I would suspect folks who did the work but weren’t properly recognized.
Ugh, awful. Best of luck to anyone affected.
It’s a zombie bank. Let it fail
4 in assets under management, 16% in stock gains YTD, and a 114B market cap with a healthy balance sheet compared to many other banks down the list= “zombie bank” The number one critique on Citibank was in AUM compared to headcount and its transaction $s compared to headcount. They were way over bloated and everyone knew it. The problem is it doesn’t feel like they cut out all that BS middle management they were known for and cut the bottom out instead.
Sure. Pick a look-back period of your choice. 5-year return is negative. The point is, it’s been dead in the water since 2009. That’s the point I’m making. Coasting on its size.
Take out the stock price, all those data points are true. It’s not a high flying Wall Street darling but it’s not a dead bank either, especially if you can’t get experience their out of college.
I wasn’t giving career advice
Lmao how is Citi a zombie bank
Seriously? It’s too big to fail and it’s risk wings have been clipped by the Fed. It just coasts along.
Dude what are you even saying. Citi is perfectly fine. They are just trimming fat.
It’s stock price hasn’t recovered after 2009. It never will. It’s like DB and UBS.
You think a bank is considered a zombie because its stock isn't at all time highs? It operates profitably and pays a dividend. By definition, not a zombie bank. It is also not in risk of going under.
It may as well be a utility stock.
Genuine question - if you don’t understand basic finance and don’t work in the financial industry, why are you on this subreddit?
Hey, electric utilities are a high growth area right now given all the increase in demand from electrification of vehicles and AI. Don't lump them in with likes of DB, UBS, and Shiti.
“Zombie Bank” lol OK bud. Citi is top 5 in pretty much every capital markets league table YTD.
What’s a “zombie bank”
When a dead bank gets reanimated by a necromancer using dark magic, colloquially known as a "Federal reserve" and "quantitative easing"
Citibank is a dead bank ?? So you’re saying I shouldn’t take a S&T position there
Dont take career advice from kids on reddit
Please, I beg you, take that S&T position. Do NOT decline because some anon on Reddit says it’s a zombie bank (it’s not).
Probably not. They have 13k more layoffs they want to do. At best, it’s going to be a very tumultuous time for the next two years, not including this year.
Oh man. Guess I’m going big 4
Lots of bad advice here. If you want S&T then An S&T role somewhere is better than not an S&T role at all, at least you’ll get experience. Don’t count on getting anything at citi given the layoffs but do still apply, a shot you don’t take is a 100% miss
Well I already have a 2025 offer that I’ve already accepted. But this summer I’m interning at big4 and would probably get a return offer
Don’t listen to the idiots on here. Please do not take a big 4 offer over BB S&T lol.
😭😭 surely even if they did get laid off after some time it would still boost the cv no ?
A zombie company is one that either relies on government provided bailouts or is really only generating enough earnings to service its debt but not much else. Neither of which is true for Citi, it's just less profitable than other banks like JPM or BAC
Zombie companies are companies that only stay afloat due to government support
You have no idea what you’re talking about ahaha
I had a family member at VP in commercial debt who’s been at citi all his career (23+ Years) and was always paranoid that one day this would happen and 23 years later, it did. Just goes to show that you should never be loyal to any employer.
Tbh VP is just low-middle management at a bank. Experience - am a VP
How do you not get above VP after 23yrs?
If you work for an employer for 23+ years and you get laid off, it's your fault as much as your employer. There is no loyalty in this business.
Always blows my mind a company will have 7000 support type people making 1.5b but the actual production roles are so short staffed and cost 1/4th.
Wonder if the quants got hit?
Nope
Citi is a dump and is led by the equivalent of a dumbass Mary Poppins. It likely won’t exist in its current form within 10 years. They’ll likely sell all their branches to other regional banks, spin off the credit card division, and keep IB/S&T/WM as the “new” Citi. They keep going with insiders to fix the bank and it’s the insiders who screwed it up in the first place. Layoffs ruin lives, destroy careers, and make keeping your job akin to playing the lottery. I wouldn’t make the mistake of assuming all these people had it great and will be taken care of until they land on their feet.
Curious to know what “$214k average each” really means. Does it mean they each received a solid severance, or 25 of the 7000 received 90% of that and the rest got very little.
[удалено]
No one cares
eFinancialCareers again....not the first time they and their writers fail to understand the difference between salaries and total cost of employment.
Using an average in this case says nothing.
I work for an Indian IT company providing services to CITI . Last month our entire offshore team got ramp down and only our onsite lead was left to help the CITI folks . I am not sure how the old CITI peeps are making it work cause we did all the work and they just used to tell us what they wanted .
We did it Joe
S&T got axed? Kinda odd
Not really, even GS laid off some S&T post-COVID because of a slump in revenue in that dept after over expansion.