Food for Thought

The asset management industry of today is complex and moving from a growth industry to one that is flat. This shift is due to a variety of challenges facing the industry as a whole. These headwinds include the move to passive investing, compression on fees, rising regulatory costs, the war for talent, macroeconomic factors, and the impact of technology, amongst others. Several of my industry contacts have likened these systemic changes to what has happened to the sell-side since the Global Financial Crisis.   In this market, firms need to reconsider their approach to senior leadership positions. Historically, firms have tended to follow

Back in the day, Bear Stearns required its Senior Managing Directors to donate at least 4% of their annual earnings to charities of their choosing. For a firm known for its rough-and-tumble culture, it seemed somewhat ironic, but I always found this to be a truly admirable policy and one which numerous not-for-profit organizations in New York and around the globe benefited from handsomely. As someone that recruited senior professionals to Bear Stearns for several years, I enjoyed revealing this directive to prospective senior-level candidates, many of whom viewed this requirement as a value they could unequivocally support. Unfortunately, when Bear fell

Upgrading talent, a process that can be rife with challenges when an incumbent is in place, can yield outsized rewards for asset managers that are strategic about positioning themselves for the changing landscape over the next decade and beyond. Concerns about a market correction and the persistent headwinds facing the industry are compelling firms to consider all options, particularly for highly compensated roles. Those firms that can afford to be opportunistic will likely be beneficiaries as the market continues to bifurcate into winners and those struggling to survive.   In 2019, we assisted several clients in accessing the market for alternatives

Companies have often paid lip service to the importance of culture in hiring decisions -- but change is afoot as culture is elevated to a bona fide top criteria at many firms, particularly for leadership roles. Evolving industry dynamics have forced asset managers to be more strategic and thoughtful about who they’re hiring beyond the resume. The price of getting it wrong has always been high (e.g., dysfunctional teams, reduced productivity, turnover), but as millennials have made their way into more companies, and their voices have gained strength and volume, the importance of culture has heightened. Increasingly, companies are

A recent Harvard Business School article[1] suggests significant contrasts between the management styles of U.S. corporations situated on either the East or West Coasts. This discussion has prompted the following question:   Are there differences in the ways East and West Coast financial services firms are run?   Since financial services in general is a well-established industry without a large start-up culture, we at Jamesbeck have observed that prevailing management styles are substantially similar on both the East and West Coasts. Whether or not a firm and its leadership are entrepreneurial, forward-looking, or visionary is a function of the organization, and unrelated to the coast on which