We are well-accustomed by now to the ways in which women are mistreated and discriminated against on Wall Street.
Over the past decade, nearly every major bank — from Goldman Sachs GS to Morgan Stanley MS, Citigroup C— has settled a sex discrimination suit. News reports have exposed in lurid detail just how badly women are underpaid; the degree to which they face hostility from their male peers; and how they are subjected to a demeaning environment and made to feel inferior.
The latest gender bias suit, filed by Megan Messina, a senior fixed-income banker, is against Bank of America. The suit accuses BofA of vastly underpaying her and other women. In addition, Messina said her boss made her feel unwelcome in his “’bro’s club’,” and subjected her to questions like, “Have your eyes always been that blue?” The suit also accuses the bank of misconduct, and describes alleged instances of front-running trades and withholding information from clients.
In recent years, parts of the financial sector have behaved badly — and holding the relevant executives accountable has not been a strong suit of the Obama administration. So financial reform is an important issue for the country, and whoever wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination will find that it resonates with many voters in the general election.
All of them also agree that the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act moved some issues in the right direction but there remains a substantial and important, unfinished agenda. The principal disagreement among the three camps comes down to this: what is the structural problem with our financial system, and how should we fix it?
Senator Sanders and Governor O’Malley correctly point out that in recent decades some banks became very large and the crisis did nothing to shrink their balance sheets. These banks are commonly and accurately regarded as “too big to fail,” meaning that they benefit from an implicit government guarantee. This is a dangerous and unfair subsidy.
MIT Sloan Visiting Associate Professor of Finance Lily Fang
From Wall Street Journal
Men and women have different experiences when it comes to Wall Street careers. And those differences fascinate Lily Fang.
Dr. Fang, an associate professor of finance on the Singapore campus of the business school Insead, has spent the past five years or so delving into how gender affects the career-development paths of stock-research analysts on Wall Street. What she and co-author Sterling Huang of Singapore Management University found was that the networking and personal connections that male analysts rely on so heavily to get ahead are much less useful for women in similar jobs.
Dr. Fang says the audience for this type of gender research has grown in recent years as it has become apparent that women—despite making great strides in many competitive industries—remain underrepresented in top echelons of the corporate world.
A native of Shanghai with a doctoral degree from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, Dr. Fang is spending a year as a visiting associate professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management in Cambridge, Mass.
Especially concerning business regulations, critics argue, an inside the Beltway mentality prevails. Only the lobbyists and industry insiders are heard.
I am sensitive to this criticism. Five and half years ago, the United States experienced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. In response to the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. One part of the legislation instructed a financial regulatory agency called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to write rules that regulate “swaps” — the same derivatives that had been implicated in the financial crisis. As the Chief Economist of the CFTC during 2010-2012, I helped with the rulemaking process.
After leaving the federal government in December 2012 to join MIT Sloan School of Management as a finance professor, I set out to study the work that I and other staff members had done on designing new Wall Street regulations.
My goal was to create a scientific tool to evaluate whether thousands of public comments that were delivered in response to the rules proposed by the CFTC were meaningfully taken into account. I wanted to study how responsive the government is to its constituents. Is the government really for the people?
In the wake of the economic crisis, many companies these days seem to be undervalued. The current earnings-to-price ratios are high and often market commentators argue that these ratios reflect good opportunities to invest. However, the emergence of undervalued stocks comes at a time of high market uncertainty so it’s more important than ever for investors to identify strong investment opportunities based on a company’s fundamentals. Read More »