Not that long ago, politicians and economic leaders trumpeted the idea that they had prevented the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.  In the same breath, they generally gave the impression that they had taken steps to prevent another financial collapse similar to the 2008 financial crisis.  Those steps apparently encompassed punishing banks with new regulations on their profitable risk-hedging and trading strategies, including passage and/or implementation of Dodd-Frank and Basel III.

With politics as the background, here is what the world’s biggest financial numbers look like today with a discussion of how they looked in the past.  It’s not pretty.

The Numbers

The following is a bubble plot of what is most likely the largest financial figures the world has ever seen.  A table of the figures is given a little later.

The Financial World's Biggest Values

Currency in Circulation

The smallest of the bubbles is the amount of U.S. currency in circulation, at about $1.3 trillion, followed by euro currency in circulation at around $1.5 trillion.  Globally, there is around $5 trillion of all currency in circulation. Amazingly, in 1990 there was a mere $1 trillion; in 2002, $2 trillion; now, just twelve years later, $5 trillion.

EU and U.S. Debt

Next on the list is government debt in the EU and the U.S.  Total European government debt stands at around $15.7 trillion, while total U.S. federal government debt stands at around $17.6 trillion.  If you add in state and local government debt, the total U.S. government debt balloons another $5 billion or so.

The expansion of western governments’ debt has expanded astronomically in recent years, with, for instance, the size of U.S. federal government debt up an amazing $10 trillion over just the past ten years.

The Financial World's Biggest Values, Table

Offshore Accounts vs Derivatives Contracts vs Debt

At about twice as big as EU and U.S. federal government debt is the size of the offshore accounts of individuals smart enough to stash cash offshore – an astounding $32 trillion in 2013. This figure is surely low, with the 2014 estimate at around at least $35 trillion. Total offshore account values may surpass $40 trillion by the end of 2015.

Yet ahead of cash stored offshore by smart (some might say “wealthy”) individuals is that of an investment bank. The estimated value of Goldman Sachs’ derivatives contracts is about $49 trillion.
Besting the notional value of Goldman Sachs’ derivatives by about $11 trillion is the sum of all corporate, government, and consumer debt in the U.S., at about $60 trillion. On top of all U.S. debt is the notional value of all JPMorgan Chase’s derivatives contracts, estimated at about $70 trillion.

Worldwide GDP and Global Debt

Slightly ahead of JPMorgan Chase’s massive derivatives business is worldwide GDP, estimated to end 2014 at $75 trillion. It would not be surprising if JPMorgan Chase’s derivatives business surpasses total measured global GDP in 2015, if not sooner (in fact, it would be surprising if it didn’t).

At about $100 trillion is total government debt across the globe, up an astounding $30 trillion since the 2008 financial crisis. Dwarfing government debt is the sum of all consumer, business, and government debt at $225 trillion. The massive accumulation of debt began in the 80s, and is still growing at an exponential rate.

Derivatives – U.S. Top 25 and Global

Just ahead of all worldwide debt is the top 25 US banks’ exposure to derivatives at about $238 trillion. The master of them all is the notional value of all derivatives contracts in the world, ranging from a low of $700 trillion to as high as $1,500,000,000,000,000. Yes, that’s $1.5 quadrillion.

What Exactly Did Politicians and Government Bureaucrats “Fix”?

So, what exactly is it political and economic leaders are talking about when they say their policy moves “fixed” the world from a financial crisis? The simple answer is – who knows? Some elected officials probably think making it harder on banks to trade in commodities or limiting trading by banks with their own money somehow is making the financial system better.

Judging by the financial numbers, what it looks like happened is policymakers simply kicked the can down the road, at least when it comes to reducing the future costs of government debt.
Eventually, the rooster will come home to roost. When that day comes – i.e. the day when individuals lose trust in the highly leveraged financial system, it will not be pretty. Maybe the “just keep spending” economists will be right that the financial day of reckoning will never come. It’s an unlikely maybe, but hey, everyone can hope.


Bookmark and Share


Central bankers have the option of increasing rates quickly.  They also have the option of taking a plodding approach. Although central bankers could, in theory, increase interest rates just as easily by 200 basis points as they could 25 basis points, investment bankers appear convinced that the latter will be the case for the foreseeable future.

Are investment bankers right?  Could investment bankers be underpricing the risk of central bankers increasing interest rates quickly, beyond just simple baby steps of 25 basis points at a time? Here’s why most investment bankers think the Federal Reserve (and other central bankers) will be slow to increase the target interest rates they control. The graphic below depicts the tightening cycles of the Federal Reserve over the previous 40 years.

(As a note of explanation, the vertical axis is the percentage change in the effective federal funds rate from the beginning of the respective tightening cycle.  Each line on the graph represents a tightening cycle, with the label for each line representing the year in which the tightening cycle started.  The horizontal axis represents the number of days a given tightening cycle has lasted.)

fed tightening cycles

For illustration purposes, take 2004 as an example.  Mr. Greenspan’s Federal Reserve started raising rates in May 2004.  The rate increased from 1 percent to about 5.25 percent over the course of the tightening cycle.  The cycle lasted almost 1,200 days – about three and a quarter years.  As evidenced by the housing market bust, the Fed, under the leadership of Mr. Greenspan, was quite slow at increasing the interest rates, taking almost 800 days to increase the rate from 1 percent to 5 percent and doing nothing for the next 400 days.  The story of an increasingly cautious Fed is readily apparent.  Essentially, with every new cycle over the past 20 years, the Fed has become less “tight”, with a gradual shift downward in the strength of the given cycle.

Does It Matter That the Federal Reserve Has Become More Timid?

In addition to risk taking that otherwise would not have taken place, a more timid Fed has created, in the minds of investors, the expectation that the U.S. central bank will be slow to increase rates. Are investment bankers underpricing the risk that Ms. Yellen’s Fed will be bold and ahead of the curve?  The simple answer is probably not. Even Federal Reserve members’ own expectations are incredibly cautious, with, at the high end, some members putting the federal funds target rate at 2 percent in two years from now.  That’s 2 years and only 2 percent!

A cautious Fed, of course, has not always been the case.  For instance, a bold Mr. Volker quickly increased rates during the hyperinflation years of the early 80s.  But there are no Mr. Volkers at the Fed right now.

Overall, investment bankers, and even the Fed members themselves, have forgotten that the federal funds rate could go from 0.25 percent to 2 percent overnight, rather than take two years to get there.  Although investment bankers may not have underpriced the chance of the federal funds target rate increasing quickly (since it’s basically zero), perhaps the Fed hasn’t forgotten it’s ability to be courageous in the face of unwarranted risk taking.

Bookmark and Share


If you had to guess which financial sector has seen the best recovery in employment, which would you guess? Would it be the popular, but beat-down hedge fund industry? Perhaps it would be the private equity industry given the strength in mergers and acquisitions recently and the availability of cash? On the other hand, maybe the industry bringing on the most individuals would be the investment banking industry following the massive collapse of Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns.

Investment Banking Employment

First, let’s explore what employment in the investment banking industry has done over the past ten years. Employment in the industry boomed in 2006 and 2007, expanding by almost 30,000 people to its peak of a little over 100,000 in July 2007.  The expansion represented growth rates of upwards of 15 percent during the peak expansionary period. As a note of comparison, during the housing market boom and peak in 2006 and 2007, economy-wide employment growth only grew a little over 2 percent.

Since the peak, employment in the industry has collapsed, shedding almost 10 percent of its workforce from peak (July 2007) to through (January 2011). Perhaps unsurprisingly to industry insiders, investment banking industry employment has yet to fully recover from the housing market recession, still about 5,000 jobs short of the peak. At the current growth rates, employment in the investment banking industry may surpass the 100K mark in about three years, putting a decade between the initial July 2007 peak and a new peak-employment.

investment banking


Private Equity Employment

Moving now to the private equity industry.  In contrast to the wild ride the investment banking industry went through, private equity was more calm and collected.  Employment in the industry peaked in August 2008 at about 36,000, more than a year after the investment banking industry’s peak.  Following the peak, employment in private equity declined by about 2,500 settling around 33,500 in September 2009. Following the September 2009 trough, private equity firms began adding jobs again at 1 to 2 percent.  The sum of all employees working for private equity firms now stands above 36,000 – a few hundred above where it peaked in August 2008.

private equity

Hedge Fund Employment

If you were asked which industry has a more volatile employment base, would you say investment banking or the hedge fund industry?   The answer, not surprisingly, is the hedge fund industry.  Employment in the hedge fund industry peaked in October 2008 at about 21,200, representing an annual growth rate of about 10 percent at the time.  Akin to the investment banking industry, albeit at a larger rate, hedge fund employment dropped quickly since peaking, declining almost 20 percent from October 2008 to October 2009 (about 4,000 jobs).

Since entering the recovery, the hedge fund industry’s employment count has fluctuated significantly, contrary to most other sectors or industries, including most outside of the financial industry.  Overall, employment count for the hedge fund industry has fluctuated from +7 percent Y/Y to down 4 percent Y/Y.  The most recent Y/Y growth figure for the industry is, interestingly, flat.

hedge funds

Comparing the Three Areas

Getting back to the question at hand, how has the employment in the investment banking industry fared compared to the private equity and hedge fund industry?  The follow graphic has the comparison since 2008.

Overall, private equity firms have performed the best, having added 3 percent to their payrolls since 2008.  In second place is the hedge fund industry, overall flat since 2008.  In last place is the investment banking industry, still down 4 percent since 2008.


Overall, of the three major financial sectors, employment in the investment banking sector has experienced seen the least positive recovery.  Hopefully for those interested in the investment banking sector this trend will change and more jobs will be available going forward.

Bookmark and Share


When Having No Mentor Is Better Than Having a Bad One

June 9, 2014

Let’s get one thing straight about mentors: They’re nice-to-haves, not have-to-haves. Someone in a senior position paving the way for you is a rare advantage, but counting on some patron to drag you up is just pathetic. Robert I. Sutton’s recent blog post on the Harvard Business Review site suggests five reasons why even a […]

Read the full article →

Do Your SAT Scores Still Matter? Weirdly, Yes!

May 26, 2014

Right off, we concede this sounds bizarre. If you’re a typical reader of this space, you’re an MBA, or maybe a BBA, or at least a candidate, seeking an investment banking job. You’ve long since gotten into a good university and are very likely graduated already. You crammed for your SATs because you had your […]

Read the full article →

Seven Deadly Career Sins

May 12, 2014

If you’ve been raised as the progeny of Western Civilization, then you’re probably aware of the Seven Deadly Sins. If you went to Catholic school, then you can rattle them right off: Lust Gluttony Greed Sloth Wrath Envy Pride Even if you’re not from around here, you still are very likely to have a similar […]

Read the full article →

Is There a “Best” Banking Career Path?

April 28, 2014

You’ve heard the expression, “a great place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.” In the course of your career — any career — there’s always that one enterprise where people get their start, build their reputation, then can’t wait to move on because they’re worked like an Alaskan anvil salesman’s sled dogs. […]

Read the full article →
Real Time Web Analytics