☰ Menu eFinancialCareers

How parental wealth is proving a game-changer at pivotal points of banking careers

Parental pad

Parental pad

Generally, it helps in life to have rich parents. Yes, there are plenty examples of prominent bankers who don’t (Lloyd Blankfein, Ian Hannam). And yes, Goldman is known for its propensity to hire hungry people from ordinary backgrounds, but for every British banker from a council estate there are probably at least two who are solidly middle class.


In this climate, recruiters say having parents with money has become an important asset for financial services professionals who are trying to manage their careers.


As the pool of redundant bankers grows, people without parental money to back them up are being forced to accept whatever they’re given.  People with parental money are able to be a lot more choosy.


“There’s a real dichotomy,” says one recruiter. “A lot of very good people are out of the market, but some of them are being very picky. They don’t want to just jump in and accept anything that will devalue their brand and detract from the fact that they’ve worked somewhere like Morgan Stanley.


“In many cases their parents are bankrolling them and they can afford to wait,” he adds.


On the other hand, he says redundant bankers with less wealthy parents are accepting positions with second or third tier houses simply so that they can get paid. This could impact their careers long-term.


Parentally-sustained redundant bankers can keep their CVs unsullied with lesser names and keep pitching themselves to the first tier. Non-parentally sustained bankers can’t

Comments (2)

  1. Sigh. ‘Twas ever thus. Still, you can have an unsullied CV, but there comes a point when the gap between jobs is hard to justify and you’ve been out of the loop to the point where big players won’t touch you. So mummy and daddy will have to keep funding their sprogs for an unlimited period. And all the wealthy people I know are actually rather tight with their moolah…especially with family.

  2. Interesting, but where is the proof? “One recruiter says”. I doubt people share that information with this recruiter?! So, why will anyone even think like this? But for the sake of argument, isn’t it likely that people of wealthy parents can rely on good connections, so that they are faster to find jobs on better terms or perhaps are less likely to be let go in the first place, or if they don’t have the connections, can even accept worse terms or voluntary work, because they have financial flexibility? By contrast, the people who are not well supported financially, may feel less flexibility to accept jobs that will damage their earnings prospects because they cannot get out of an unfair dealing. And what is this fascination with known banks versus less known ones? Aren’t bigger banks more likely to be flexible about the candidate’s pedigree than small boutiques who are extremely demanding unless the candidate gets “recommended”.

The comment is under moderation. It will appear shortly.


Screen Name


Consult our community guidelines here