I haven’t seen too many investment bankers who identify as trans? Anyone know which banks care most about those who identify as trans and want to do investment banking. Heard citi places well and promotes diversity. Asking for a friend thanks.
| +137 | How are women treated in IB? | 70 | 3h | |
| +114 | Analysts bitching on WSO | 26 | 19h | |
| +75 | College Transitions updated 2024 IB ranking | 27 | 3h | |
| +65 | How to Not Feel Anxious About SA Internship | 24 | 1d | |
| +65 | A Guide to HK Investment Banking - 10 Most Frequently Asked Questions (2024) | 9 | 13m | |
| +53 | In denial about SA 2025 Offer | 12 | 2d | |
| +43 | 5 days/wk | 19 | 4d | |
| +38 | 2024 Analyst Bonus Thread | 20 | 1h | |
| +26 | CVP diversity quotas increased? | 5 | 5d | |
| +26 | UBS = U Be Shite in Americas? | 4 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Seek treatment
Show some fucking respect to trans people. Life is short, people should be able to express their identities how they want and be accepted for who they are. To quote JC, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
As long as you respect transvaxxers too. I respect trans people, but you should also respect people who identify as vaccinated. You also need to respect people who are transracial and identify as another race.
I think a few if not many of the major publicly-traded banks may have specific programs for LGBTQ+ Identifying people. I would think if you are able to contact those programs they may have the best info for you for your question. Good luck
Get your "diversity" shit out of here. People should be hired because they're the most competent to do the job. Not because they're trans or some LBTQ faction or a girl. No one deserves to be punished or advantaged for immutable characteristics. People like you only care about diversity in terms of these things that people can't change. It's never about diversity of thought. Everyone in a group could look completely different even if they think exactly the same and you would be perfectly fine with that. Don't care if someone is blue, white, black, brown, orange, identifies as a squid, male, female, or he-she that changes gender when the moon come outs. If you're one of the best candidates for the job, you should get it. I'm sick and tired of this "diversity" nonsense.
Your limited life experience and myopic understanding of interpersonal dynamics should lend itself to you shutting the fuck up and learning, rather than ejaculating your half-baked opinions out into the internet.
Have you ever thought about why diversity matters to other people, beyond how it affects you and your inability to get a job in banking? You have likely never encountered a situation in which you were in the minority for an extended period of time. People want to go where they feel like they belong - OP wasn't asking which banks they can get in to because they're trans. OP was asking what banks have people who are trans, because they want to ask them questions about their experience.
If you belong to a historically marginalized group, it's incredibly beneficial to have someone you can reach out to and leverage as a resource. I'd say that wanting a contact to ask questions like "how are you perceived by your co-workers?" and "do you face any overt or subtle discrimination?" is highly valid, given your response and the other responses in this thread.
Good luck breaking in, kid. Breaking into banking is difficult - it's even harder when you're as stupid as you are.
You made some fair points here and maybe I did misinterpret OP's post to some degree but no need to name call. I'm a POC and am actually a minority but just not one that gets preferential treatment in recruiting. Not that I want that anyway. I've for the most part been the only minority of my type in the room for pretty much my entire life, so way to assume. It's never bothered me. It's perfectly fine to want to be amongst people who are similar to you. I'm sure we all like that in some sense. But for example, just because someone is black and all the people in their job are white, that shouldn't deter them from working there, especially if they're a good candidate. Gotta look beyond the superficial level and if the people you're working with are nice and genuine, then they're good. It doesn't matter if they're enough trans or black people in the work place. There could be toxic trans people and minorities and just because someone is also apart of that group, that's not really what they should be looking for. I've met toxic people in my race and a lot of white people were nicer than them. Just because someone shares an immutable characteristic with you, doesn't mean they're a good person.
I stopped reading after the first sentence when you decided to take a giant dump of meaningless woke buzzwords
Bro you are black/latino - what would you know? I mean yeah I get it, you feel like an inferior because you got your offer cause of your skin color (not because you are in any shape or form talented) but no need to go out and name call people who actually earn their offers. It's disrespectful. In fact, you should be thanking this young man for becoming disadvantaged so that you can have an advantage.
You should check your privilege and be happy that you got your offer, its a great achievement!
"Privilege is invisible to those who have it"
To be fair, I'm going to take the middle-ground and say that diversity should be valued, but socioeconomic diversity because that truly encourages diversity of thought, not necessarily racial or gender diversity. Hot take, but IMO being poor changes your life experiences more than being black. And I think that banking should have programs to elevate kids who come from low-income backgrounds, rather than racial diversity. Yes, on paper, maybe pursuing racial diversity seems good, because black and brown people are poorer on average, and that's a fact, But banking and similar FO jobs in finance have so few jobs, like literally a couple thousand nationwide at firms that promote diversity, that almost all of the diversity spots are taken up by the portion of black and brown people who come from privileged backgrounds, because baking is so selective.
Something I hate that the media does is it conflates black people (or races) with poor people. We've all seen the "Covid disproportionately harms black people in the workplace" headlines. That's just so misleading. Covid isn't racist. It isn't making black people lose their jobs more. It's making poor people lose their jobs. A racial solution would never solve the problem or even be fair. I don't see why it should be fair for diversity recruiting.
And as for why I believe socioeconomic diversity is important, I legitimately think that people who come from low income backgrounds and/or different parts of the country possess diversity of thought. I would love to have that low-income white midwestern farm boy who's dad was a drug addict, was one of the 5 or kids to get into his ivy in his entire state on my team, because I believe that he has a diverse perspective. Just as I want the black kid who grew up in South Chicago on my team, who never had a dad, and overcame gang violence and drugs in HS, because he also has a diverse perspective. What I don't want is the black/brown kid who grew up in new jersey, went Exeter - Princeton, and has a dad who makes more than I do applying through a program meant to empower diversity. If he wants to apply, of course that's totally fine, just apply in the normal way.
I agree with this totally. If there are to be any diversity programs, I would support it being done on socioeconomic basis. A poor white or Asian kid is much more disadvantaged than a rich black kid. Yeah I have basically the exact same thought whenever the media says "COVID disproportionately hurts black people." Like are they trying to say it's racist or some shit? But yeah don't think this is a very controversial take. I would be fine with companies engaging in diversity programs if it was solely based on socioeconomic status, but today's programs are an absolute joke.
I by and large agree with your comment. I am heavily involved with diversity recruiting at my bank and I actively sought out diverse candidates from low-income backgrounds. Two candidates that I bent over backwards to help out received and accepted offers - they had incredibly compelling stories and will grind. Hard.
That said, I would take issue with:
COVID isn't racist, but a fair amount of institutions in the US were/are racist, or at the very least, staffed by people who were/are racist (racism comes in a lot of different forms). Race and class are heavily correlated in the states - while there may be a gross number more of white people in the US who are poor, historically-oppressed minorities live in poverty at a higher rate than white people. COVID disproportionally harmed black people in the workplace, because the workplace is more than just an office in Midtown. A lot of minorities didn't have the ability to WFH during the most dangerous parts of last year. This type of argument is a bit more difficult and nuanced than can fit into a chyron, but something should be said about it. It takes a bit more interrogation and explanation, which I imagine most people are not prepared to do when sitting down for their nightly news.
To answer your original question op: Goldman has really good trans healthcare and active lgbt group from what I’ve heard as well as literally asking if you’re trans on the application. Some apps I’ve seen (PWP, insight partners, Bain cap) have asked pronouns and/or had an option for non binary under gender so that’s somewhat reassuring. Pretty much all BB and EB have lgbt employee groups, but a large number of them are mostly populated by cis white gay men so interpret as you will.
Not sure what year you are but if you’re not graduating I would definitely apply for out for undergrad for next spring. I’m non binary and the conference helped me connect with other queer/trans/gnc people in business and provided a forum to talk about those identities in the workplace. The sponsors are listed on their website and they literally pay money to the conference to hire queer people so I’d say that’s a good place to start looking for banks that are at least somewhat accepting/progressive.
I’m still recruiting and don’t exactly have helpful advice but if you wanna talk feel free to DM!
It’s pretty common knowledge that chopped-off junk = guaranteed alpha — we’re going all-trans for our next batch of analysts.
thanks for making me spit out my coffee.
LGBTQ here and very involved in LGBTQ+ employee group and recruiting at my bank. OP, I wish it were not the case, but you need to be extremely careful with where you go to work if you go into banking. Most banks are extremely accepting of lesbian, gay and bi colleagues, but there is significant work to be done in term of trans acceptance. Most LGBTQ groups are cis white gay males and some lesbians. I worked at a top BB, and unfortunately, I do not think it would have been a safe place whatsoever for a trans colleague. I don't think anyone would have said anything, but I think there would have been a palpable sense of uneasiness among the senior bankers and they would interact with you differently. No one would say anything explicitly given the HR nightmare it would cause, but it would be easy to intuit that the senior bankers are not that accepting.
Again, I wish this were not the case. If I were you, I would do significant due diligence on where you join and specifically what group you are in. Unfortunately, the only way I can see you having an okay experience in bankings is if (1) someone high up in the group identifies as trans or (2) a very senior banker / group head has a child that identifies as trans. There probably are not that many groups like this, but for the ones that are, I have absolutely no doubt the employee will got to bat for you and get you through HR.
Look up Out for Undergrad and go the "our team" section and reach out to the Out for Undergrad Business Conference team members. They will most likely be willing to help and an invaluable resource (they will know what teams have trans members, groups to avoid, provide a warm introduction, etc).
Words actually have specific meanings, and the meaning of the word safe sure as shit isn't 'security from other people privately not condoning or accepting your lifestyle.' You're not in danger working IB (or anywhere, really) and neither is someone w/ gender dysphoria. The borderline sanctimonious hyperbole isn't going to expedite the process of you being accepted.
I do not think I follow your logic and it seems that your definition of safe is very narrow. Appears that you take safe to mean lack of threat from physical harm In that case, you absolutely are in danger by working in investment banking given the lack of sleep, exercise, stress, social connections, etc.
Anyway, with your logic, it would seem that separate but equal institutions should be acceptable? Segregation is also okay if it isn't causing any direct harm? No... these things are absolutely unacceptable and anyone with a modicum of common sense can see this. Treating a trans colleague differently than peers (even if not causally endangering them) is absolutely not okay and has very real consequences to the person not being accepted. Moreover, it is the team that loses out by not making a colleague feel comfortable enough to share their opinion or fully immerse themselves in the team. OP will probably be better off on buyside at a shop where team members are actually expected to think critically and engage in healthy debate where the collision of different backgrounds enables the team to fully flush out any idea (I recommend you read some J.S. Mill and reach out to some colleagues with diverse backgrounds to better understand their POV).
The difference between our definitions of safe is that mine is from the dictionary and you've made yours up to fit an oppression narrative. The rest of your post is a deliberate and absurd reach to liken anyone who isn't in lock-step w/ you ideologically to a Jim Crow era klansmen, so get fucked.
You seem to have an incredibly inflated sense of self-importance. No one outside of your family and a few close friends cares about you, spends anytime thinking about you (much less how you like to have sex), or gives remotely enough fucks about you to oppress you in any way. The same is true for virtually everyone else in the world - you're not special.
This. Like I don't really care if someone is LGBTQ. You do what you want with your life and as long as it doesn't directly affect me, we're fine. But this idea that we need to actively show our acceptance to them is plain retarded. If LGBTQ is truly a part of you, then live your life as you see fit. Don't worry about how others perceive you.
Republicans literally care so much they've been passing anti-gay laws for decades, and are currently passing sweeping anti-trans laws across dozens of states. Like how the fuck are you going to claim that people don't care what LGBT people do when a significant percentage of the country don't believe they deserve rights?
70%+ of the country is supportive of gay marriage, including the majority of Republicans. And whether the “anti-Trans” laws are just that or “no special permissions” (e.g. no, you can’t pick your bathroom), is debatable.
What rights do trans people not have? You don't care about rights. You just want special privileges that the government grants using its monopoly on force. FYI, don't support anyone ridiculing any LGBTQ person and don't believe the government should be enacting any legislation for or against trans people. I don't think the government should even be involved with marriage, but as long as it is, gay marriage should be legal. Remember the only real rights are negative rights. Meaning they exist intrinsically and don't require anything from anybody but yourself. They can only be violated if someone negates them, hence negative. Being actively accepted by people is not a right.
I do not disagree with you. I do not think anyone beyond myself really care about my sexual preference. Most people at work just want to get the job done and get home to their family and people they care about as quickly as possible. This is why I enjoyed work culture a lot more than college culture. Much more transactional and no one really care about your background, they just want to get the job done as efficiently as possible.
However, I think there is a big difference between what is "safe" and what is "right." Additionally, a lot of things do not have direct causes and effects. Sure, treating someone differently might not put them in immediate danger, but long term it can have very real consequences on someones wellbeing. As an LGBTQ employee, it was really a non-issue and no one gave a sh*t--all they cared about was my work product. However, for a trans person, I do not think this would be the case. I have little doubt that a trans person in my group would be treated differently and be able to feel that they weren't accepted. I do not think this would be a healthy environment for anyone to work in for 80+ hours a week and would probably have long term consequences on their career trajectory.
I agree with you that people's backgrounds should be a non-issue that no one cares about, and I believe this is the case for most minority groups. However, my problem is that for trans people, I do not believe that is a non-issue. Sure people wont say something explicitly, but it will be very obvious that the person is treated differently than other analysts.
Safe doesn't connote immediate danger, it could be long-term danger. The point I'm making is that there isn't any danger, which I think you sort-of acknowledged in your last post.
Also, there's a very obvious difference between homosexuality and transgenderism that you seem to have overlooked in your posts as it relates to 'acceptance'. Acceptance of homosexuality means that I accept that you are gay, which is factual enough and I'll take you at your word on it. Acceptance of transgenderism has come to mean accepting that you are a member of the opposite sex, which is an entirely subjective sense of self, factually backwards, and not something that I'll take you at your word for.
Yeah let’s make a specific pipeline for a population with a 6-10x higher incidence of mental illness (accepting for a second that gender dysphoria in and of itself does not constitute mental illness).
Asking for a friend, but do you guys know if GS/MS/JPM have a process for folks with an extra chromosome?
The trans-folk likely dont have the mental strength to last in IB (see their absurdly high suicide rates).
Real question: what is the point of LGB recruiting ?
I can understand slight positive discrimination / preferred communication channels for T to get info on culture / “safety” etc, but for LGB, this is something we shouldn’t even know from our colleagues unless publicly advertised. How on earth could there be any kind of LGB recruitment discrimination unless you advertise your situation (which is more than Unprofessional in interviews imo) ?
It seems a bit like the “McKinsey for Women” that allows females to disproportionately get a lot more interviews than guys in consulting (although understand MBB may want to exaggerate diversity to foster creativity etc - but in IB you don’t need to brainstorm you need to execute - and even though, sexual preference shouldn’t even be factored in imo so long as you’re not facing discrimination)
Would be interesting to hear the perspective of targets of these programmes. (I’m obviously playing a bit dumb here to stimulate responses, don’t mean to offense anyone by any means)
Afraid to post on this thread because supporting diversity-based recruiting initiatives seems to be sure-fire way to get ms, but LGB recruiting is important to me so I will share my thoughts.
Most people have an image of Wall Street as being a toxic boys' club. A lot of people with different backgrounds (LGB, minority, etc) don't bother to apply or even look at opportunities in investment banking because of this stigma. My parents didn't think I could apply to IBD jobs and also be open. This is still a pretty common belief. However, most banks are very accepting of people from all backgrounds, and LGB-targeted recruiting is crucial to getting talented candidates in the door. LGB employee resource groups were crucial in helping me get my foot through the door, educating me on company culture and what it is like being open on the street, and has been an invaluable network in helping me navigate my career.
Additionally, I have never mentioned being LGB in an interview--that would be weird and unprofessional. However, on the job and during internship, it is very difficult to hide that you are LGB. You need to be able to establish relationships over summer and during job, and that is difficult to do if you cannot be open. An LGB employee should feel comfortable sharing what they did over the weekend with their partner, their date plans, asking for time off to participate in Pride, etc. To be a productive employee, you need to be able to bring you full self to work and not feel like you are holding part of yourself back on a daily basis. LGB-recruiting is crucial to educate colleagues, create a pipeline of talented student, and to signal to prospective employees that their LGB-identity will not be a hinderance to their success at the firm.
Edit: This applies to all minority groups, but company boards and management teams are increasing diverse, especially for public companies with significant shareholder pressure. It is good business for the banks to recruit diverse bankers to match the demographics of their clients. Wasn't unheard of for firms to refuse to hire a bank if there wasn't a female banker on team, etc.
Would you really have not applied if there were no LGB programme ?
Did you only apply to firms that had a LGB recruiting setup ?
Transness is and always will be a fringe, tiny minority of people. Banks should focus on execution and not some small group of confused navel-gazing sexual hipsters
This website is really becoming toxic....thought these sorts of battles would die out on here after the election
this thread is awful. Eye opening though.
Which side are you on though? Pro diversity programs or anti diversity programs?
Agreed. Not sure what side your own, but I think this thread is proof why OP's friend needs to due diligence on whatever bank and group they decide on. People on this forum cannot see that their borderline transphobic comments are problematic and would have real impact on a trans colleague, even if they didn't say anything explicit out of fear of HR. OP's friend deserves to be in a group where they can bring their full self to work, be judged based on the quality of their work, and have all the same opportunities for advancement as any other colleague. Don't know how people think that this is possible if the group is unaccepting of the OP friend's lifestyle and immediately judge them for being trans before even getting to know them and their work product.
Thought LGBTQ+ was becoming a non-issue, but this thread reminds how important diversity recruiting is to ensure that banks maintain a pipeline of talented candidates from all backgrounds that fear the industry because comments like the ones on this thread. Corporate culture is changing, and banks need to change with it to maintain relationships. I think it will become increasingly difficult to win mandates from public companies if the banking team is all white males.
A lot of comments on this thread are appalling and would probably get an analyst fired from a lot of BBs if overhead by an MD. There was absolutely no tolerance for this at my bank and the majority of senior bankers saw value in diversity recruiting. Additionally, a lot of diverse senior bankers are very passionate about diversity recruiting. A lot of them were the first women / minority / etc at the table when they joined the bank and have made it their goal to lead by example and inspire diverse candidates to join the firm. Some of these people are really senior at the bank and would have absolutely no tolerance for a bigoted analyst.
Adipisci minus delectus aut ea quis maxime voluptate. Eos facilis aut debitis quia fugit est corrupti. Et et non sapiente quis. In sed aut consequatur consequatur dolorum nihil omnis. Recusandae quae sint enim quod.
Ratione aspernatur incidunt rerum animi velit ut sed et. Accusamus vitae ad a. Quis voluptatem sed qui et velit mollitia et. Cumque quas deleniti beatae minus aliquid doloremque.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Cupiditate deserunt cumque debitis est occaecati reprehenderit. Quam ducimus quis quia nihil eos et qui. Officia non dignissimos dolorem ad ut veritatis. Omnis occaecati laborum cupiditate aut. Atque est maiores repudiandae aut quaerat accusamus modi. Voluptatem ut soluta molestiae ipsum quae.