State Street Vice President IT Jobs

Hiring? Post a Job
4 job openings Back to all jobs

Show:  All Results Last 7 Days
1 day ago

IT Risk & Compliance Associate, Assistant Vice President – new

State Street Quincy, MA

With more than 29,970 employees across 29 countries, at State Street, our people are our greatest asset. We recognize that highly skilled, engaged… State Street

30+ days ago

IT Risk and Compliance Director, Vice President

State Street Hong Kong

With more than 29,510 employees across 29 countries, at State Street, our people are our greatest asset. We recognize that highly skilled, engaged… State Street

5 days ago

Service Delivery IT Risk & Compliance Consultant, Vice President

State Street Quincy, MA

With more than 29,970 employees across 29 countries, at State Street, our people are our greatest asset. We recognize that highly skilled, engaged… State Street

14 days ago

IT First Line Defence Risk and Compliance, VP

State Street Singapore

With more than 29,970 employees across 29 countries, at State Street, our people are our greatest asset. We recognize that highly skilled, engaged… State Street

State Street Reviews

1,534 Reviews
Rating Trends
Recommend to a friend
Approve of CEO
State Street President and CEO Joseph (Jay) L. Hooley
Joseph (Jay) L. Hooley
496 Ratings
  • I actually woke up everyday and didn't mind going to work; really liked my position, teammates, and loved my managers.

    • Comp & Benefits
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Senior Management
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    Former Employee - Custody Specialist in Quincy, MA
    Former Employee - Custody Specialist in Quincy, MA

    I worked at State Street


    State Street gives that chance to people without a ton of experience or just out of school without any experience. They are a huge financial staple in the industry, and have such a great reputation. They give people opportunities that many other companies don't. So many young adults are able to start a career at a well known company (having numerous locations- commutable) and receiving excellent benefits. You are able to advance and grow to move up. But, if you decided to not stay, it's a very useful for a resume.


    The only thing is it's a huge company, and it's almost as if you were just a number. Your team itself is can be very pleasant. But there can be a down-side too, being placed in a group that's disengaging. Moving around a bit, being in different groups, each group varied on how things were done. In my first group I had amazing managers. The 2 had both been there for many years and taught me so much. I have them to thank for everything I learned there. But on the con-side, as much as I enjoyed the other groups and teammates (who all worked very hard), I felt I was never taught anything. I hoped to build my knowledge, but didn't have anyone guiding me to learn new processes. It all depends on which group you're placed in. And some groups have absolutely no room to advance. So you may be forced to find a new position (in a different group) if you want to progress and advance up the latter. That can be said for any company or job though. It's up to you on what you make of it, where ever you might be placed.
    One other con (that I would hear many people complain about) is basically people felt they weren't compansated for how hard they worked. Some people worked extremely hard and weren't getting paid enough for the amount of work they were doing and time put in. And then there were others that didn't do much, sitting next to you with the same job title probably not even knowing how to do their job correctly, with the same salary as you. That would be frustrating.

    Advice to ManagementAdvice

    I do not think implementing the new structure of the specialized groups was a very good idea. Working on a fund from start to finish works better in my opinion. First of all, as for the client's sake, if there's an issue they'd want to speak with the PA/FA. You've processed everything on that fund and know exactly what's going on. With the specialized groups there's too many people touching one fund. Not to mention people are working on too many funds. Now people have a lot more funds they're posting to and responsible for. Only working on what their specialized in posting the same thing all day to numerous funds. Always trying to call attention tothe understanding the big picture, promoting "the big picture." This completely takes away the idea of the "BIG PICTURE." Completely.
    For example, Client Ops doesn't really work on the funds or process anything. But that's who the client has to contact. The client is talking to someone that doesn't know anything about whatever the issue is. It now needs to be researched by Client Ops. Then they contact the income department to have something reversed. First that team needs to research it and understand what the issue is. Maybe another department needs to be notified also (income needs to inquire with another team for some reason)? And maybe it had to do with a corp action? An email will be sent out to Corp Actions. The accounting team needs knowledge of what's going on also, when doing their trial balances. But a reversal makes a problem for custody's short term investment also. If it's a fund that's swept (state street's short term money market investments) the deadline has most likely passed and the fund will now be overdrawn. All this communication takes lots of time to be emailing and waiting on responses involving several parties back and forth to figure out an issue. Client Ops now needs to be made aware of all these different interactions and transactions made or reversed. Possibly, an inquiry would then need to be made about the issue and non-payment. Also, (not very likely) worst case scenario big of a transaction was reversed? And how big is the fund? Will this reversal move the fund at all? Will pricing be effected? (This would be basically impossible happening in this situation; it would've had to have been a monumental mistake to not account for by the latest extension. I just was being extremely dramatic). The client needs a returned call to have the situation explained. Obviously using all worst case scenarios- The client would not be very happy.
    BUT if that was my fund, I could've talked to the client (who I'd have a pleasant relationship with because we speak frequently and I help solve issues quickly). I would've looked into the issue myself right away, and then after I thoroughly researched I would've done the reversal myself. And if a corporate action was involved, they would've needed to be reached out to (if there wasn't an email already sent out from them). But since I looked into it myself and right away, and didn't need to wait all day for email responses from several involved people, not much harm was done. And hopefully there'd be time before the deadline for the new corrected amount for the short term investment. I would create the non payment inquiry and send to the appropriate department. Also, email the accounting team to inform them for their trial balancing. I can then call the client back and let them know simply that I put out an inquiry for that payment.
    It's much simpler working on a fund start to finish. Actually Account Controllers would've been a good idea to lean more towards. Knowing exactly what's going on with your fund and having basically no one else touching it works better, in my opinion. I believe the clients were not happy with the transition. During the transitioning, new employees were being hired as Client Ops. New employees! That doesn't make sense. They not even familiar using MCH, systems, apps, programs, etc. There's so much to take in and understand when first employed. WHY would they ever hire new employees for Clients Ops. It should absolutely be an internal move. It all comes down to the client, right? Isn't that what's most important? So why stick someone right out of college that spends 2 weeks with each group: cash, trades, recon, accounting, etc. And then they're answering a calls to clients.
    No one likes change. And everyone adjusts eventually. But during the transition, it seemed like a very bad idea. I wish it was explain better. Not why moving towards the specialized groups will all be better and work out better in the end, But why PAs and FAs were such a bad idea? Or Fund Controller?
    But again, people adapt. And I believe hearing the new transformation is supposed to be more efficient. And I'm sure save money. And India will be a huge help also. I do hope the transformation worked out well, went as planned and that the concept turned out how it was expected it too.

    Neutral Outlook

Work at State Street? Share Your Experiences

State Street

Click to Rate