Pros
Well reputed brand Investment products and lines of business are interesting and well recognised Friendly family culture which is difficult for most corporates to retain (inversely can be suffocating)
Cons
The family culture can be suffocating at times as it felt like the firm had to be the centre of the universe Single-minded approach to doing things, processes are so substandard and siloed, the right-hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Micro management, command and control Very political, department felt juvenile at times This department is not built on a culture of best practice, people do not take the strategic view or approach, but rather a localised approach of individual team siloes, muddling through as they go along. Trying to have a conversation about standard best practice is met with defensiveness, aggression or dismissal. Very process oriented, little check and challenge mindset to see if the so-called process is the best, up to current standards or even necessary! No self-evaluation, they just stick to doing things because “that is how we have always done it”. For a company with such a well reputed name, I was surprised that the standard of personnel is not the best as you would find in say the equivalent respected top tier investment banks such as Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan, both of which I have also worked for. Part of the underlying cause is because many employees are lifers and so do not have experience elsewhere to act as a comparable, secondly, the pay is below market rates for most roles, so the best in the market are unlikely to be attracted to a 40% salary/rate drop. Glad I got the brand on my CV but have worked in better places, ie the standard of work is much higher elsewhere.