Speaker 1: Pushkin. Here was the original contract for Liars Poker, January
Speaker 1: eighty eight, and the title on the contract was Fast
Speaker 1: and Loose in the Golden Years? Do you believe that? God?
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it's right all right? Here is an
Speaker 1: information sheet that they wrote when they were trying to
Speaker 1: figure out what it was. This can accurately be described
Speaker 1: as a nonfiction bonfire of the vanities, and Michael Lewis
Speaker 1: himself was nothing other than a master of the universe,
Speaker 1: the term actually used on the Solomon Trading floor. His
Speaker 1: big Swinging Dick, Lewis describes from the inside his rake's
Speaker 1: progress through the fabulous palace of greed, ambition and folly
Speaker 1: that was Solomon Brothers in the nineteen eighties. This is
Speaker 1: a born storyteller, blah blah blah, A storytelling asset. Yeah,
Speaker 1: how about that, a story telling asset who, for the
Speaker 1: rest of his career will be known mainly as the
Speaker 1: guy who coined the phrase big swinging dick, which I
Speaker 1: didn't even do. But there was some truth in that
Speaker 1: phrase because it's Solomon Brothers. Anatomy was destiny. The sexism
Speaker 1: there was from another age. Even at the time it
Speaker 1: shocked me. I mean For example, it was fairly common
Speaker 1: for strippers to turn up on the trading floor and
Speaker 1: get up on one of the guy's desks and take
Speaker 1: off all their clothes, and no one thought that was weird.
Speaker 1: They thought it was just like what happens on a
Speaker 1: trading floor. But that kind of stuff maybe wasn't as
Speaker 1: important as the message that women got, the message that
Speaker 1: they were, in the end, not all that valuable. Bonds,
Speaker 1: bonds and more bonds. Anyone who did not want to
Speaker 1: trade them for a living wanted to sell them. This
Speaker 1: group now included several women who had initially hoped to
Speaker 1: trade at Solomon Brothers traded women's soul. No one ever
Speaker 1: questioned the Solomon ordering of the sexes, but the immediate
Speaker 1: consequence of the prohibition of women in trading was clear
Speaker 1: to all. It kept women farther from power. It turns
Speaker 1: out that one of my mentors at Solomon Brothers was
Speaker 1: a woman. She's who kind of plucked me from the
Speaker 1: training program and found me a place on the trading floor.
Speaker 1: Her name was Leslie Christian, and we had a kind
Speaker 1: of running conversation about what it was like for her
Speaker 1: in this guy's place. Her voice was somewhere in the
Speaker 1: back of my head when I was writing the book,
Speaker 1: how do you think Liar's Poker would have been different
Speaker 1: if I had been a woman? Oh, my gosh, she
Speaker 1: would have had I can only speak for myself. I
Speaker 1: don't think it would have been as I don't. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it was easy for you to write the book.
Speaker 1: I don't think I could have been that balanced. And
Speaker 1: I what I mean, as you there's an element of
Speaker 1: or a flavor of you're you know, you're sort of
Speaker 1: in it. You're kind of in there, You're in it,
Speaker 1: but not of it, and it's kind of funny, and
Speaker 1: it's kind of shocking. I think women um feel it deeper.
Speaker 1: There were times when I was sobbing, Or was the
Speaker 1: time I went to a lawyer and said, can I
Speaker 1: do something about this? You know I was treated poorly.
Speaker 1: I wasn't treated poorly like harassment or anything. I wasn't
Speaker 1: I didn't get an assignment I wanted, and and then
Speaker 1: that constantly having to be on alert, to be professional
Speaker 1: and to be taken seriously. I don't think I could
Speaker 1: not have written that book, No way. I didn't have
Speaker 1: that same I didn't have the same exposure either. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think guys talk differently when they're not around women.
Speaker 1: So you felt left out of some of the conversation.
Speaker 1: Oh sure, I know I was left out. I mean
Speaker 1: that's one of my things I laugh about now, is
Speaker 1: I really had no idea they were arranging prostitutes for
Speaker 1: clients or buying drugs for clients. I really I had.
Speaker 1: That was completely off my radar. So in a funny way,
Speaker 1: the firm was less visible to you than it was
Speaker 1: to me. You think a woman wouldn't have had the
Speaker 1: visibility into the firm, That's right. Yeah, Leslie actually left
Speaker 1: Solomon Brothers around the time I did. She's now a
Speaker 1: senior investment advisor at something called north Star Asset Management,
Speaker 1: which is a firm that does socially responsible investing. I
Speaker 1: guess we'd both like to think that things had gotten
Speaker 1: better for women on Wall Street since the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: and you know, obviously, from a distance it looks like
Speaker 1: they have. But in this episode, we're going to ask
Speaker 1: have they actually gotten better? I'm Michael Lewis and welcome
Speaker 1: back to Other People's Money, a companion podcast to Liar's Poker.
Speaker 1: This is episode three, Fast and loose in the golden years,
Speaker 1: I find myself still wanting to know what Wall Street
Speaker 1: looks like through the eyes of a woman, not just
Speaker 1: back then when I was there, but now. So I
Speaker 1: called up a woman named Anne Clark Wolf. She's had
Speaker 1: an incredibly successful run on Wall Street. She became the
Speaker 1: chairman of Bank of America's Corporate and Investment banking division.
Speaker 1: American Banker has called her one of the most powerful
Speaker 1: women to watch on Wall Street, and just recently she
Speaker 1: announced that she was leaving big banks to start her
Speaker 1: own investment bank, which she calls Independence Point Advisors, and
Speaker 1: has said that it will be made up of at
Speaker 1: least seventy percent women and people of color, which is
Speaker 1: to say, no more than thirty percent white men. And
Speaker 1: the firm already has a nickname. How did you get
Speaker 1: the nickname? Solomon Sisters? I just loved the pun of
Speaker 1: Solomon's Sisters versus Solomon Brothers. One reason loves the pun
Speaker 1: is that she actually was in the training program of
Speaker 1: Solomon Brothers three years after me. Her experience of that
Speaker 1: was different in one important way. She was reading Liars Poker.
Speaker 1: I read it in the training program at Solomon Brothers.
Speaker 1: One mimiographed page at a time. So when we started
Speaker 1: in the training program in August of eighty nine, and
Speaker 1: we were the class who was hired after the crash
Speaker 1: of eighty seven, so we were a very small class,
Speaker 1: but literally a page of your book would work its
Speaker 1: way down the aisle every day. So the book came
Speaker 1: out October of eighty nine, so you must have been
Speaker 1: the tail end. It must have been the tail end
Speaker 1: of your training class. And so was it a mimiograph
Speaker 1: of from the actual book. I don't know whether someone
Speaker 1: got their hands on it or whether it would just
Speaker 1: look like photocopied pages to me, but I distinctly remember
Speaker 1: reading it that way, which is a pretty disconnected way
Speaker 1: to read a book. So that's why I enjoyed actually
Speaker 1: going back and reading it like a real book. But
Speaker 1: it shows you how it really resonated with people and
Speaker 1: was clearly part of the culture. Well, one of the
Speaker 1: reasons I suspect you were reading a mimeograph copy is
Speaker 1: John Goodfriend told the whole firm that they weren't allowed
Speaker 1: to buy it, so that if you wanted to read it,
Speaker 1: photocopy it. So the training program, do you remember that
Speaker 1: now that you say, though and do you I mean,
Speaker 1: since we're on this, what did you make of it
Speaker 1: at the time? So it's interesting. At the time, I
Speaker 1: think it was a It was a celebration of some
Speaker 1: of the great qualities of Solomon, and I think it
Speaker 1: was also clear that there were some elements that were
Speaker 1: probably slight exaggerations just to make the characters more interesting.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the people sitting in your training
Speaker 1: class passing mimeograph pages of Liars Poker to each other
Speaker 1: would have did they recognize the training class? I described? Oh, totally, totally.
Speaker 1: The training class descriptions were incredibly accurate. The back row
Speaker 1: set the tone of the class because the back row
Speaker 1: acted throughout as one indivisible, incredibly noisy unit. The back
Speaker 1: row people moved in herds for safety and for comfort,
Speaker 1: from the training class in the morning in early afternoon,
Speaker 1: to the trading floor at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: to the surf club at night, and back to the
Speaker 1: training program the next morning. They were united by their
Speaker 1: likes as well as their dislikes. They rewarded the speakers
Speaker 1: of whom they approved by standing and doing the wave
Speaker 1: across the back of the class, and they approved wholeheartedly
Speaker 1: of the man at the front of the room. Now
Speaker 1: the speaker paused, as if lost in thought, which was unlikely,
Speaker 1: you know. He finally said, you think you're hot shit,
Speaker 1: but when you start out on the trading floor, you're
Speaker 1: going to be at the bottom. The notion again of
Speaker 1: who sat on the front row, who sat on the
Speaker 1: back crow. It's actually kind of stunning when I reread
Speaker 1: it to think that. And it wasn't like it was
Speaker 1: set up that way. It wasn't like when you walked
Speaker 1: in the first day somebody said, you folks, you sit
Speaker 1: there because you fit the stereotype. But it's that seemed
Speaker 1: to just have a life of its own that perpetuated itself.
Speaker 1: Where did you sit middle I was neither. So back
Speaker 1: up for me a little bit and just tell me
Speaker 1: how you ended up applying for Wall Street jobs in
Speaker 1: the first place, Like, how did you get the bug
Speaker 1: to work on Wall Street? I had been in economics
Speaker 1: and English major and undergrad. I liked the intersection of
Speaker 1: writing and data, and what I loved was that Wall
Speaker 1: Street was a way to experience what you were reading
Speaker 1: about on the cover of the Wall Street Journal. It's
Speaker 1: somehow brought deals and the news to life. In a
Speaker 1: way that you were getting a front row seat of
Speaker 1: how those transactions came together. And I still think that
Speaker 1: that's frankly what captivates me still today, thirty two years later.
Speaker 1: It's an amazing opportunity to work with companies at an
Speaker 1: interesting moment in time on something that is a really
Speaker 1: big deal to them. And when you so you were
Speaker 1: hired by solom bresent, you were hired into the investment
Speaker 1: banking department, And I'm curious, like what it felt like
Speaker 1: then to be a woman coming into this place. I
Speaker 1: had lots of women friends who would fill my ears
Speaker 1: with what had happened to them, But I'm curious, like
Speaker 1: what your experience was. I had a phenomenal experience because
Speaker 1: the men who I worked with and for treated me
Speaker 1: like I was one of the guys, and I never
Speaker 1: felt a gender difference. In my case. Part of that
Speaker 1: was I was virtually married by the time I started
Speaker 1: at Solomon, so I was probably not the most interesting
Speaker 1: prospect of the women in my class. But I think
Speaker 1: as we a number of us are still close friends,
Speaker 1: and we've actually had reunions of our class over the years,
Speaker 1: and the women have all agreed that they felt like
Speaker 1: it was a very equal opportunity place. Ultimately, the men
Speaker 1: just wanted who were the best and the brightest, and
Speaker 1: did you help them get the job done. Part of
Speaker 1: why I'm building what I'm building today is I think
Speaker 1: it's actually far worse today than it was in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety because in nineteen ninety it truly was just about capitalism,
Speaker 1: and it was a young person's business. And if the
Speaker 1: men who I worked with and for saw that I
Speaker 1: had anything to add to a deal team or that
Speaker 1: I had a talent, they were all in. So if
Speaker 1: you'd have told me that the woman who was going
Speaker 1: to create a women's centric investment bank in two and
Speaker 1: twenty one was going to come along with the narrative
Speaker 1: that Solomon Brothers in nineteen eighty was a kind of
Speaker 1: golden age compared to now, you would not have expected that.
Speaker 1: Which for Solomon Brothers for a golden age for women,
Speaker 1: I'd have said my head would be spinning, like like
Speaker 1: how So I want to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: what why you think it might have been better for
Speaker 1: women in Solomon Brothers in nineteen eighty nine than it
Speaker 1: is for women now in a big Wall Street bank.
Speaker 1: I think for women in particular, there were a couple
Speaker 1: of themes. I noticed the first outflow of women in
Speaker 1: the mid nineties. So as the private equity industry and
Speaker 1: the hudge fund industry started to take off, candidly, a
Speaker 1: lot of women who had married or were dating men
Speaker 1: in those industries just said it was no longer worth
Speaker 1: the aggravation, the aggravation of dating them, or an aggravation
Speaker 1: of going to work, the aggravation of trying to be
Speaker 1: a working spouse with them, when you know when your partner,
Speaker 1: frankly had an incredible amount of money or an incredible
Speaker 1: amount of upside in their role. So there were definitely
Speaker 1: a decision by a generation of women to decide to
Speaker 1: stay at home, which again very admirable that they were.
Speaker 1: They were willing to do it and able to do it,
Speaker 1: but it basically left a huge hole generationally in people
Speaker 1: who were kind of poised to be ready than when
Speaker 1: the street took off. God, that's interesting. So there's like
Speaker 1: a generation of women who were put out of business
Speaker 1: basically by more successful men in the same business. People
Speaker 1: want to believe that women exit because the job has
Speaker 1: long hours or is difficult. When you interview women, they
Speaker 1: never say that. They in fact say, I can respect
Speaker 1: the fact that it's difficult they leave because of the
Speaker 1: lack of inclusion. So at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: some of what I describe as the camaraderie and the
Speaker 1: inclusion that happened at Solomon where you were part of
Speaker 1: the team, you were part of the family. Women were
Speaker 1: included in the NCAA pool at Solomon. You know, that
Speaker 1: was like an incredible fun alleying moment where people would
Speaker 1: trade shares on different teams in the NCAA. So once
Speaker 1: you lost that camaraderie and what pulled people together, I
Speaker 1: think it was ultimately the inclusion led a number of
Speaker 1: people to say that they kind of checked out, and they,
Speaker 1: interestingly almost all continue to work. They just worked in
Speaker 1: a different capacity, whether they went in house or whether
Speaker 1: they went on to different variations of the field. So
Speaker 1: why were women excluded? If Solomon Brothers was a kind
Speaker 1: of golden age of including women in things, and I
Speaker 1: would actually kind of dispute that on the trading floor,
Speaker 1: but I know what you're saying. It was so kind
Speaker 1: of rough and tumble, and then if you were good
Speaker 1: at your job, it's sort of and you were willing
Speaker 1: to maybe ignore this comment or that comment. You moved
Speaker 1: up in the firm. Well, by the way, I was
Speaker 1: six months pregnant when I made managing director at Solomon,
Speaker 1: So maybe people thought it was cute to have this
Speaker 1: large pregnant woman in the picture with Derek Mahan and
Speaker 1: others when they promoted me. But I thought that that
Speaker 1: was an interesting moment that where everybody would have stereotypically said,
Speaker 1: of course, you could never get promoted when you were pregnant.
Speaker 1: I think that they enjoyed the fact that they were
Speaker 1: able to prove that wrong. But describe for me the
Speaker 1: exclusion that happens after Solomon Brothers. As time was on.
Speaker 1: You're saying you kind of see women having a harder
Speaker 1: time being included. How does it? What form does the
Speaker 1: exclusion take. I'd love to be able to put a
Speaker 1: pen in exactly what it is. But you know, I
Speaker 1: think the other variable I would call out is in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety even an investment banking at Solomon, I would
Speaker 1: guess probably at least forty percent of the men had
Speaker 1: working spouses. That was not true, and certainly in my
Speaker 1: last two big jobs. And if you have a working
Speaker 1: spouse or increasingly if you have a working daughter. I
Speaker 1: think it completely changes the mindset the number of times
Speaker 1: in the past five to ten years where I see
Speaker 1: a man proudly say I'm sponsoring her, I have her back.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to put up with somebody cutting her
Speaker 1: out of a deal or taking a key account away
Speaker 1: from her that has gone to the wayside. I mean,
Speaker 1: I could name for you four or five men at
Speaker 1: Solomon who all thought that they had the fingerprints on
Speaker 1: my success, and all did have their fingerprints on my success.
Speaker 1: I couldn't name five people now who are as deliberate
Speaker 1: and viewing it as their role in really helping women
Speaker 1: continue to thrive and get those opportunities, get the most
Speaker 1: important accounts, get put on the most important deals. You know,
Speaker 1: It's interesting the point you made about how you can't
Speaker 1: really look you look across the street and you can't
Speaker 1: really see very many examples of the kind of men
Speaker 1: who had their fingerprints on your career at Solomon Brothers.
Speaker 1: That there isn't that kind of personal relationship between senior
Speaker 1: men and younger women. And I'm wondering if part of
Speaker 1: the problem is that we're in a culture where those
Speaker 1: relationships are more dangerous. It's a huge issue. I think,
Speaker 1: I listen, I think, whether it's real or implied. I mean,
Speaker 1: I have had a number of people site the Pence
Speaker 1: rule that amazes me. I didn't even know there was
Speaker 1: a Pence rule, except he had that weird rule himself.
Speaker 1: People refer to it openly and commonly as a very
Speaker 1: clear indicator of feeling like either that they can't be
Speaker 1: in certain settings with women on their team, or certainly
Speaker 1: would never would be very uncomfortable, you would not have
Speaker 1: dinner alone with a woman on your team, which again
Speaker 1: I just I would not have thought twice about it myself.
Speaker 1: And you think about where the great mentoring often happens,
Speaker 1: or where the war stories happen, or were you really
Speaker 1: feel like you develop that trust with somebody who you
Speaker 1: can ask all of those questions. It typically does happen
Speaker 1: either when you're flying somewhere together, or you're having dinner
Speaker 1: with somebody, or in those other social settings. The conditions
Speaker 1: where a woman, a young woman would build a professional
Speaker 1: relationship with an older important man happen to be the
Speaker 1: same conditions where the older man might suggest an inappropriate relationship.
Speaker 1: And so you've got this problem where the older man
Speaker 1: doesn't want to be in a position where he might
Speaker 1: be accused of having suggested an inappropriate relationship. But part
Speaker 1: of me wonders if what's going on is all of
Speaker 1: this is being used as an excuse. That's sort of
Speaker 1: like men now have an excuse not to make much
Speaker 1: effort with women. I think you're spot on, by the way.
Speaker 1: I would also argue that the more the diversity became
Speaker 1: the purview of hr d EI executives and other people's jobs,
Speaker 1: it became incredibly convenient for the men to opt out.
Speaker 1: You know, they would be forced to sit through the
Speaker 1: diversity training and they would they would do the other
Speaker 1: check the box exercises, but it became really somebody else's job,
Speaker 1: and not a high paying or high status job. No. Well,
Speaker 1: I have to tell you one of my favorite Solomon bosses,
Speaker 1: who's now the CEO of a company. We were talking
Speaker 1: about how he resisted the pressure to hire a d
Speaker 1: EI officer and he said, I'm the DI officer, And
Speaker 1: I said, damn it, you're right. And the problem is
Speaker 1: we need more CEOs to think they really are the
Speaker 1: DI officers. The funny way of dealing with the marginalized
Speaker 1: population is to marginalize the whole subject the role. Yeah right,
Speaker 1: we're going to take a break here, other people's money
Speaker 1: will be right back. I'm back with investment Banker and
Speaker 1: Clark Wolf. I want to get dig into the motives
Speaker 1: of and also I won't want you to explain the
Speaker 1: business you've created. It's now been got the nickname Solomon's Sisters.
Speaker 1: What is this business? Well, and I was very clear
Speaker 1: to not name it Solomon's Sisters. It was really it
Speaker 1: was really a running joke as I was reaching out
Speaker 1: to friends and people who I trusted in thinking about
Speaker 1: where I could still have an impact on the industry.
Speaker 1: And I took the view that I had thirty two
Speaker 1: years across the three biggest firms between Solomon up through
Speaker 1: Citygroup for twenty years, two years at JP Morgan, and
Speaker 1: then almost ten years a Bank of America, that despite
Speaker 1: where I felt like I had put a lot of
Speaker 1: effort in pulling through diverse candidates, I still looked around
Speaker 1: and I said that I thought that I was leaving
Speaker 1: the industry with a different composition and complexion than I
Speaker 1: would have hoped. And I do believe in the power
Speaker 1: of cognitive diversity that if you can combine a bunch
Speaker 1: of different minds, different histories, different backgrounds. I actually do
Speaker 1: believe it leads to better advice. So the premise was
Speaker 1: diverse people had to be exceptional to survive on Wall Street.
Speaker 1: They probably didn't get the best clients to cover or
Speaker 1: the easiest tasks or opportunities. So if I can curate
Speaker 1: a group of those exceptional people who just happened to
Speaker 1: be diverse and not lead with diversity, can I change
Speaker 1: the client experience? You know, the industry certainly would say
Speaker 1: that the numbers are different than what I'm representing at
Speaker 1: a macro, but a lot of that progress has not
Speaker 1: really translated per se into investment banking. And there's actually
Speaker 1: been research that shows good academic research that shows that
Speaker 1: women running each eight accounts manage them more sensibly than
Speaker 1: men running each trade accounts. And there's no research on
Speaker 1: the other side saying actually, men are better at this.
Speaker 1: So it is very peculiar that, given that we're supposed
Speaker 1: to be an efficient, free market economy in Wall Street
Speaker 1: is supposed to be like a meritocracy, that there hasn't
Speaker 1: been a drive to actually replace the men with the
Speaker 1: women because the women might actually naturally be better suited
Speaker 1: to it. I like to bring it back to the
Speaker 1: ski industry because I love skiing, and so when people
Speaker 1: show up at a ski resort and they need to
Speaker 1: be put into their ski class, women will say on
Speaker 1: a scale of one to ten, there are four. The
Speaker 1: man will say that he's an eight, and they're both sixes.
Speaker 1: And so I think, and that story has also played
Speaker 1: out in job qualifications, and I think an interesting modern
Speaker 1: word for it. And I still experience this. I have
Speaker 1: probably four hours a day of impostor syndrome. The data
Speaker 1: is super clear, though, I mean it's you know, you
Speaker 1: can find the data on qualifications for jobs between men
Speaker 1: and women, so it's I do think that if you
Speaker 1: take that data, it makes me hopeful that as I
Speaker 1: build a firm and you have women and minorities with
Speaker 1: that mindset of always having been the underdog and always
Speaker 1: airing on the side of underrepresenting what their capabilities are,
Speaker 1: I hope that that's exactly the kind of advice a
Speaker 1: CEO would want. Do you think that part of the
Speaker 1: problem is that people who are delegating the risk taking decisions,
Speaker 1: the ultimate holders of capital who are giving their money
Speaker 1: to a hedge fund or a private equity fund, or
Speaker 1: buying shares in Goldman sacks so they can trade whatever
Speaker 1: it is that those people are deceived by confidence that
Speaker 1: in fact, the best way to get ahold of other
Speaker 1: people's money, to whip it and drive it and swing
Speaker 1: it around in the markets, is to pretend, let you
Speaker 1: know a lot more than you do, and that the
Speaker 1: problem is ultimately that the holders of capital are bad
Speaker 1: judges of who's good at managing the capital. I don't
Speaker 1: know how you're ever going to undo the natural gravitational
Speaker 1: force that tends to reward people who may be confident
Speaker 1: at the expense of being capable, right. I mean one
Speaker 1: way of viewing it, and one way everybody will view
Speaker 1: it is the role of women in finance is as
Speaker 1: a massive social injustice. But there's another way of viewing
Speaker 1: it is like a massive market inefficiency, Like the money
Speaker 1: is being invested stupider because women are not equally involved
Speaker 1: in the investment decisions. And you put it like that,
Speaker 1: and the reply might come from the opposition that there's
Speaker 1: no way the markets would allow that kind of any
Speaker 1: market would allow that kind of inefficiency. But that's not true.
Speaker 1: Look at the CEO of Carlisle has recently said that
Speaker 1: the cost of capital that they allocate to their portfolio
Speaker 1: companies that have diverse teams in a diverse board is different.
Speaker 1: Their financial results were twelve percent better with their diverse
Speaker 1: portfolio teams. Diversity pays, Diversity pays, and eliminating mail over
Speaker 1: confidence yes, pays two. So given all of that, you
Speaker 1: candidly wonder why we haven't seen more progress since even
Speaker 1: if people just put their capitalist hat on, they'd be
Speaker 1: making more money. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: until a head trader is told he will make five
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars more if he has a woman, a
Speaker 1: black man, a Latin x an LBGTQ leader in his ranks,
Speaker 1: and he will lose five hundred thousand if that person
Speaker 1: leaves because they weren't ultimately feeling supported. You just don't
Speaker 1: have the incentives that have really met people at the
Speaker 1: place where they really understand the most, which is ultimately
Speaker 1: around around capitalism. They all know and feel bad about
Speaker 1: the lack of representation and sales and trading, but feeling
Speaker 1: bad just hasn't translated into the day and day out behavior.
Speaker 1: That's just going to be key to really making it
Speaker 1: attractive and interesting and compelling for a woman to want
Speaker 1: to be in that seat. I want to thank Ann
Speaker 1: Clark Woolf for trying to figure out what's going on
Speaker 1: with women on Wall Street and trying to tell us
Speaker 1: how it really is. And go check out our firm,
Speaker 1: Solomon Sisters. I mean Independence Point if you're so inclined
Speaker 1: other people's money is a production of Pushkin Industries. If
Speaker 1: you like the show, please remember to share, rate and review.
Speaker 1: You don't like it, don't say anything. You can buy
Speaker 1: our new Liars Poker audiobook, unabridged and read by me
Speaker 1: the author at Pushkin dot Fm, Slash Liars Poker, and
Speaker 1: also at Audible Define more Pushkin podcasts, listen on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: Coming up in the next episode. What it's like to
Speaker 1: reencounter your earlier work. I mean, it's funny listening back.
Speaker 1: It really sheds a lot of light on conversations that
Speaker 1: I had with my parents. They were hearing the work
Speaker 1: I was doing and telling me that I should go
Speaker 1: to medical school, and I remember at the time feeling like, well,
Speaker 1: you are very not supportive of my dream, you know,
Speaker 1: And but now, like you're listening back, I realized, like,
Speaker 1: oh wait, no, they just heard the evidence in front
Speaker 1: of their ears of like, oh this isn't good, Like
Speaker 1: this isn't good. What you're making ire a glass and
Speaker 1: I try to make sense of our earlier selves and
Speaker 1: the work we created. I guess I haven't wondering did
Speaker 1: you ever play Liars Poker or see people play? That's
Speaker 1: a good question. I did not play Liars Poker. I
Speaker 1: am about the worst gambler on the face of the planet,
Speaker 1: and I certainly would not have had John Mary, there's
Speaker 1: poker face to pull off a game of Liar's Poker.
Speaker 1: You just did a very female thing, right, you just
Speaker 1: said You just said that. The guys don't say I'm
Speaker 1: the worst gambler on the on the face of the
Speaker 1: Wall Street guys don't anyways. Also, why women wouldn't play
Speaker 1: Liar's Poker and lose a lot of money either, Right,
Speaker 1: that's right, that's right.