Why Sandy Fired Jamie: The Reverse Hamlet Theory

jamiedimonboxinganddrinking.jpg“Firing Jamie Dimon was the worst thing Sandy ever did,” the investment banker said. It was a glorious Friday afternoon. The weather had performed an April summersault, turning over from winter to what felt like summer almost overnight. It was the kind of weather that inspires people—okay, us—to leave work early and starting drinking with friends. Which is how we found ourselves looking out onto a narrow street in the East Village drinking pints and talking about Jamie Dimon, Sandy Weill, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.

“It was over something completely trivial,” the banker said. He definitely had our attention with this remark. Lots of people believe that Citigroup has suffered since Jamie Dimon was let go by his longtime mentor Sandy Weill. And a lot of people have theories about why this friendship soured. But we love hearing all of them. He took the head-off his pilsner while we waited for him to expand. This is an old interviewers trick—using silence to elicit elaboration. His counter-strategy of drinking more was testing the limits of his patience.

He took the bottom off his beer and looked to the bartender for another round. We broke. “Okay, okay. What was it? What was it that got him canned?” we asked.

The next round arrived. We placed a bill on the bar but kept our hand on it. The message in the motions: keep talking and this round is on DealBreaker.

“It was something involving his daughter. Sandy’s daughter,” he said. Our hand came off the bill. This round was definitely on us. What had happened between Dimon and little miss Weill that could get Dimon thrown out of Citigroup?

“Completely trivial. I think Weill wanted his daughter to get a job, some promotion. Dimon didn’t want to give it to her. Thought she was under-qualified,” he said. “The guy I work for was in the room one day when they had a fight over it. When the fight was over, apparently so was the relationship. It was very strange because Sandy and Jamie had this whole father-son thing going on. This was Sandy choosing blood over his more or less adopted child, Jamie. Like Hamlet in reverse. The step-father kills the kid. Or maybe King Lear, with Dimon as the daughter who won’t suck up to daddy Lear.”

We aren’t even going to call Dimon’s office to authenticate this. And certainly not Weill. They probably wouldn’t comment. And if they did comment, it would just be a denial. We’d actually heard this theory before but this was the first time we’d heard it from someone claiming to have anything this close to first hand knowledge of the dispute. It was second-hand knowledge but that's as close as anyone has ever got to this story.

The next round was on us also. Not as a reward for that story. It was, after all, an old and often told story. But as an enticement for the next one, the one about Dimon’s plans for acquisitions and his meeting with Bear Stearns executives. But that will have to wait for another post.

Comments

Posted by Anon, Apr 23, 2007 3:56PM

This story was published in Monica Langley's bio of Weil "Tearing Down the Walls"

Posted by sgk, Apr 23, 2007 4:05PM

and the most ironic scene of the story was when little miss weill left the firm anyway...

Posted by , Apr 23, 2007 4:10PM

anyone who reads the wsj knows about the jessica biblowicz/jamie dimon tiff and how it contributed to jamie's departure from citi. this is very very very very old news. probably still fun to discuss over pints but you got nothing new here. maybe a factiva subscription instead of those last few rounds would have been a better use of dealbreaker's $$$...

Posted by John Carney, Apr 23, 2007 5:01PM

Oh, come on. We admitted it wasn't new news. This theory, along with the Incident, is one of the oldest, most published and most popular. What made it most interesting was the language used to discuss it by someone who was pretty close to a primary source. King Lear? Reverse Hamlet?

Also, keep in mind that just because those of us who are well-read about the inner dealings of investment banks and Wall Street history know a story, doesn't mean that it won't be new to a lot of people. We fill the ranks of the banks with new analysts and associates every year, and some of the kids haven't heard this stuff yet.

Plus, this was just a teaser for the Jamie Dimon's Next Deals story we're going to run tomorrow.

Posted by Josh, Apr 23, 2007 5:06PM

John,

I like you guys, but take Anonymous's point to heart a little. It's not just that it's OLD news, but that you seem to have wet yourself because some idiot was half-aware of what happened. "Our hand came off the bill. This round was definitely on us."

That's the kind of response you should have if someone tells you about the beatdowns Chuck Prince is probably be getting from his Oil Masters, not for decade-old inside gossip.

Posted by Josh, Apr 23, 2007 5:07PM

John,

I like you guys, but take Anonymous's point to heart a little. It's not just that it's OLD news, but that you seem to have wet yourself because some idiot was half-aware of what happened. "Our hand came off the bill. This round was definitely on us."

That's the kind of response you should have if someone tells you about the beatdowns Chuck Prince is probably be getting from his Oil Masters, not for decade-old inside gossip.

If you did know the story, the reaction is strange, even if you're trying to share this with a new generation.

Posted by John Carney, Apr 23, 2007 5:11PM

We meant to imply we were hoping the story would be better, or involve some more original dirty. But doesn't this sentence make it clear why we found it interesting even if not new?

"We’d actually heard this theory before but this was the first time we’d heard it from someone claiming to have anything this close to first hand knowledge of the dispute."

No? If not, I'm sorry we didn't make it clearer.

Posted by , Apr 23, 2007 7:26PM

John,

Your overwrought style is painful. Your attempts at adding a sense of place and a hint of mystery are misleading and beyond your subject. You're not Graham Greene writing about diplomatic intrigue in post-Colonial Indochine. You're writing about drinking microbrews in the West Village with a gossipy I-Banker. Most people respect the banality of such a topic and act accordingly. So should you.

Posted by , Apr 23, 2007 7:52PM

Anon 7:26 and Josh,

It 's a Wall St. gossip blog. Let Carney write. You read.

If it is dumb, why does one spend so much time musing on the topic? Is it just that one has been waiting for some time now to find a way to get "diplomatic intrigue in port-colonial Indochine" into a finance blog somehow?

Go back to your binding machine and keep it to yourself.

Posted by , Apr 23, 2007 7:53PM

Anon 7:26 and Josh,

It 's a Wall St. gossip blog. Let Carney write. You read.

If it is dumb, why does one spend so much time musing on the topic? Is it just that one has been waiting for some time now to find a way to get "diplomatic intrigue in port-colonial Indochine" into a finance blog somehow?

Go back to your binding machine and keep it to yourself.

Posted by , Apr 23, 2007 8:10PM

anon 7:26 and Josh are right. these monologues make the eyes bleed.

Posted by Literate I-Banker, Apr 23, 2007 10:03PM

You people miss the brilliance of Carney's post.

It is intentionally misleading. The point is to build up your expectations and then let them down. This does two things. One, it puts you in the place that Carney was in on Friday night: listening to a story, waiting for the big reveal, and then discovering that this story was going down the old, familiar paths. So the reader is in Carney's role, and Carney takes the banker role. This is wonderful, atmospheric, and almost poetic.

And--although I'm not sure Carney meant it on this level--it also mirrors the relationship of Dimon and Weill. There's this big lead up that ends up going nowhere. Here the banker is in the Weill role, and Carney is in the Dimon role. Again, brilliance.

What's more, afterwards both Carney and the readers realize they should have known it was going to be misleading all along. The banker twice warns that his story is 'completely trivial' but we don't pay attention because we're caught up in the moment. In the drama of the situation--the meeting, the place, the characters, the action. It's a carefully crafted scene.

The complaint about Graham Greene is so far off-base it is almost laughable. Greene himself heard just this sort of nonsense when he was writing. If you don't find the subject matter compelling you lack a sense of the drama of Wall Street and an understanding of the role of finance in late America. What's more, your feeling that the subject matter must be compelling to justify the prose is flat-out wrong. Nabokov could make butterflies compelling. Carney makes drinking with investment bankers literature. If you don't see that, it's because you have a tin eyeball for literature.

This is an amazingly well-structured short story told in a couple hundred words. It isn't "overwrought" in any sense. It's amazingly taught, almost underwritten. Minimalist. If it made your eyes bleed you must have an ocular allergy to literature. I recommend you stay away from books.

Posted by Dave Chappelle, Apr 24, 2007 8:29AM

This whole comments thread makes Baby Jesus cry.

Posted by Really old news, Apr 24, 2007 9:59AM

Well, I would just echo what other folks have said: this is overwrought and ignorant not only of the facts, but also the semi-ironic (God I hope it's ironic) tone of How to Conduct Interviews 101 is exceptionally stupid. This whole thing reads as if Carney just discovered a) Sandy Weill and Jamie Dimon b) i-bankers c)interviews and d) human speech.

Basically: just because it's new to you does not mean it's news. You have a sophisticated audience here that has read the story of Jamie Dimon and Sandy Weill in Monica Langley's book and in a hundred Dimon profiles, including ones that actually quoted Dimon. The fact that you find the second cousin twice removed of a guy who once worked at Solly does not make this news. Keep your damn wits about you and realize that the audience here is not interested in your Fisher Price Learning Experience about Wall Street. God.

Posted by Really old news, Apr 24, 2007 10:04AM

And also, it's about 10 kinds of bullshit to say that this piece that goes nowhere echoes the relationship of Weill and Dimon which goes nowhere.

That relationship is still ongoing and is still fascinating, and rather than Lear/Hamlet has been compared much more aptly to Icarus. Just because some i-banker read Shakespeare in high school and comes up with a comparison that may or may not fit doesn't mean you have to act like it's the first time that anyone has ever come up with a metaphor about these battles. I can't wait until some I-banker compares Geoff Boisi to Joan of Arc and you lose your shit about it.

Posted by Second Year Analyst, Apr 24, 2007 10:17AM

I hope DB doesn't give in to the incredibly angry people writing on this thread. They seem to demand two things: (A) an obliteration of Carney's first-person, whiskey-soaked writing style and (B) an elimination of these context-setting, historically minded posts.

Look people. Not every reader of DealBreaker has read biographies of Weill. (I seriously question what percentage of readers have ever read one of these.) Some of you are obviously very smart and very well-informed. The rest of us are making money.

Nothing in the post reads as if Carney had newly discovered any of the things in the 9:59 post. They read as if he wanted to relate a tale of what a couple of people were talking about on a Friday night in NYC. One of them is a writer covering Wall Street. The other is an investment banker. I come here for exactly this kind of stuff.

So I agree with what BV said on an earlier thread. Keep up the whiskey, women, music and history. It's good stuff, good writing and good times.

Ignore these bitter folks who have obviously been passed over while being over-worked.

Posted by Really old news, Apr 24, 2007 10:35AM

Look, I appreciate that you don't want to kill his spirit -- okay, fine, there are some harsh words here -- but no one's doing him any favors by telling him this is good writing. That's not bitter. That's true.

Posted by Josh, Apr 24, 2007 10:35AM

John,

Oy. I'm sorry we're all coming down on you on this. It's just that any hint of dorkiness in the verbiage undermines the insider edge you project. I'd like this site to succeed, because every other media outlet covering finance is in bed with the industry (for access to news, to parties) and doesn't deliver the real goods.

Your mission is noble. Just try to avoid the star struck act.

Posted by Jim Tudor Bacon, Apr 25, 2007 3:14PM

"Plus, this was just a teaser for the Jamie Dimon's Next Deals story we're going to run tomorrow."

Carney, always the tease....where's the story you promised!!!

Post Your Comment