Wall Street’s “huge and persistent” gender gap continues to befuddle the best laid plans for achieve something at least approximating gender equality in finance. We’re supposedly far beyond the days of rank harassment and sexism, yet women continue to underperform—earning less, leaving more and less frequently rising to the top of their banks and brokerages—when compared to men. This continues despite of some truly incredible efforts on the parts of Wall Street institutions to recruit, retain and promote women.

“The most annoying thing about all of this is that it strikes against the idea of a meritocracy. We’re always taught that if you work hard and have a good education, you can transcend everything. Why is progress at a standstill?” Heidi Moore of the Wall Street Journal asked recently.

After the jump, we explore the age old question: What do women want?

In the Anglo-Western world, financial institutions left and right are patting themselves on the back for adding more of that “other” gender to their echelons of upper-management.

According the Financial News Online, “The number of female directors on the boards of the 20 banks surveyed has increased by 75%, from 20 to 35, and the overall percentage of female directors has risen from 7.7% to 12.3%. More than half of the respondents increased the number of female directors in the past five years.”

And according to a diversity survey conducted by Financial News, it’s important for banks to hire more women and for these banks to encourage support groups to “mentor” women. Because clearly, the fairer sex needs more mentoring…?

Women Gain Larger Presence on Banks’ Boards [Dealbook]

Banks bring in more women as directors [Financial News]

Do Women Belong In The Kitchen? [Askmen.com]

Actually, not off to a bad start. She’s in two mutual funds.

And, sorry, Jim Cramer. She’s never heard of you.

TheStreet.com Video [TheStreet.com]

Hat tip to Crossing Wall Street.]

Do you agree with Forbes’ list of the 100 most powerful women? Merkel is #1, fine, but Oprah below the CEO of Rite Aid (the logic here is that America’s housewives need their prescription refills to tolerate the massive emotional swings required of an Oprah viewing without lighting themselves on fire)? Ruth Bader Ginsburg below the CEO of Sara Lee (deliciousness is never un-constitutional). Hillary Clinton below ‘I am important in my own special and deserved way’ Melinda Gates? Queen Elizabeth II at #23 (ok, we don’t know if we’d put her higher or lower, but we love the fact that her occupation is “Queen”). The ghost of Nina Wang conspicuously absent from the list? No Melanie Griffith’s character from “Working Girl”? No Rosie the Riveter?

Forbes’ List of Most Powerful Penis-Lackers Contains Some Unexpected Surprises [Defamer]
The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women [Forbes]

We were getting a pedicure yesterday and were thus in closer proximity to a stack of horrible women’s magazines than we usually like to be. Since they’re all the same mindless trash, we randomly selected the Marie Claire with a hungry-looking Ashley Olsen cover girl off the top and set to work educating ourselves about “women who choose starter husbands,” whether or not “Botox ages you” and “Grandpa crushes.” (This is an actual quote: “Donald Sutherland is hot. And not in the ‘he’s a great actor’ way. In the ‘we’d like to strip the 72-year-old down to his sock garters and get crazy with him’ way. In fact, a poll taken at a recent mojito night revealed that every woman in our office has a grandpa crush, even the ones without major daddy issues.” Like a trip to Idiot Island, isn’t it?). Anyway, just as the pederist started massaging our legs, we came across “A Field Guide to Wall Street Women,” by Dana Vachon. Obviously, we had to continue.

Seems there are four types on women on the Street: the Social Commando, the Ivy Beleaguered, the Nuptualista, and the Big Swinging Chick.

The Social Commando, according to Monsieur Vachon, hails from Los Angeles, Houston or San Francisco, works in sales, wears DVF wrap dresses, counts the $50 mojito pitcher as her signature cocktail, and has a life expectancy on Wall Street of 2-3 years. Commando goes commando so as to mix things up around the office, disarms with “charm” (read: breasts), and sleeps with as many co-workers as time will allow. Vachon says that Commando has a Brazilian ex-boyfriend named Nacho, though all of the Commandos we’re familiar with have always had a penchant for a more Aryan breed of man. Agree to disagree. Commando doesn’t stress about getting reports in on time, because that’s not what she’s there for, she’s there to have fun, which might explain why she’s been to rehab three times. Commando is everything Penelope Trunk has always wanted you to be, except she doesn’t dress halfway between a man and a harlot, she just dresses like a harlot.

Let’s say you’re a lady, working in the business world. You want to get ahead but doing so by conventional means like working hard is such hard work and we live in a patriarchal society that will always value the penis over performance. Just what’s a girl to do? The Wall Street Journal suggests putting on a pair of stilettos, because “high heels indicate power,” so much so that you might even morph into a man.

But it’s not just the added height that’ll get you to the top of our next bonus bumper. It’s that high heels offer an “inherent contradiction” (am I tall or am I short, I do not know). According to the Journal, ‘lettos “make us more fragile, but conquering them to stride alongside men in their sensible flats creates mystique.” This is not a joke—men will marvel—yes marvel— at the fact that you can walk just as fast as them—if not faster— in those things. Some—the ones who believe that hobbits are real—will scratch their heads and say, “She must have magic feet.” Ca-ching.

Kristen Bentz, who worked at Lehman Brothers for several years, recalls a senior executive stepping into an elevator, staring at her chocolate-brown crocodile four-inch pointy-toe pumps and asking, “Where do the toes go?” He was confused, scared and turned on. Ca-ching. (What he—Dick Fuld, one presumes—didn’t know, was that Ms. Bentz does not in fact have toes).

Details are emerging about the May resignation of WellPoint CFO David Colby. Colby was forced to resign after his 10 year stint by WellPoint Chairman, President, Secretary of the Exchequer, CEO, and Grand Poobah Larry Glasscock for violating the company’s code of conduct.

The Colbinator was a pretty big deal in the managed care sector, named the best managed care CFO in America in 2006 for the third year in a row by an Institutional Investor survey of portfolio managers and equity research analysts. He was pulling down $740k a year and just had another $1.6mm of options lumped on his equity plan (and he got quite a nice sum from the $200mm executive bonus pool up for grabs after the WellPoint/Anthem deal).

WellPoint won’t comment on Colby’s specific conduct violations, but let’s just say Colby’s lifestyle was a bit “alternative.” The life of David Colby included jetting around, housing, and proposing to a number of women during his tenure as CFO. If you ever wondered how it’s possible to cheat on a mistress, look no further than David Colby.

Up until last week, Colby was engaged to two women, and not yet divorced from his second wife. Aside from the two fiances and second wife, Colby was housing another women, Rita DiCarlo, in his 7,500 sq. ft. Lake Sherwood house. Rita had been shacking up in the ColbyDome for almost 2 years while driving around Colby’s 1998 Jag with C(heart)LBY vanity plates (that’s not a joke). She’s now suing Colby for the house.

Colby wasn’t shy when it came to sweeping 20-something WellPoint employees off their feet, from the Los Angeles Times:

Sarah Waugh said she met Colby in 1998 when she was a 22-year-old temporary worker at WellPoint’s offices in Thousand Oaks, where she later landed a permanent job. Their romantic liaison began at a company party at the Westin Bonaventure in downtown Los Angeles in early 2001, she said, where she felt “like quite a big deal” because Colby danced with her.

Wife #1 divorced Colby after finding out about 2 extramarital affairs. Wife #2 won’t comment as to why she wants to take herself private.

Although WellPoint doesn’t hate the player, it hates the game, which included jetting the women around on business trips (although WellPoint comments that company money was not used for Colby’s business travel companions).

Wayne DeVeydt took over for Colby as CFO and Angela Braly took over as CEO for Glasscock in some unrelated managerial shuffling on June 1. Glasscock retains the rest of his WellPoint positions.

Women claim lives with WellPoint exec [Los Angeles Times]
WellPoint CFO David Colby Ousted On Conduct Violation; Wayne DeVeydt Named New CFO [ RTT News]

There’s a reason suffrage should’ve never passed and this is it: ever since women were given the right to vote, they think this victory accords them the voice to demand everything afforded to men, even if it’s not something to be desired. You don’t see men out there picketing for multiple orgasms and there’s a reason for that— they don’t want them. Who’s got the time?

Today’s WSJ article, “Dress Code of Silence” serves this point magnificently. It discusses the tearjerker of a fact that women have the raw end of the deal in terms of modes of dress in the workplace, namely in the financial sector. While “their male counterparts may sport ‘business casual’ khakis, many women on Wall Street feel they must toe a careful and conservative line.” One woman, a banker for Citigroup, even showed up to a purportedly “casual” event and got the wag of the finger for her attire, while her male colleagues got pats on the back and rounds of scotch for dressing themselves (one assumes) in “chinos and Izods.” Why don’t we fight to wear rainbow flip flops or flipped-collar Polos while we’re at it? Topsiders. Ribbon belts.

Que? This is the battle? To get to wear khakis? The sartorial embodiment of a terrible breed of human being? That’s just wrong. Women apparently “feel obliged to dress up in order to command authority,” which is concerning for several reasons, chiefly because it’s difficult to remember the last time we interfaced with someone (man or woman) wearing khakis and said to ourselves, “check out the pantaloons on that guy (or girl)—now that’s someone to reckon with.”

We asked and you answered. Commenters were evenly divided between finding Bright Young Thing Emily Oster Cute and Not Cute nor Hot. But with additional ballots for “could get hot,” “IB Analyst hot” and “country club hot” we’re almost ready to declare Emily Oster officially “Fetching.”

But why not take this to a broader vote? So below please vote on Emily Oster’s Hotness Metrics.

We’re pretty sure that Emily Oster is more than just a set of nice eyes and a pretty smile. But we can’t get over how every time we hear about her someone mentions that she’s a hottie. Yesterday’s New York Times story follows the typical pattern: mention her youth, her marital status (she married the boyfriend who helped her come up with her PhD thesis), and talk about how popular she is. It’s probably no good to directly mention her looks, so better to simply run the photo.

But we’re not the New York Times, and so we’ll ask the question directly: is Emily Oster genuinely hot or just, you know, economist hot?

The Future of Economics Isn’t So Dismal [New York Times]

We were looking forward to reading Selling Women Short Gender and Money on Wall Street, the new book by Louise Marie Roth about why women continue to underperform men on Wall Street. A good book on Wall Street sexism should have enough outlandish stories—women eating pickles soaked in moisturizer on the trading floor—to get you through any dinner party. These are great because you can tell a funny story while deploring the underlying facts. For once, you get to be liberal and funny at the same time.

Unfortunately, it seems that Roth’s book is boring, full of numbers and explanations but without the raunch.

The book started as Roth’s dissertation and at times gets bogged down in the background that she must have felt was necessary for academic readers. It is excessive to spend 13 pages explaining what bankers, traders and analysts do. Her sample size is also small and a few tales of wild Wall Street excess would have leavened the book’s earnest tone. But overall, Selling Women Short is a thoughtful examination of how ostensibly merit-based systems can result in unequal outcomes.

Selling Women Short [Financial Times]

On Suday, the Business Section of the New York Times ran an article complaining about the “dearth of female bosses“—only about 16 percent of corporate officers at Fortune 500 companies are women.

Included in the long list of lamentations is the fact that even the few women who do make it into the top ranks of corporate America are sometimes mistaken for secretaries. Here’s the story of Autodesk’s chief executive:

Despite her hard-won reputation as an astute businesswoman, Ms. Bartz found herself repeatedly skipped over during a recent meeting of business and political leaders in Washington. The reason was that the men at the table assumed that she was an office assistant, not a fellow executive. “Happens all of the time,” Ms. Bartz says dryly, recalling the incident. “Sometimes I stand up. Sometimes I just ignore it.”

Horrors! Or maybe not. Ever the contrarian, Steve Sailer reads this in exactly the opposite way the Times does:

Of course, the NYT interprets this as proof of male bigotry. But another interpretation would be that Ms. Bartz, and possibly many another female executive who otherwise has the requisite smarts and work ethic to make it to the top, lacks what the Marines call “command presence.”

Some men and a few women have the kind of personal bearing that advertises to others that you are in charge and that they should follow your lead.

So why aren’t there more women at the top levels of corporate America? A perfect question for a reader poll.

Goldman Sachs announced the loss of a second member of its 23-member management committee in as many weeks. Suzanne Nora Johnson, the highest-ranking woman at the firm, will leave in January.

Since Nora Johnson came up through Goldman’s investment banking division, her news of her departure following so closely on the resignation of Scott Kapnick, who was one of three co-heads of investment banking at Goldman, adds to the impression that the firm is still hemorrhaging senior investment bankers disgruntled with the current leadership.

Bloomberg’s story alludes to the alleged power struggle without referring to it directly.

Goldman, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, named Lloyd Blankfein as chairman and chief executive officer in June after Henry Paulson left to become U.S. Treasury Secretary. Blankfein, a former trading chief, named Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried, two former trading executives, as his top deputies and reorganized management in Europe and Asia.

Goldman’s Suzanne Nora Johnson Resigns After 21 Years [Bloomberg]

Compensation on Wall Street is rarely based solely on how much money one individual brings in. Wall Street types work in teams; being on a profitable team will earn you a big bonus. Unfortunately, teams in her survey rarely shared, say, compatible areas of expertise. Instead, they tended to form around shared social characteristics—like all being guys from the south who played sports and enjoyed strip clubs in their spare time. Women reported being systematically pushed toward more “female-friendly” teams and areas of their firms. These areas, like equity research and public finance, tended to feature lower compensation. Perhaps that’s because they didn’t generate as much fee revenue from clients, perhaps it’s because they were dominated by women, or perhaps it is because these areas lack social capital, ties to the firm higher-ups. Regardless, such assignments lowered women’s compensation.

Firms also systematically assigned women to work with women-owned business clients. This makes perfect sense (minority Wall Street workers also reported being assigned to minority-owned business clients; higher-ups assumed this would make the clients feel more comfortable). However, since women-owned and minority-owned businesses tend to be less capitalized than other businesses, these clients were less lucrative, which led to lower bonuses. In addition, [Author of What Are Women Worth Louise Marie] Roth reports, much of the average Wall Street bonus is determined by “360 degree” feedback from co-workers. Roth found that, systematically, people gave higher performance reviews to people who looked like them. Since men continued to dominate Wall Street through the 1990’s, men received better reviews.

What Are Women Worth [The American]

We’ve been to enough board meetings that look like those Miller Lite “Man Law” commercials to know that having more women on corporate boards is probably a good idea. But we’re a bit skeptical about this recent study sponsored by TIAA-CREF which claims to demonstrate that having three or more women on the board “enhances corporate governance.”

But before we get all grumpy about this, here’s a summary from the Conglomerate blog of what the study shows.

The study was based on interviews with 12 CEOs, 50 women directors, and seven corporate secretaries of Fortune 1000 companies. The study found that women impact board governance in at least three ways, (1) by bringing different perspectives into boardroom discussions, including the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, (2) raising difficult issues—that is the study found that difficult problems are less likely to be ignored when women are in the board room, and (3) by altering the dynamics in the board room to create more open and collaborative discussions, thereby allowing management to hear board concerns without feeling defensive.

Well, we suppose it’s nice that the women bring “different perspectives,” raise “difficult problems” and create “more open and collaborative discussions.” But what’s all this got to do with enhancing corporate governance? We’ve only read the executive summary, so maybe there’s harder data in the study than we’ve come across, but we can’t help but suspect that these things are themselves considered “enhanced corporate governance.” Because the way that phrase is used is often as a cover for promoting various political or social agendas rather than as finding better ways to deliver value to shareholders.

Critical Mass on Corporate Boards [pdf]

Ah yes. Always the problem. Wall Street executives trying to figure out to “retain” the “top-flight” women “they spend bundles to attract.”

Wall Street is cutting edge when it comes to innovating and monetizing new ideas related to finance. Not so when it comes to women. The rough-and-tumble world of high finance remains among the handful of industries that have not figured out how to retain the top-flight talent they spend bundles to attract.

According to data provided by nine leading Wall Street banks to The New York Times this year, women, on average, made up 33 percent of analysts, a job filled mostly by those just out of college. Women represent 25 percent of associates (those with M.B.A.’s) and 14 percent of managing directors.

The reasons are, of course, complicated. Wall Street is among those industries not conducive to a balance between work and life, a critical factor for many women in their 30s and 40s. (Men complain, too, but more women say they leave as a result of it.) Midlevel talent gets lost in a sea of mediocre management. Younger women cite different priorities — changing the world rather than servicing it at its top levels.

And, of course, no discussion of women on Wall Street is complete without the mandatory mention of the expensing strippers issue.

Wall Street is starting to respond to these changes, but at the glacial pace one might expect of an industry that has to explain to its employees in explicit terms that outings to strip clubs cannot be expensed.

This Time the Wheeling and Dealing Wasn’t in the Men’s Room [New York Times]

First we find out that we’re not supposed to marry a career woman. Now it turns out its a mistake to have one as a mother also.

Lucia Skwarek, a portfolio manager and mother in New York City, gets on a plane bound for business in Moscow or Milan, there are not only meetings, but play dates to schedule. When she is done wooing investors for her hedge fund and parsing a pile of e-mail messages, though, Ms. Skwarek looks forward to a little “me” time.

“I can go home and deal with two screaming 6-year-old twins and a grumpy preteen,” she said. “Or I can go to the Four Seasons in Mexico City and drink Cognac in the bathtub.”

We’re a bit confused. On the one hand, this lede seems a bit like a hit-job, meant to make Skwarek seem like some maladjusted, self-involved uber-bitch—and by extension case a pall on all professional women with children. On the other hand, maybe Skwarek is a maladusted, self-involved uber-bitch. And on the other,other hand, cognac in the bathtub is pretty effin hot.

By the way, we think Skwarek works at JP Morgan but we haven’t been able to confirm that yet. Update: Seems she’s at Greylock Capital now. The news about her at JP Morgan was very old. She used to be a top trader on JP Morgan’s Latin American equities desk but now is a portfolio manager at Greylock.

Working Mothers Find Some Peace on the Road {New York Times]