Banks tackle the growing issue of investment banking burnout — But is it actually working?

    More doing, less debating


    In the high-stakes world of finance, where metrics move and profits respond, it’s easy to forget that behind every ledger lies a legion of employees. 

    The financial sector isn’t exactly renowned for its leisurely pace. Historically, junior investment banking jobs have been synonymous with grueling hours, often eclipsing the 100-hour mark in a week, worn like badges of honor. This relentless grind, while lucrative, is a double-edged sword, leading to employee burnout, attrition, and the occasional existential crisis. 

    In May of last year, advocates loudly criticized the fact that a frazzled employee is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. The uproar stemmed from the tragic death of Bank of America associate Leo Lukenas, highlighting the need for urgent change. In response, legacy institutions began adopting measures like limiting weekly hours and assigning senior bankers to oversee the well-being of junior staff.

    While we frequently criticize rigid policies, it’s equally important to acknowledge baby steps some legacy banks are taking to improve employee well-being. Whether these measures are sufficient is another question.

    We dive into the steps banks have taken to improve work-life balance for employees following the infamous Bofa employee incident, assess whether these initiatives are effective, and where more can be done, all served with a bit of wit and a dash of insight.

    ​Bank of America implements measures to address junior banker burnout

    Bank of America had some measures in place to address employee mental health and prevent overwork when the Lukenas incident happened.

    Post-incident, the bank has implemented additional measures:


    subscription wall for TS Pro

    BNPL players turn up the heat: Affirm and Klarna compete for banks, growth, and market leadership

      Where does BNPL belong in the bigger financial picture?


      The buy now, pay later (BNPL) race has shifted into a new phase. BNPL providers, Affirm and Klarna, initially grew by integrating into e-commerce checkouts, and are now contending for partnerships with major banks. This is also a sign that financial institutions are warming up to the idea of installment-based lending. 

      Both firms are making big moves to solidify their positions, but their distinct approaches, business models, and competitive strategies bring them advantages, combined with challenges. With Klarna moving toward a public debut and Affirm strengthening its alliances, the two are in the game not just for consumers but also for the financial ecosystem players themselves.

      A new seeding ground: Big bank partnerships

      For years, traditional banks dismissed BNPL as an unsustainable lending model, prone to high default rates and regulatory scrutiny. That stance is shifting. With consumer adoption of BNPL surging, major banks are rethinking their position – they are not just tolerating BNPL now but actively making moves to integrate it into their ecosystems. 

      Affirm’s recent partnership with J.P. Morgan Payments last month is a clear signal that BNPL is no longer just another alternative lending model — it’s mature enough to become embedded within traditional banking. Through this deal, merchants using J.P. Morgan’s Commerce Platform can now offer Affirm’s BNPL loans at checkout, integrating short-term financing directly into the bank’s payment ecosystem. This collaboration puts Affirm in front of a massive merchant base of one of the world’s largest banking networks, solidifying its position as a key BNPL provider in North America.

      In February, J.P. Morgan also teamed up with Klarna to roll out a B2B BNPL offering, bringing installment payment options to its business customers. Through this partnership, companies using J.P. Morgan Chase’s payments commerce platform will be able to split payments over time, later this year, marking a significant step in BNPL’s expansion beyond consumer retail.

      How Affirm and Klarna compare — and where they differ


      subscription wall for TS Pro

      A quarter into 2025, where are Goldman and Apple steering their strategies next?

        Checking In: Where do Goldman Sachs and Apple stand in their individual endeavors?


        Today, I’d like to talk about two partners of a formidable alliance that set out to reshape partnerships in financial services. One brought technological prowess, the other financial muscle — but their grand collaboration didn’t unfold as expected. If you’ve connected the dots, yes, I’m talking about Apple and Goldman Sachs. 

        Today, though, Goldman is back doing what it does best, investment banking and trading, while pushing forward to deepen its AI-related experiments across the business. And Apple is recalibrating its tech and financial services strategy.

        We look at what’s been unfolding at both firms since the start of the year. But first, we check in on the current status of the Goldman-Apple partnership.

        The Goldman-Apple credit card business

        Apple’s high-profile partnership with Goldman Sachs, which began in 2019, soured quickly. 

        The collaboration at first seemed like a strategic masterstroke — Apple sought a gateway into the financial world, while Goldman was set on overhauling its business around new, modern consumer offerings. But like many business alliances, differing priorities and operational realities led to a quiet unraveling.

        The Apple Card, a sleek, consumer-friendly alternative to traditional credit cards, turned into a liability. While uptake of the card was quick, the business model never made sense for GS, which was saddled with all the responsibility for a weird lending portfolio that was rapidly deteriorating. And unlike the old adage, Goldman couldn’t make up for it on volume. Come 2024, Goldman, bleeding money from its consumer banking foray, was eager to offload the Apple Card portfolio. Regulatory scrutiny added further woes, as Apple and Goldman were fined millions for mishandling credit disputes. What once looked like a one-of-a-kind move forward in consumer finance started to resemble a costly miscalculation.

        Several financial firms are now competing to take over Goldman’s role in Apple’s credit card partnership. Reports surfaced that Apple was in talks with J.P. Morgan Chase and now Barclays and Synchrony to take over the program. While lenders see potential in working with Apple, many are wary of the original deal’s risks and profitability challenges.

        Although Goldman’s credit card agreement with Apple runs until 2030, CEO David Solomon indicated in this year’s January earnings call that the partnership could end sooner.

        Inside Goldman Sachs, a quarter into 2025

        Checking in on Goldman’s trajectory since the beginning of 2025:

        1. Goldman’s new Capital Solutions Group to grow its private credit business


        subscription wall for TS Pro

        With the CFPB muzzled, what’s stopping FIs and fintechs from playing dirty?

          The calm before the storm: the financial industry with and without the CFPB


          The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), established in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Act, has tried to be a sentinel for American consumers, shielding them from predatory financial practices. But ever since Trump set foot back into the Oval Office, the CFPB has barely had a moment to catch its breath.

          That’s exactly what we’re diving into today — how the CFPB’s shake-up is raising big questions about its future and rewriting the rules for banks, fintechs, and the industry at large.

          A timeline of the crackdown

          The CFPB’s inception was a direct response to the 2008 financial crisis, aiming to prevent a recurrence by enforcing stringent regulations on financial entities. Over the years, it secured $20 billion+ in financial relief for consumers, targeting unfair practices by banks, mortgage providers, and credit card companies. 

          What began as a strong year for the bureau quickly took a turn as the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda started reshaping its path. On February 1, 2025, President Trump dismissed CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. ​Following his dismissal, President Trump appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as the acting director on February 3, 2025. Subsequently, Russell Vought, former budget chief under President Trump, assumed the role of acting director at the CFPB on February 7 after his confirmation as head of the Office of Management and Budget. 

          From there, the new administration took decisive steps to curtail the CFPB’s operations.

          Russell Vought — the newly appointed acting director and a key architect of Project 2025, a blueprint advocating for the agency’s dissolution — issued directives to halt ongoing investigations and suspend the implementation of finalized rules. This move effectively paused the agency’s enforcement actions, leaving numerous cases in limbo.

          The CFPB withdrew several high-profile lawsuits, including those against major financial institutions like J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These cases, which addressed issues such as the handling of the payments platform Zelle, were dismissed without digging deeper, preventing future refiling.

          The administration’s actions align with a broader agenda to reduce government oversight and promote industry self-regulation. 

          Pop the champagne or call the lawyers? The industry’s split reaction

          Graphic credit: Tearsheet

          The financial industry’s relationship with the CFPB has been contentious. Some firms viewed the bureau as overreaching, often chafing under its str


          subscription wall for TS Pro