CWCapital LLC Reviews

Cons

No cons in my experience! I'm sure things vary by team, but I personally only have positive things to say.

Cons

Compensation is below market. Terrible HR

Cons

-Culture is going to vary depending on the team, but overall it's frat-like -Management will fight amongst each other and will get more junior-level employees involved which make things very awkward -Management tends to talk negatively about colleagues/coworkers/team -Scapegoating is very common with the senior management team, they will often times blame the associates/analysts for their mistakes -Management will often times make "low" comments about matters in your personal life -No sense of respect between members of management -Frequent switch-ups in responsibilities, team strategy, and project strategy (no clear vision/structure) -Lots of gossiping and rumor-passing at the office

Cons

Despite crowing about a record year for profits, bonuses were cut across the board. Senior management has no vision, communication skills, or respect for your abilities. Corporate leadership jumps from strategy to strategy without any consistency or attention to core businesses. Top heavy structure means new entry level is Managing Director or above. More MDs than analysts. More SVPs and MDs than associates. No ability for internal candidates to advance. Daily compromises of your professional ethics: if there's an ethical choice to make, senior management will make you choose the questionable one. No respect for the bondholders, "Fiduciary responsibility" is an outdated concept. If there's a chance for a related entity to earn a fee, your business strategy will be altered to accommodate. Lack of vision, interference from corporate owner Fortress Investment Group, and high number of MDs mean that directions are contradictory or impossible to fulfill as everyone looks out for their friends. Clear favoritism toward those who have been at the company longest or have developed friends at Fortress.

Cons

1) Poor work flow management . Department functions were changed and revamped several times. Action taken by management was ill-conceived as unintended consequences lead to more changes to departments. 2) Expectations, time and resources were unbalanced. 3) Upward mobility is non-existent for most. There is a flat hierarchal structure. 4) Mentorship was reserved for a select few 5) Consistent unequal work load distribution

Cons

1) Was a good place to work prior to the change in ownership, which seemed to trigger the ineptitude of senior mgmt, yielding a myriad of unexpected and dissatisfying changes. Prior to the change in ownership, although the workload was still heavy, there was some sort of promotional structure in place and there were enough people to do the work. 2) Constant changes and fluctuations in organization structure lead to employee dissatisfaction and unease. It is concerning when the president also makes remarks that shows he doesn't know what direction the company is headed in. 3) Unimpressive management who appear to do no work, have poor communication skills and make no decisions that are in the best interest of their employees. 4) Very top heavy management with majority of promotions only at the analyst and associate level, leading to meaningless titles. Flat structure currently in place where a Managing Director does the same work as an analyst. 5) Owned by stressful private equity firm and management is clearly a puppet of the ownership. 6) Compensation this year did not reflect what senior management was indicating it would despite all of the hard work and fees brought in. No incentive to work or get modifications done. 7) Last minute fire drill underwriting projects. 8) Watching senior management eat lunch in front of you at monthly asset review meetings, while you are not allowed to eat at all (they will send a mean email if you do). 9) Decisions made were not always in the best interest of the bondholders. Fiduciary responsibility does not have a simple meaning anymore. 10) Muddying well publicized Special Servicer duties and responsibilities by purchasing brokerage and management companies. 11) Spent way too much time focused on "being in compliance" rather than working the loans, in order to avoid nasty gram emails and chastise. Many threats to compensation (meaningless) if various compliance measures were not met.

Cons

The ownership and business plan. The company is owned by a large hedge fund/PE firm, Fortress IG, and their goals for CW frequently change; there is little communication as to the desired direction of this change and Fortress seems to care little about the employees of the firm. There are several lingering elephants in the room at the company, such as 1) the imminent sale of several large assets that comprise the majority of the company's revenue, 2) the company's outward apathy (or Fortress's unwillingness) to try to generate new special servicing business, 3) the company's shrinking staff (and empty cubicles) brought on by the bullish real estate market, and 4) the company's ever-changing business plan (from bond shop and originator to special servicer to who knows what next), that has many employees worried as to how long the ride will continue (especially with Fortress at the helm looking to squeeze out every last penny). Fortress's stripping of the company has left few self-sustainable business lines at CW and nobody is sure what the future of these businesses will be or even where the company will be at 6 months in advance.

Cons

Top management was very disrespectful, low salary, limited feedback, dissatisfaction among analysts, no long term potential, hours sometimes long, limited recognition

Cons

I couldn't think of anything that I can say negatively about the company. I was asked to remove my car from the parking lot once for utility work. The company could have warned the employees before repairing commenced.

Cons

Pay is low. Little room for advancement. Moral is low. Heavy workload with little support. Office politics get old fast.