To mark the first anniversary of the Luxembourg branch of '100 Women in Finance', its global CEO visited the Grand Duchy on 11 June
100 Women in Finance, an international non-profit organisation supporting, training and empowering women in the finance and alternative investment fund sectors, has highlighted its ongoing mission as it celebrated the anniversary of its Luxembourg branch earlier this week.
Speaking to Virgule, its global CEO, Rehana Farrell, discussed the persistent barriers in finance, the importance of networks and media visibility, and how companies continue to champion diversity despite growing backlash from the United States.
100 Women in Finance is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Yet the Luxembourg branch has only been in existence for a year. Why?
Because our organisation operates as a grassroots movement driven by volunteers, we are present in 33 cities around the world with over 10,000 members. However, each local chapter depends on the people who choose to bring this community to life.
In Luxembourg, it all started with Martina Ben-Shaul, who previously worked in London at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and was already very familiar with 100 Women in Finance. When she moved to Luxembourg, she wanted to recreate that momentum here. She built a very strong committee with women from various financial institutions, which enabled the project to get off the ground so quickly. Luxembourg is, of course, a strategic location for us given the importance of its financial sector. We continue to grow: Spuerkeess will, in fact, become our new official corporate partner in Luxembourg during my visit.
We still see a pay gap, and then a promotion gap. Women also have less access to mentoring and networks
Rehana Farrell
Over the past 25 years, has the situation for women in the finance sector really improved?
Yes, there has been undeniable progress in terms of representation. Today, in certain university courses or certain analyst classes in banking or asset management, we sometimes achieve a 50-50 split between men and women. The real problem is no longer just getting women into the sector. It is about keeping them there and helping them progress. There is still a pay gap, followed by a promotion gap. Women also have less access to mentoring and networks, even though finance is an extremely relationship-driven sector.
At some point, many simply make a rational economic decision: 'I'm paid less, promoted less, supported less… why stay?'
You are strongly critical of the idea that women lack ambition.
Yes, because I find that analysis deeply unfair. McKinsey recently spoke of an 'ambition gap', but I don't think women lack ambition. The problem is mainly that the rules of the game weren't designed with them in mind. Women are often asked to keep believing that good work will speak for itself. But that's not how the professional world works.
In finance, you have to be visible, know how to champion your work, build your network, and negotiate your pay. Many men are socialised into this kind of behaviour from a very early age. Women, far less so.
You use a rather striking expression: the 'tiara syndrome'. What is that?
It's the idea that many women grow up believing that if they work hard and keep a low profile, they will naturally be rewarded. The school system often encourages this behaviour: being serious, diligent, disciplined. We're taught to "do a good job", but not necessarily to put ourselves forward.
Yet in the world of work, particularly in finance, no one is going to notice you spontaneously. You have to put your hand up, ask for opportunities, negotiate, and be willing to be visible. And that applies to conferences and the media too. Many women are still hesitant to speak in public because they feel they have to be perfectly qualified before agreeing to an interview or a panel discussion.
Do you also observe this phenomenon at financial conferences?
Absolutely. I attend a lot of major international conferences and I still see panel after panel consisting exclusively of men. When we challenge the organisers, they often reply: 'We couldn't find any women.' Frankly, that's no longer a credible excuse.
We have a global database of 10,000 members. If someone is looking for a crypto expert in the Cayman Islands, a private equity expert in London or a private debt expert in Luxembourg, we can identify them. The problem isn't a lack of female expertise. The problem is that organisers sometimes need to look a little further than their usual network.
We want to help women feel more confident in these high-profile spaces
Rehana Farrell
Yet you also say that some women are more likely to turn down these opportunities for visibility.
Yes, and this ties in with what I call the 'double bind'. When a man speaks in the media or at a conference, he is generally seen as representing and promoting his company. When a woman does exactly the same thing, she may be perceived as someone who is 'putting herself forward' personally. The same behaviours are not judged in the same way.
That is why we are now developing a lot of training programmes on public speaking, media training and panel moderation. We want to help women feel more confident in these high-profile settings.
Yet Luxembourg has one of the smallest gender pay gaps in Europe. Doesn't that mean the situation is already quite good?
Luxembourg does indeed perform well on certain overall indicators. But when we look more closely at specific segments of the finance sector, the imbalances remain very significant. This is particularly true in the fields of private equity, private debt and alternative investment, which are highly demanding sectors that remain very male dominated.
There is also a key issue surrounding parental leave and work-life balance. As long as women take far more parental leave than men, they very quickly become the 'baby expert' in the couple. And this creates dynamics that are subsequently difficult to redress. But I do see a positive trend: more and more companies are offering more equitable parental leave, and younger generations of men are increasingly taking it.
With the backlash against diversity policies in the US, are some companies taking a step back on these issues?
What I'm seeing is more nuanced than that. Yes, the term DEI (Diversity, Equality, Inclusion) has become highly politicised in the US. Some companies have renamed their programmes or changed their messaging. But in reality, major financial institutions continue to invest in these areas. Because they now see it not simply as a moral or societal issue: it is a matter of economic performance.
More diverse teams produce better decisions, better talent retention and often better results. I recently heard an expression that I find very apt: 'quiet resolve', a form of silent determination. Personally, I would obviously like this commitment to be more visible and more publicly asserted, but what I'm seeing today is that many companies are continuing to take action, albeit more discreetly. And ultimately, this may be a sign that these issues are becoming a structural part of how business is conducted, rather than just a separate HR programme.
(This article has first been published by Virgule. AI translated, with editing and adaptation by Lucrezia Reale.)
