Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

Gary Stevenson's ex-Citi colleagues say his debate was "sad"

Gary Stevenson, the former Citi Short Term Interest Rate (STIRT) trader, is a sensation. His YouTube channel, Gary's Economics has 1.1m subscribers. His book 'The Trading Game' was a Sunday Times bestseller. People recognize him in the street.  

Get Morning Coffee  in your inbox. Sign up here.

As of last week, though, Gary's star has ascended even further following his appearance in a debate with entrepreneur Daniel Priestly on the even more popular Diary of a CEO YouTube channel. The debate has 2.8m views and counting. 

It's two and a half hours long. If you don't have 150 minutes to spare, the takeaway is that Gary reiterates how rich he is now, reiterates that he was the most profitable trader at Citi in 2011, aged 24, despite many ex-colleagues disputing this, and says that, "I'm a very very good economist my predictions will be right."

Gary's predictions are that the middle classes in the UK will become increasingly impoverished as wealth accumulates in the hands of a small group of rich multimillionaires like him, whose children will not need to work. He says "desperate poverty" is coming for everyone else, and that a tax on anyone with more than $10m in assets is necessary to redistribute wealth.

Some of Stevenson's former Citi colleagues would likely agree with his take. Akshay Singal, who now runs Citi's STIRT desk and is thought to be close to Stevenson, is in favour of a wealth tax. 

Others, however, remain wary of Stevenson's increasing fame.

"Gary didn't come across very well," says another ex-employee of the Citi STIRT desk who's watched the debate. "His arguments weren't very reasoned and there was a big egotistical element in there. I also thought he would have dropped the 'best trader in the world' stuff by now." 

Writing on social media, Kent Bray, another former colleague who features in Gary's book, said Gary's argument in the debate was "sad" because it implies that if you're young and don't have rich parents you'll find it impossible to accumulate wealth. "Gary is a very intelligent guy," says Bray, "....he raises issues that are real and need discussion. Change in the UK is absolutely necessary on all fronts - the NHS, the rise of crime, increased poverty, wealth disparity, how we educate our kids, the inability for young people to buy a house, entrepreneurs leaving the country etc." 

But Bray said Gary is his own worst enemy because of his "condescending, demeaning and patronising manner." Bray, who is now a counsellor, says Gary behaved similarly at Citi when he felt out of his depth: "Child ego state kicked in."

Posting his own reflections on the debate, Priestly said Gary's argument rested on the claim, “I’m always right betting on the economy,” and that he seemed to be arguing for radical equality beyond a wealth tax. "He implies all jobs should pay equally, suggesting a poet should earn the same income as someone working in finance. According to him, life choices aren't good or bad; it's simply unfair that income disparities exist." Gary was lost for a retort when Priestly pointed out that if it's impossible to build wealth without rich parents, then Gary himself wouldn't have accumulated his own millions. 

Criticism is unlikely to make much difference to Gary's 1m+ followers, who praise him for being "bang on" and like the "boy next door." 

Gary's ex-Citi colleagues remain wary of his fame, though. - And not just because Stevenson implies that they should be taxed more heavily. 

Several of them point to an episode in Gary's book where he describes paying for his postman father's Sky Sports subscription with his first bonus and then cancelling it again when he left home. "People on the desk said that he should pay for the subscription for his dad," says one. "But he was of the attitude that his parents had never done anything for him..." 

"Gary definitely wasn’t a naturally selfless person!," the ex-colleague adds. "The idea that he wanted to do good in the world, never shone out in his trading days." 

Have a confidential story, tip, or comment you’d like to share? Contact: +44 7537 182250 (SMS, Whatsapp or voicemail). Telegram: @SarahButcher. Click here to fill in our anonymous form, or email editortips@efinancialcareers.com. Signal also available.

Bear with us if you leave a comment at the bottom of this article: all our comments are moderated by human beings. Sometimes these humans might be asleep, or away from their desks, so it may take a while for your comment to appear. Eventually it will – unless it’s offensive or libellous (in which case it won’t.)

author-card-avatar
AUTHORSarah Butcher Global Editor
  • ML
    MLR
    21 July 2025
    I agree with Gary that the whole of the world is being held to ransom by the richest (greediest) of the rich taking a bigger slice of the pie. The Traders have to take responsibility for taking too much of a share from the top, therefore by the time it filters through to savers there isn't enough to go round to give them a decent interest rate. Same with CEO's taking the biggest cut of the profits and not leaving enough for those at the lower end of the chain. Greed has been allowed to manifest at the top and until that stops (Like Gary, they never once have a conscience about taking too much) the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
  • Ju
    Jul80
    19 May 2025
    Where I would differ with Gary is not that everything is about to get much worse, but that it just won't get much better. I think when the pain on the middle class becomes too much in this country (i.e. an actual recession) we'll see those silly fiscal rules go out of the window. Who says we can't borrow more as a nation?? Oh right, the system.. Capital looking after Capital and workers of all stripes slavishly following along (or getting their cut...). Remember the mini-budget? Wasn't that the result of a few pair of super-rich hands at the very top of the sytem? That's the whole point of liberal capitalism though isn't it? Less cynically speaking, to set the game and give the most people a shot at it, so they can compete within a cooperative framework (until those with the most capital bend the rules and the pendulum swings back, something smoothly, sometimes violently). All societies on earth build a framework for money to exchange hands... and as long as you can save money you can accumulate capital. And in defence of Britain, it is far more socialist already than the US. Look at income tax! Perhaps a wealth tax can help, but I doubt they would lower the income tax on the back of it... Anyway this country's elite values social peace. They're probably react a day late but I doubt we're about to see any major instability from within. They've got the game rigged up to nicely for that :)
  • Kr
    Kristian
    4 May 2025
    Also the whole premise of this article is bonkers. Not only is the title deeply manipulative as the earlier commentator, ssssss, has already argued. But all this stuff about how Gary might be too egocentric about his own past as a trader - assuming, devil's advocate, that it's true: someone comes running in to tell you that "The Titanic has struck an iceberg, hurry to the lifeboats" and the writer of this article argues "well the guy who said that thinks he's the best cook onboard, but he's really only mediocre, and therefore we shouldn't head for the lifeboats". I am actually aghast that this whole text has even been published. I don't know much about this webpage, but clearly it has no standards.
  • Kr
    Kristian
    4 May 2025
    I watched the whole debate and the only thing I noticed was that the other guy - Daniel Priestly I think his name was - never actually replied to any of Gary's questions, but always deflected questions by starting some story about his own personal career, that always went on and on, and never led anywhere or produced any answer to the broader point. Like "who has the money" or "where does the money go" would be countered with anecdotal irrelevancies like "so in my company, when I go to investors, I say". Interesting how some of you think Gary isn't persuasive because of how he sits on a chair, all I noticed was that his opponent put up about as coherent and consistent a resistance as Bashar al Assad's forces did in December 2024.
  • Pr
    PriceTag
    23 April 2025
    He can't even sit on a chair properly. It's all an act.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.