The Anti-Status Watch: Why Men in Finance Love Cheap, Cheesy Watches
Kanebridge News
Share Button

The Anti-Status Watch: Why Men in Finance Love Cheap, Cheesy Watches

The ultimate trading-floor flex? A Snoopy Swatch. Or a Casio calculator. Why lots of money men (still) favour novelty watches.

By CARSON GRIFFITH
Fri, Oct 11, 2024 11:50amGrey Clock 3 min

How do you tell the time? Neal W. McDonough, the COO of a finance and policy startup in Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J., looks to Charlie Brown, the loveable, miserable “Peanuts” protagonist. An illustration of the character occupies the exec’s watch dial, Brown’s stout arms acting as the minute and hour hands.

McDonough, 55, bought the kooky Timex for a Valentine’s Day trip about five years ago, along with a matching model depicting Lucy van Pelt (Brown’s frenemy) for his then-girlfriend. To his surprise, he kept wearing the $150-ish ticker after the trip. “It’s now my business watch,” he said, adding that such a non luxury model can telegraph that he’s under no obligation to be flashy. “I have nothing to prove to anyone,” he said. “And the fun thing is, a lot of people notice [my watch].”

Though finance guys famously flaunt Rolexes or Patek Philippes on their wrists, an established subspecies of money men goes the other way entirely. In place of a sleek steel case and elegant ceramic dial? Mickey Mouse. SpongeBob SquarePants. Fanta-orange rubber straps.

Over the years, highfliers have made headlines for sporting Swatches. (See: Blackstone Group CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman or former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein .) That “wealthy guy, cheap watch” ethos continues to resonate in boardrooms and on trading floors, with men of all seniority levels embracing plasticky, offbeat designs, from superhero models to calculator Casios. Many resemble something you might win in a claw machine. Priced from $30 to a few hundred bucks, they’re a bit of fun and a different sort of flex, conveying an “I don’t need a Rolex” bravado that comes from having made it. Call them anti-status watches.

Patrick Lyons, the managing partner of a family office in New York, rotates two contrasting watches: a 1988 Santos de Cartier and a Nickelodeon “SpongeBob SquarePants” model with a tangerine strap.

The Cartier, a family heirloom, is a slice of French sophistication; the Nickelodeon dial features a giant image of a pink starfish named Patrick Star who lives under a rock. Lyons, 35, likes that the second watch is idiosyncratic—and that its starfish shares his name. “I wear that more often than my Cartier,” he said, adding that he hopes to pass down both models to future offspring.

Leroy Dikito, 42, an executive director at JPMorgan Chase in New York, chose his $450 “Avengers” watch from Citizen because it reminds him of his father, who loved comic books. Though its stainless-steel strap reads urbane enough, its cheerfully garish dial slices together images of the Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America and other superheroes. Working in finance, you need to be “serious all the time,” so a fun watch brings welcome levity, said Dikito. “People need to know there is more than the big job and the title.”

Since a suit can only inject so much color, a watch offers that rare opportunity to “show off your personality,” said Eli Tenenbaum, 36, the director of corporate development for a New York private-equity firm. Plus, he noted, “If you wear a fancy watch, chances are someone else may be wearing the same one.” Tenenbaum runs little risk of twinning with a colleague when he straps on his Mickey Mouse or Snoopy Swatches, worn with premium Brioni or Zegna suits.

Evan Vladem, 37, considers his Casio calculator watch a neat “ice breaker” when schmoozing, a professional obligation for the partner at a financial advisory in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “It came in handy to break up awkward moments,” he said of the black, $30-ish design, a Casio classic. At a dinner with an insurance partner a few years ago, he recalls, the conversation petered out after an exchange about a client’s situation, which involved some financial arithmetic. “I pulled out my wrist and said, with a smile, ‘Well, I’m happy I have my trusty calculator watch to help me here,’” said Vladem. “We both laughed. [It] kicked off another conversation.”

Even men who have invested heavily in high-end horology seem to be falling for cheap, kitschy designs. Scott Jay Kaplan, 44, a film producer and financier for Brooklyn company CoverStory, owns pricey models from Rolex and Audemars Piguet. But for daily wear he’s currently favouring a super-chunky $25 watch he bought in Argentina this past winter, a model similar to a G-Shock but by an unfamiliar brand. He says he has received a lot of compliments on it, and it has held up surprisingly well. “I bought it because it looked silly,” he said. “Not for clout.”

McDonough, the Charlie Brown fan, urges anyone considering a novelty ticker to follow just one rule: Don’t splurge. “I think the whole idea of luxury watch brands coming out with ‘kitsch’ watches is…a little bit absurd,” he said. “So anything over, say, $500 would be out.”

Prop styling by Marina Bevilacqua

The Wall Street Journal is not compensated by retailers listed in its articles as outlets for products. Listed retailers frequently are not the sole retail outlets.



MOST POPULAR

The Swiss watchmaker’s first collaboration with Atlassian Williams F1 Team produces two sporting Laureato models inspired by the team’s 2026 racing car.

Victorian auction buyers will soon receive a piece of information that has traditionally been withheld until bidding reaches it: the vendor’s reserve price. Under new property-sale and underquoting laws, agents must publish the agreed reserve at least seven days before an auction or fixed-date sale. Most changes begin on 1 October 2026 and apply to …

Related Stories
Lifestyle
Paramount Discussed $1.5 Billion California Investment to Clear Merger Hurdle
By 21/09/2026
Lifestyle
Forget the AI Apocalypse—the Real Threats Are Already Here
By Christopher Mims 17/09/2026
Lifestyle
How to Give Host Gifts That People Will Want
By Misty White Sidell 15/09/2026
Paramount Discussed $1.5 Billion California Investment to Clear Merger Hurdle

Paramount and California’s attorney general are in advanced settlement talks over the company’s proposed $81 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. Potential concessions include investing $1.5 billion in California production, retaining both studio lots and introducing safeguards for CNN’s editorial independence.

By
Mon, Sep 21, 2026 3 min

California’s attorney general and Paramount PSKY -3.86%decrease; down pointing triangle have discussed a series of potential concessions as part of advanced settlement negotiations, including a $1.5 billion investment by the company in production in California, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Paramount executives and a coalition of states that sued to block its $81 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery WBD -1.56%decrease; down pointing triangle spent the weekend hashing out the details of a possible settlement. Such an agreement would clear the way for a deal that would bring HBO, CBS, CNN, streaming services and famed movie studios under one owner.

Among the concessions the parties have discussed beyond the sizable production investment: a promise not to sell either studio lot and to stay in the state of California, the people said. The company had explored moving out of the state as the deal faced opposition.

The parties have also considered potential penalties if Paramount doesn’t make good on an earlier pledge to make 30 movies a year after the merger, including having to sell its stake in Miramax, known for such classic movies as “No Country for Old Men” and “Pulp Fiction,” the people familiar with the matter said.

Other measures the sides have explored include the sale of some cable channels and the creation of a board to ensure that CNN retains editorial independence, people with knowledge of the talks said. The network has been a political flashpoint throughout Paramount CEO David Ellison’s fight for Warner. Paramount had been discussing creating such an editorial board before the lawsuit.

A final deal hasn’t been reached, and it is unclear what terms the parties may ultimately agree to.

Ellison has spent the past year fighting to buy Warner in a megadeal that would expand his entertainment empire, but that has drawn opposition from some political and Hollywood figures.

A dozen Democratic-led states led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued in July to block the deal on antitrust grounds, arguing that the combination of Paramount and Warner would create too much concentration in the markets for theatrical films and cable television channels.

The Writers Guild of America sued over the merger, saying that the deal would eliminate jobs and career opportunities for Hollywood screenwriters.

Demonstrators protest a proposed media merger outside the Elihu M. Harris State Office Building in Oakland, Calif.
Demonstrators protested the potential settlement in downtown Oakland on Sunday. Jeff Bercovici/WSJ

About two dozen demonstrators gathered in front of the Elihu M. Harris State Office Building in downtown Oakland on Sunday evening to protest a potential settlement. Holding signs reading “Bonta: Don’t You Dare” and “Block the Megamerger,” they took turns giving speeches urging the attorney general to continue pressing the suit.

“Nothing has changed since he filed the case,” said Annie Leonard, co-founder of the nonprofit Committee for the First Amendment, which advocates for free expression. “He needs to stay as strong as he was in filing it.”

The two sides had come under pressure to settle the matter in recent months, including from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, movie theater chains and some Hollywood labor unions.

Paramount’s agreement with Warner also included a “ticking fee” with payments to Warner shareholders of roughly $650 million a quarter, or $7 million a day, beginning next month, until the transaction closes.

Paramount had asked a federal judge to require the states and the Writers Guild to put up a nearly $1.9 billion bond for challenging the acquisition, money that would go to the company if it ultimately won the case.

MOST POPULAR

French luxury-goods giant’s results are a sign that shoppers weren’t splurging on its collections of high-end garments in the run-up to the holiday season.

Here’s how they are looking at artificial intelligence, interest rates and economic pressures.

Related Stories
Property of the Week
Kanebridge Property of the Week: $85 million Radford Point Piper Comes With Remarkable Past
By Ruba Jaajaa 18/08/2026
Lifestyle
DIVE INTO LUXURY WITH FIJI’S CORAL GARDENER EXPERIENCE
By Jeni O'Dowd 02/09/2025
Property
NATIONAL HOUSING MARKET STALLS AS SYDNEY & MELBOURNE LOSE MOMENTUM
By Staff Writer 01/06/2026
0
Your Cart
Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop