Before asking such questions, you should provide as much information about the physiology of your species as possible. Even tiny differences can be very important. Obligate carnivores include species as diverse as tarsiers and lions! That being said, I will offer some guesses.
Your people have no direct incentive to discover agriculture. Though it has recently been disputed, it has long been assumed that settlement was mainly driven by the discovery of agriculture. If we subscribe to this theory, your people may never form an urban culture. They might favour smaller social groups, even very small ones. Other cultural aspects intimately tied to settlement will also be impacted. I am especially thinking about stone architecture and sophisticated professional specialisation.
If your typical community never exceeded a certain size, every one will be an allrounder. Technical skills might advance much slower than in our history. That of course only applies on average. Such a society should experience industrialisation much later than ours. Due to the lesser degree of specialisation, it might also feature less trade, but that effect might be balanced by a migratory life style, i.e. going from place to place one always finds some good that is rare elsewhere.
If you reduce industry and possibly trade your interest in financial services should be minimal. Even money might come up late, not to speak of banks.
Of course, your people might discover agriculture as a way to feed domestic animals. Yet I think it's bound to happen much later than in our society. Unless you introduce special dependencies upon a herbivore (extreme example: symbiosis)!
Alternatively, settlement might arise from the need for defensibility. Either against other predators, or hostile groups from the same species (see last point). If you make your species weaker you give it incentive to form groups, settlements or alliances with other species, thus softening many aspects of the above description. Weakness is clearly relative! Think of the Krogan on their dangerous home world.
Given number one, and assuming a difference in phenotypes similar to humans, where one gender makes better hunters, the other gender is expected to occupy a significantly lower position and be strongly dependent upon the first. Harems are thus likely. Of course gender might not affect hunting prowess. Lionesses are fabulous hunters. You have given us too little information.
It is inefficient to convert plants to meat and then eat them. Assuming roughly human physiology, your people will need more land per capita. This, like the first point, suggests smaller groups.
If your people are dependent upon nobody but their hunting partners, they might well be indifferent towards random members of the species and hostilities might be especially pronounced. Even the likelihood of cannibalism might be higher. If the social development happens to take this path, warrior archetypes will gain prestige along with hunters. Religions will, when they form, reflect those preferences. We should not expect to see harvest gods and gods of fertility will also be of secondary importance.
I haven't been able to find quantitative information on this one, but it seems to me like pack hunters have especially pronounced hierarchical structures. If the environment on your planet forces your species to hunt in packs for most of its history, later social structure will be influenced by that and remain strongly hierarchical. Fights within packs for the alpha position are likely. In advanced societies they may take the form of competitions.