<p>After all, without the money, who would ever do anything banking/IB/sales&trading related?</p>
<p>Seems pretty lame... at least, imo.</p>
<p>Opinions?</p>
<p>More resumes have arrived in my firm this year than ever before. The whole world has now hear of ibanking.</p>
<p>Where do you think the work the banks did will go? And only a few people at a few banks will have salary caps. </p>
<p>And while I hope those there for only money do leave, there are many who love their WS careers and wouldn't want to do anything else.</p>
<p>The news of it's death has been greatly exaggerated.</p>
<p>don't know, i think people are looking at boutiques, which explains diversification, etc</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>How many jobs do you think are at "boutiques?" For any boutique top candidates want to work for, ibank experience is all but necessary. That goes for PE too.</p>
<p>And diversification of what?</p>
<p>buyside.</p>
<p>(10 char)</p>
<p>Actually its not completely dead amnesia, only the big firms have passed (except Goldman Sach & Morgan Stanley) but there are some small firms which will emerge and take their place. Plus you have to count on the hedge funds, venture capital, & other private sectors. If the US politicians get a brain then US Wall street should back to normal around 2012 or 2013.</p>
<p>Hello? There is so much misinformation I would not know where to begin. Small firms will take the place of the BB's? What planet do you kids live on?</p>
<p>hmom, I think its best if we just pretend this thread didn't exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After all, without the money, who would ever do anything banking/IB/sales&trading related?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"without the money" is a broad statement. For purposes of the argument, I will stipulate that $1,000,000 bonuses are over. But that doesn't mean the $100,000 or $250,000 salaries are not achievable. Seems like a pretty good job to me, even "without the money".</p>
<p>The salaries of the last few years may be gone for a while, but for someone graduating from college this year or next, the money is still going to better than any other options besides rock star, actor or professional athlete. The problem is now that there are less spots, the competition to attain one will even be greater. </p>
<p>In addition, now that Wall Street has, at least temporarily, lost some of its cache, you may see many candidates that would have been on the margin in the past (i.e. science and humanities majors) to pursue an IB analyst job now decide to go in a different direction. Maybe, these two factors will have the effect of cancelling each other out.</p>
<p>IB will never die if the buy-side doesn't die; and unless risk premiums stay this high forever or the US tax code is dramatically revamped, the buy-side will probably not die.</p>
<p>Bloomberg.com:</a> Opinion</p>
<p>Good thing that link doesn't say "Bloomberg.com: Fact" huh?</p>
<p>You nay-sayers DO realize that the whole "Wall Street is Dead!" campaign has been championed before, right? Stock market crash of '87, Asian financial crisis of the 90s, dot com bubble of early 2000s, etc. The lack of faith in the American economic system is borderline unpatriotic (yes, I see the irony of this -- but, please, WS will still play a large role in the global financial markets).</p>
<p>Wall Street's done quite a bit to deserve the total lack of faith it has earned. It's had 3 meltdowns in the past three decades and each time it threatened to bring down the entire capitalist economy with it. If it was run half as well as Social Security, we wouldn't be in this mess.</p>
<p>This time, we should let it die (stop this TARP crap-it's done nothing), build a new system, and regulate the living **** out of it. Worked well enough for the Canadians-not a SINGLE bank failure, TD bank acquired an American bank, consumption figures up, budget surpluses for the past 12 years, lower cost of healthcare, and Ontario is inheriting so many jobs from Detroit that it actually became the car manufacturing capital of North America. No, Canada's not a global superpower, but it hasn't grown huge in a bubble feeding frenzy and then proceeded to spew out toxic toilet paper all over the place as the bubble popped. Three times. And each time, it's cost $hundreds of billions of our posterity's money to "jump start" the economy.</p>
<p>You want deregulation? Here's deregulation, no bailout for you. You either survive or go under.</p>
<p>Ibanking will never die1!!!!!!</p>
<p>How dare you haters and naysayers proclaim that Wall Street and ibanking is dead!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>We are the BEST!!!! We are indeed better than all of YOU! We are the elite of society!!!! You can hate us but you resent us and are jealous b/c we make more money than you and are more prestigious than you!!!!</p>
<p>Ibankers are the best!!! we are the most elite, prestigious, and wealthy of society!!!! are you TTTers (toileteers) can kick us while we are down, but we will be BACK, and when we come back, we will be STRONGER THAN EVER!!!!!!</p>
<p>the economy WILL recover at latest, in another year. and when it does, we ibankers will be making MILLIONS in bonuses while you unemployed toileteers will be stuck in your $10/hr retail jobs with your useless degrees from TTT state universities. </p>
<p>mark my words, ibanking will come back in the near future, STRONGER THAN EVER!!!! and there's nothing you can stop us, b/c we are the ELITE of society!!!! </p>
<p>maybe if you losers actually could afford your mortgages, or realize that you shouldn't be buying homes with your mediocre $50,000 to $75,000 salaries (in NYC, those salaries are the equivalent of welfare, seriously) and your mediocre state universities degrees, than we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.</p>
<p>stop hatin' on us ibankers, just b/c we are more educated, are more wealthy, and went to better universities and afford better homes than you!!!! we will be BACK, and ibanking will DOMINATE this field.</p>
<p>you haters are jealous b/c without ibanking, the US will be some third world country.</p>
<p>I didn't know they had computers in the break room at Walmart... shouldn't you be on that register, IAmYourFather</p>
<p>
That is very debateable. I can show you many ways/paths where the “money” is going to be better than IBanking based off of your “first degree”.</p>
<p>^Like what? Management consulting and engineer may start off similarly, but even after a couple years, IB distances itself; even before the 2004-2007 era.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because your assumption is based on a couple premises that are beyond individual control.
- You last more than a few years in Ibanking which means you haven’t burned out.
- You are actually promoted and not stuck.
- You aren’t laid off due to a sour economy.
- The bank you work for doesn’t file for bankruptcy.</p>
<p>Now take pharmacy for example:
Note the following:
- The worst pharmacist in your graduating class is capable of making $100+k/year for 36hours/week.
- If you wanted to make $200k/year first year after graduation at age 24, just work 72 hours a week. Remember that you are in control of whether you want to make $200k/year, not like Ibanking where someone else determines your bonus (if your total compensation can actually even come close to $200k/year your 1st year after undergrad).
- The profession allows you to dictate the hours you want to work.
- The profession is substantially more stable than a job in the financial sector because it requires a technical expertise is inelastic and license as a barrier of entry as opposed to ibanking where even someone with a liberal arts degree can be hired.</p>
<p>So your statement…
is false. There are ways to both make more money AND be more stable than ibanking off of your first degree after high school.</p>
<p>Wow, you’re a bloody idiot. We’re talking about jobs RIGHT out of college – not jobs that require jumping through a series of hoops and EXPENSIVE pharmacy school.</p>