For those actually in the industry

<p>
[QUOTE]
If quants earn more money than those in IBD, the downside is that becoming a quant is pretty hard relative to becoming a general financial analyst...most quants have some pretty quantitative major, such as math, statistics, and graduate degrees in financial engineering etc....all those majors are much more difficult than a business major...the upside is that quants are generally less vulnerable to recessions than general analysts, i.e. not as many quants are laid off as are IBD people....so it's a tradeoff

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I wasn't referring to just quants. Traders in general (quant and non-quant) and structurers in general (quant and non-quant) are paid slightly better than IBD people in general. You don't need a super quantitative degree to do either of these. An economics major will suffice... and I think a business major from a very good school would probably be fine too if you can show you've got analytical skills at the level of a solid econ major. </p>

<p>So: equal educational requirements, slightly higher pay, better hours, equal or better exit opps to hedge funds... IBD doesn't really have that much going for it in light of the alternatives. Unless of course, you love private equity (lower pay than hedge funds though). </p>

<p>For all the noobs out there, the actual title for all these jobs is analyst, regardless of what you are actually doing. Traders, structurers, IBD monkeys, are all officially known as analysts.</p>

<p>lax, don't doubt that there's an associate (and for that matter a general partner in a 9 figure fund) on this board...it's entertaining watching you post as though you know everything about the industry after a summer.</p>

<p>zoo, I work for a boutique that did more deals per year in our industry than most of the BB's. When the position I filled came available, I was one of 80 applicants and 25 were interviewed. I think if you looked at the BBs the ratio for applicants to positions would be approximately the same. One might argue that the quality of applicants may be lesser at botiques, so if you're one of the better applicants, it certainly would be easier, but in straight numbers game, it's more or less even.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i know bulge brackets are hard as hell to get into </p>

<p>are boutiques just as hard

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lazard/Greenhill/Evercore are harder to get than most BB IBD analyst FT positions.</p>

<p>This is true. But then these three are special cases. The vast majority of boutiques attract far fewer applications for each opening available than BBs do.</p>

<p>Lazard is not a boutique. They will ding you immediately if you call them one.</p>

<p>Lazard definitely fits the definition of a boutique, as they only offer one service (Well, two now, with LAM): Advisory. They are not a full-service investment bank, thus, they are a boutique. </p>

<p>Do you work at Lazard? Don't go around pretending you know **** and saying "They will ding you immediately if you call them [a boutique]."</p>

<p>Why don't you interview with them and call them a "boutique" and see what happens?</p>

<p>lol @ you thinking that LAZ only does advisory work. You're a joke kid.</p>

<p>Actually, let me break it down to you some more, nodnard, because you seem to lack basic understanding of the investment banking field.</p>

<p>A 'boutique' in the truest sense of the word refers to a pure advisory house with no trading operations or asset management functions. It does no principal investing work; a 'boutique' only does M&A and Restructuring advisory. </p>

<p>You admitted yourself that LAM is indeed a big revenue-generating service that LAZ offers. Hence, not a pure advisory house. Thus, not a boutique.</p>

<p>
[quote]
“The people providing investment advice, whether it’s people like ourselves or some of the boutiques, have certainly gained market share,” Steven J. Golub, company vice chairman, said.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/business/03lazard.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1210014150-BWHlTmudTcIkFpVo2cUF6Q%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/business/03lazard.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1210014150-BWHlTmudTcIkFpVo2cUF6Q&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Furthermore, they have offices in over 15 countries, making them too large to be labeled a boutique. They're certainly not a bulge-bracket, but not a boutique either.</p>

<p>I'm glad I didn't go to Chicago and meet anti-social douchebags like you.</p>

<p>Don't tell me I lack a basic understanding of banking. Go to ibankingoasis.com (instead of the massive banking circle-jerk here) and ask one of the many real bankers there whether or not Lazard is a "boutique." Under your ridiculous definition (which basically makes "boutique" and "crappy" synonymous, save for Allen & Co. and Centerview), Gleacher, PWP, MoCo, Evercore and Greenhill aren't boutiques either.</p>

<p>I just love hearing some sophomore/junior saying something like: "They will ding you immediately." Good stuff -- do you have a job anywhere this summer?</p>

<p>IBankingOasis? Oh, like this link about Lazard NOT being a boutique below?</p>

<p>The</a> (not completely) definitive Boutique list | WallStreetOasis.com</p>

<p>Who says I go to Chicago? Don't get your panties twisted just because you go to some weakass school.</p>

<p>Do I have a job this summer? I'm working at a top group in a BB this summer. Have fun flipping burgers at Mickey D's kid.</p>

<p>I go to Penn...kind of a target. And I'm also working at a top group in Canada's top bank (I'm Canadian, so I want to work back home).</p>

<p>That said, I retract what I said about Lazard and admit I'm wrong. But you're a real hostile *******.</p>

<p>Let's recap the bloody aftermath after I put you in your place.</p>

<ol>
<li>I made a true statement: Lazard is not a boutique.</li>
<li>You write:</li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
Do you work at Lazard? Don't go around pretending you know **** and saying "They will ding you immediately if you call them [a boutique]."

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li>I corroborate my point.</li>
<li>You write:</li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
I'm glad I didn't go to Chicago and meet anti-social douchebags like you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I'm hostile? HAH. Have fun working at your weakass RBC/CIBC cold calling this summer.</p>

<p>CIBC is garbage, no way it could be considered Canada's top bank. He must be going to RBC, which isn't great either to be honest.</p>

<p>just wondering where did you guys work and what school are you guys at</p>

<p>nauru, are you working BB FT in London? Or did you spend a summer there? I am hoping to land a gig out there for next summer. I hear London's incredible.</p>

<p>If you ever get an interview with Lazard and call them a "boutique," expect a "thanks, but no thanks" phone call.</p>

<p>Anyway, play nice kids...</p>