<p>Sorry aworldapart, but gellino has got your balls plastered to the wall on this one. Your diction does affect how your content is interpreted. What gives you the right to jump down everyone's throats when they try their best to give advice. Seriously, chill out.</p>
<p>To be a trader you tend to live for the moment - very intensely. You have short attention span, and are into instant gratification. You are very focused on one asset class you are trading. </p>
<p>As a salesperson, you have a talent for bs. If you are a good salesperson, you tend to be a pain to traders - trying to get the best pricing from traders to win your customer's business. </p>
<p>People in sales and trading get paid on profit (trading) and volume(sales). Production credit is tracked for sales, they no longer get paid on commission, but they are paid on a scale. As an example, in the beginning of the year they will tell you that to get paid $200 you'll need to have 5 mil in PC, $500 for 10 mil, so forth. If you do not hit the target, then you would not be eligible to get paid. When you move from one firm to another, how much you'll be paid at the next firm will most likely be determined by your PC at you current firm. Same for the traders, but they are measured more on profit.</p>
<p>One very important thing to keep in mind is that as lucrative as S&T, those skills are not transferrable to other industries. As a salesperson for MBS for over 10 years making $2mil a year (maybe more), there is not much you could do outside of Markets if you should lose your job. Same for trading. As a govie trader (it's mostly electronic trading now), what could you do with that skill. I am bringing this to your attention because I have many friends in that predicatment now. Some have put away a lot of money, and some have lived large for the last 10-20 years. I, on the other hand, made a conscious decision not to get into S&T even though it was offered to me early on, and remained in the support function (structuring, IT for S&T, risk management). There is not as much up side, but there isn't as much down side either.</p>
<p>My daughter is thinkin of going into iBanking also. I am steering her more to M&A or corporate finance because I think there is more longevity and her personality is better suited for that than S&T.</p>
<p>You're calling structuring a "support function"? As I understand it, structurers are definitely front office, and they make the firm a lot of money designing trading and selling exotics in conjunction with traders and sometimes salespeople. I haven't worked in the industry as of yet, but know a few structurers at BBs. It seems to be the best of both worlds because you are in the front office (unlike IT or risk management) and are paid accordingly (same pay and bonus as other sales trading and research people) yet you develop skills that are very useful outside the investment banking world.</p>
<p>aworldapart, that is not grammar, but rather understanding the definition of words. I am attacking how caustic you are rather than trying to promote a dignified discussion; especially when you have no experience other than three weeks of an internship. I am nowhere near 50 or unemployed, not that it would matter for relaying experiences for the topic at hand, but it's nice to see how magnanimous current college students with no understanding of the working world can be. I certainly hope you are an outlier. Let me educate you that in my YEARS of work experience, it is very uncommon to root for and celebrate the hardship of others around you; whether or not things are going well for you personally, although such an attitude is a surefire way to have things not work out for you at the margin.</p>
<p>How is the pay for functions like structuring and risk management? I understand that they won't be making as much as traders, but I visited this website (The</a> Hagan-Ricci Group | Quantitative Analyst | Quant Analysis Jobs | Quantitative Finance Jobs) and it tells me that the pay for risk analysts and structurers can be in the vicinity of 200k-500k. Is that realistic at all?</p>
<p>So, doesn't S&T seem like the way to go? The base salary is essentially equivalent (albeit w/ a lower bonus) to that of M&A and you work about 20 hours less per week. Furthermore, the exit opportunies appear to be the same at both. Anyway, the exit opportunies are why I want to get into IB.</p>
<p>From my experience, the exit opportunities are not the same at both, although do have much less knowledge of S&T. A generation ago, much of S&T wouldn't even have college degrees. A line from "Liar's Poker" says how if these guys weren't traders they would be truck drivers; not pursuing finance or other professional positions. While this may have been somewhat of an exaggeration, it is still in sharp contrast to corporate finance, which has always been based on the snooty academic northeast establishment. While these two backgrounds have certainly converged, they're not exactly comparable yet. From my perspective, you aren't really doing fundamental company research analysis in S&T as you are in IB; so your developed skills would not be as relevant to PE/IM/HF opportunities. I would think the skills obtained in S&T are less transferable to general corporate finance/investment analysis work, so any desire for a career change would more likely necessitate going back to grad school than in IB. </p>
<p>In addition, the personalities of people in IB and S&T have always seemed pretty different to me. In the end, you can't really choose either of these jobs based on $ or $/hour because suceeding in either has more to do with with having the appropriate mindset and what it's going to lead to and how much that appeals to you.</p>
<p>Great post, gellino. I guess M&A seems like the better option; I just have no idea how I could possibly work 80-100 hours/week (if I land in job in IB). People manage to get it done, so it's definitely possible. It's a shame, though, because my dream career would be to become a criminal defense lawyer or a sports agent. Unfortunately, these are extremely risky professions and very few people make it big and succeed.</p>
<p>^ It seems like you should shoot for law school then, with or without a couple years of corporate finance background first. This would at least steer you more in the general direction of where you would like to go.</p>
<p>The problem with law school is that most of the people in law school aspire to do tax law, real estate law, patent law, etc. This stuff bores me to death. In regard to criminal defense and sports management, it is profoundly difficult to become successful in these fields. It's like boom or bust - in my prime I could be making $3 million or $30,000. I'm not sure I want to take that risk. With IB, although I would be miserable at times, I would almost be guaranteed to make a great deal of money.</p>
<p>Take it from someone who has lived my whole life around ibankers, that business is brutally hard to get into and to succeed in too. About 15% of bankes in NYC have lost their jobs in the last 18 months. New hires are down and are the top of the top school grads. Some people who are brilliant never make it past the first interview because they are looking for a certain type. If you get the job the competition is cut throat and many don't last.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With IB, although I would be miserable at times, I would almost be guaranteed to make a great deal of money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure if you have the right attitude for banking. You're gonna probably hate it. I agree with gellino; you should go to law school, and see if you enjoy some other type of law (or go into what you want). If you want to have a "safe" career, I wouldn't consider i-banking, because although you'll be making tons of money, you're not going to be able to spend it, or enjoy your lifestyle. If I were you, I'd be more content with a good (albeit lower) salary, but with better work/life balance.</p>
<p>it's all about the money</p>
<p>How come yet another person mentioned structuring and risk management in the same sentence? One is front office, the other is middle office. Is this not true?</p>
<p>It is mentioned in the same sentence because I personally have done both. As a structurer you still don't have your own P&L. Whether you are a structurer, risk management, product control, it is still number cruncher. S&T are front office, as a structurer, you are supporting those 2 functions, most of the time you report to the trading desk.</p>
<p>From my understanding:</p>
<p>Analysts in IBD don't have their own P&L either, yet they are considered front office. Most of their work consists of number crunching and making powerpoint presentations to support senior people. People in research don't have their own P&L yet they are considered front office and part of markets. Most of the work in research consists of number crunching and writing research notes to support salespeople structurers and traders.</p>
<p>I'm confused because from all the presentations and networking events with BBs it seemed pretty clear which roles are front office, which are middle office, and which are back office. Which firm were you working for?</p>
<p>nauru - you are not wrong in your labeling of front office vs middle office vs back office, but they are all considered to be part of Markets. It is not any more prestigious to work in research or structuring than other areas. As a matter of fact, many people in IT or risk management probably do better than people in the front office(S&T included). I have worked at 10+ firms, many of them are not around any more. Every firm is structured a bit differently. MS and Lehman had research and technology together, and structuring was also part of that group, then IT and structuring were moved to be part of trading. Risk management and product control were always separate because they performed the "Control" function, Operations (settlement) were also separate and it performed the "Process" function.</p>
<p>My original post was just to point out to people to carefully think about what they are best suited for and most importanly to have an exit strategy. IB will always pay for top people, even in the down market. I am still recruiting, it is a good market to upgrade. If you are not well suited for a job and not one of the best people in the group, then there is a good chance you will be replaced, whether you are in the front office or back office.</p>
<p>It is also not unusal for people to move around, from one area to another. Some of my colleagues have moved from research, to trading, asset management, IT, corporate training...</p>
<p>good info herrrrrrrre</p>
<p>No, too much ******** that's wrong or dated.</p>
<p>This is coming from someone that posted:</p>
<p>"Yes, investment bankers are basically stockbrokers. You nailed it"</p>
<p>Do you understand the difference between retail and institutional?</p>