most profitable careers right out of college?

<p>Lurker;</p>

<p>I agree that corporate law is a tough market right now. Much of the business coming from the financial services and manufacturing industries is way down because of the poor economy. On the other hand some specialized sectors are booming including intellectual property, tax, bankruptcy (!), litigation, environmental, health and administrative law... And of course, all types of public interest careers, maybe less lucrative have always gone begging for lawyers. If you are willing to look beyond the traditional associate jobs with large firms, there are plenty of opportunities for young lawyers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't know about that. We have not even close to the bottom of the market and things will get far worse over the coming years. The changes occuring right now in the financial services industry are not just cyclical but will have permanent effects. When firms that survived the great depression are collapsing, we are talking total implosion of an industry. Wall Street is turning into a ghost town. Restaurants and other businesses that catered to the financial industry are closing in droves. Tens of thousands of financial analysts have lost their jobs. Those still lucky to have a job won't see a bonus for a long time. Whatever reemerges from the ashes will be a very different industry. Glass-Steagall or similar regulation will certainly be reinstated. This will mean much less room for speculation and hence less need for highly paid traders and financial analysts of all sorts. Banking will change for ever.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, nobody is denying that financial services will probably never be as good as they were. </p>

<p>I am simply saying that financial services, except for perhaps in the near future, will still be better than most other jobs you can get right out of college. Let's be perfectly honest - most of those jobs aren't that great. There are people who graduated from schools like Berkeley who ended up as baristas at Starbucks and cashiers at Barnes and Nobles. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think the analogy with the IT sector holds. Microsoft, HP, Ebay and IBM didn't implode after the internet bubble bust. Weak firms with business models built on sand disappeared, but the strong survived and continued to thrive. It is hard to find in the current environment a single banking entity capable of surviving without massive amounts of cash infusion from the government; not Citibank and definitely not Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase. Right now, they are all on life support.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I would hardly characterize JPMorganChase as being on life support, for if they were, I rather doubt they would have been able to acquire Bear Stearns or WaMu. Heck, JPMorganChase has significantly outperformed the Dow and the S&P 500 over the last year. </p>

<p>Secondly, what you have said actually speaks to the superiority of the financial services industry rather than the tech industry. Why? Because the governments worldwide have demonstrated that they will do whatever is necessary to support the banking sector. But when the dotcoms were flaming out left and right, nobody seemed to care. </p>

<p>Consider the trenchant words of Paypal cofounder (and now venture capitalist Peter Thiel.</p>

<p>*...in the wake of the Treasury Department's $700-billion-plus rescue plan, Peter Thiel speaks for many when he asks a simple question: "What happened to the dot-com bailout?"</p>

<p>Thiel's not serious - at least not entirely. As founder of hedge fund Clarium Capital and VC firm Founders Fund - with early investments in Facebook, Slide, and LinkedIn, among others - he doesn't need anyone's charity. But as far as bailouts go, his point is that rescuing the Valley would have at least sent a positive message. Even the most vapid online pet-food delivery business looks benign next to arcane financial instruments designed to line the pockets of investment bankers. "It is an odd reflection on the priorities of our society," Thiel says, "that we value finance over technological innovation." *</p>

<p>The</a> view from the Valley - Sep. 30, 2008</p>

<p>The point is simple. The finance industry has cunningly managed to intertwine itself with the greater economy in such a way that taxpayers have to bail out the bankers when they get in trouble. Technologists, on the other hand, have not been able to do this, so when they fail, nobody comes to rescue them. </p>

<p>During the dotcom bust, the vast vast majority of tech firms failed, and entire regions of Silicon Valley were akin to ghost towns, restaurants were shops were closing in droves, the 101 and 880 freeways were unclogged, and tens of thousands of Web developer and IT administrator jobs were lost, most of which will never come back. Hence, the analogy is quite clean (except for the bailout part, which is actually a strong point in favor of financial services).</p>

<p>In the tech bubble, mostly startup companies were laying off people but you rarely see a CEO from an established company like Lehman Brothers went from a billionaire to a millionaire overnight. You definitly never heard of a CEO that got knocked out like Fuld from Lehman.</p>

<p>Knock</a> Out: CNBC Confirms Lehman CEO Punched at Gym</p>

<p>Cellardweller, with all due respect, I don't think you understand the banking industry. Ibanks continue to do business and always will, they'll just be part of commercial banks for now. Yes, there will be more regulation globally, but there is no doubt the jobs in the industry will continue to be among the prime jobs for accomplished people. Many of their activities and professionals will also end up at all sorts of private equity firms.</p>

<p>Columbia, what you're describing is the fact that in general ibankers were required to keep much more of their money in the firm than CEOs do. When the banks went down so did the net worths of every long term banker. They all had a lot of skin in the game.</p>

<p>hmom5;</p>

<p>With all due respect, i believe I know the banking industry fairly well. I have two brothers in Ibanking and another in private equity. My sister in law used to work for Lehman.</p>

<p>
[quote]
there is no doubt the jobs in the industry will continue to be among the prime jobs for accomplished people

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is a very questionable statement. Many would agree that IBanking attracted the most driven to make a lot of money. Most had never accomplished anything before being hired. Now that the bubble has burst, whether regulated banks will be able to continue to attract top talent remains to be seen. HBS just had its 100th anniversary this past week and the consensus seemed to be that the current events are fundamentally transforming the banking industry and the upside is largely gone. Huge salaries and bonuses out of proportion with other sectors are a thing of the past.</p>

<p>You and your relatives sound very young cardweller. During the dotcom boom all the top students ignored ibanks and PE firms to go "where they money was" in their young minds. I always think of the Gold Rush. History just keeps repeating itself.</p>

<p>Those of us that have decades on The Street and have seen all sorts of cycles and tragedies know Wall St. always lands on it's feet.</p>

<p>Oh, an I beg to differ, the vast majority that are hired by ibanks for front office jobs are very accomplished by the time they are hired. They have done better than 95% of the top students in the Country academically and otherwise.</p>

<p>hmom;</p>

<p>If your definition of the very young include the typical baby-boomers born in the fifties, then I guess we are young!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Those of us that have decades on The Street and have seen all sorts of cycles and tragedies know Wall St. always lands on it's feet.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess Lehman that had been around for 140 years lost its legs! Bear, Sterns founded 85 years ago, fell on its head. This is not 1987. I don't think you were around in 1929. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh, an I beg to differ, the vast majority that are hired by ibanks for front office jobs are very accomplished by the time they are hired. They have done better than 95% of the top students in the Country academically and otherwise.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is quite a pompous statement! What did the recruits actually do before being hired? As far as doing better academically than 95% of the top students, that is a ridiculous statement. Are they any smarter than the top doctors, lawyers, engineers or scientists? hardly! The vast majority of top students have absolutely no interest in Ibanking.</p>

<p>You should probably go into whatever field you think you'll be best in. Chances are the money will follow if you pursue your passion. And, I agree that lifestyle of the occupation should be considered. The truth about medicine, for instance, is that the salary does not come close to making up for the ridiculous amount of work you have to put in as a doctor. Similarly, Ibankers make a lot of money (or used to) but also endure phenomenal levels of stress and have very little opportunity to enjoy themselves and what they earn.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First off, I would hardly characterize JPMorganChase as being on life support, for if they were, I rather doubt they would have been able to acquire Bear Stearns or WaMu. Heck, JPMorganChase has significantly outperformed the Dow and the S&P 500 over the last year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>JP acquired the assets of Bear Stearns for a song and only after the government guaranteed most of the toxic assets. In September the raised $10 billion, most of which was applied against reserves for the Wamu bad assets. Finally, they got another $25 billion last week. JP has become the largest parking garage for toxic bank assets. Their banking business, which is their bread and butter is barely breaking even and their profits have plunged.
JP</a> Morgan posts 84% profit plunge - BloggingStocks
While JP wil most likely make it through, it is only because of huge capital infusions from the Fed. They will probably need another $50 billion or more in 2009 alone as defaults increase in their WaMu portfolio. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The finance industry has cunningly managed to intertwine itself with the greater economy in such a way that taxpayers have to bail out the bankers when they get in trouble.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So far, nine banks have received $125 billion from the Feds with $100 billion of that going to 4 banks. (Citi, JP, Wells and bofA). There is another $125 billion allocated for the remaining 4,500 banks. How many of these will survive? Half? A quarter? the Fed could never print enough money to save a fraction of all banks from failure. Wachovia's carcass is already being divided up. Nobody is bailing them out. </p>

<p>Losses in the financial sector are already dwarfing the loses from the dot-com bust. The only major corporation that filed for bankruptcy was WorldCom and it was a communications company not a dot-com or IT company. The WorldCom failure was in 2002 in the aftermath of the dot-com bust and more linked to fraud that anything else. Not a single major IT firm went bankrupt. Most of the companies that failed were companies without earnings or assets. Even among the smaller internet companies, it is estimated that over half survived. They were just not very capital intensive. </p>

<p>You simply can't compare the dot-com bust with the current situation where major institutions have already disappeared including Bear, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman, Wamu, Wachovia with new banks being added every day. Entire countries like Iceland are going bankrupt. And we are just at the very beginning!</p>

<p>You also might have to move overseas for Ibanking. I have a lot of my friends who have MBA from Wharton and such have moved to work overseas such as Hong Kong, years ago and not just recently because of the banking trouble. In fact, some lawyers I know that work in Corporate Law also moved to Singapore and such. While the engineers that I know have been working in CA and raising their kids in CA. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/business/12transfer.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/business/12transfer.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This thread is pretty funny. Especially the positive comments about Wall Street opportunities. Entering Wall Street right now is like stepping into a snakepit that someone has stirred up with a big stick. </p>

<p>As any idiot can plainly see, the so-called best and the brightest, who some describe as so much more "accomplished" than the other 95%+ of the working population, have taken us into a deep, deep financial ditch. These folks, a great number of whom are graduates of the historical elites, found their way to and dominated Wall Street and became legends…legends in their own minds. More in truth, the egos of these people knew no bounds as they created an in-bred, self-important and self-promoting aristocracy that acted with no regard for others. </p>

<p>Or maybe I'm underestimating these Wall Street masters of the universe. Maybe their great intelligence is best appreciated when one realizes that they built this house of cards with other people's money while, before/during/after committing these financial atrocities, they buy off the politicians/regulators and send the massive bailout bill to the rest of the American people. Wall Street lands on its feet again. Brilliant!</p>

<p>Bloomberg.com:</a> Worldwide</p>

<p>I like you mcuh better when we agree.;-) Tell it like it is.</p>

<p>Certainly times are tough on Wall Street, but does this mean no one should head there? The simplistic view right now is that it was a pit of greed that has gone away. The bigger picture is that many honest, hard working people work on The Street doing necessary financial services including keeping the companies most of the US work for afloat and the industry is very much alive and always will be. A few years ago everyone proclaimed Silicon Valley dead.</p>

<p>hmom,
I actually agree with you. Wall Street can still be a good career for some folks and there are LOTS of very good and very talented folks there. The surviving firms will still hire and some smart folks will go there, but the numbers and probably the compensation will be down significantly from the last decade. </p>

<p>Still, I hope you also understand the resentment that Wall Street has engendered from the arrogance often displayed there to the outrageous salaries too frequently and too visibly awarded there to the bailout that the rest of the country is now being forced to participate in as a result of the recklessness that went on there. The Wall Street wizards, many of them from schools that supposedly attracted and graduated the nation’s best and brightest, have shown far and wide that the emperor had no clothes (or at least very few). </p>

<p>Hopefully, the credit crisis will settle out soon, the stock market can start going up again and we can all make money again. But when that time comes, I pray that Wall Street has learned some lessons from all of this and will realize that its supposed intellectual superiority, as proven by its golden diplomas, does not automatically entitle one to great fortunes that have been shockingly out of step with the rest of the American business world.</p>

<p>heart surgeon, neurosurgeon, orthodontist</p>

<p>
[quote]
JP acquired the assets of Bear Stearns for a song and only after the government guaranteed most of the toxic assets. In September the raised $10 billion, most of which was applied against reserves for the Wamu bad assets. Finally, they got another $25 billion last week. JP has become the largest parking garage for toxic bank assets. Their banking business, which is their bread and butter is barely breaking even and their profits have plunged.
JP Morgan posts 84% profit plunge - BloggingStocks
While JP wil most likely make it through, it is only because of huge capital infusions from the Fed. They will probably need another $50 billion or more in 2009 alone as defaults increase in their WaMu portfolio.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, actually, JPMorgan actually tried to decline the government capital injections. They took it only because the 9 largest banks were all strong-armed by the government to do so, due to the adverse selection problem (if the top banks could choose to take injections or not, then presumably only the weakest ones would, and hence those injections would stigmatize those banks as being weak.)</p>

<p>But more importantly, the Bear Stearns and WaMu acquisitions only prove my point. Yes, the Fed gave help to JPMorgan to acquire those firms. But why did the Fed help JPMorgan acquire those Bear and WaMu, rather than help some other bank from acquiring Bear and WaMu? Heck, why isn't the WaMu acquiring JPMorgan? I think the facts speak quite clearly: JPMorgan is the acquirer because JPMorgan is the strong one. </p>

<p>Nor am I the only one saying so. The markets are saying so also. JPMorgan is clearly outperforming all of the indexes. Not just the banking indexes, but the overall indexes. In other words, the markets seem to believe that JPMorgan is not only healthier than most banks, it is also healthier than most companies in general. Granted, JPMorgan is not doing well, but the other companies are doing far worse. </p>

<p><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=JPM#chart4:symbol=jpm;range=1y;compare=%5Edji+%5Eixic+%5Egspc;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined"&gt;http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=JPM#chart4:symbol=jpm;range=1y;compare=^dji+^ixic+^gspc;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Losses in the financial sector are already dwarfing the loses from the dot-com bust. The only major corporation that filed for bankruptcy was WorldCom and it was a communications company not a dot-com or IT company. The WorldCom failure was in 2002 in the aftermath of the dot-com bust and more linked to fraud that anything else. Not a single major IT firm went bankrupt. Most of the companies that failed were companies without earnings or assets. Even among the smaller internet companies, it is estimated that over half survived. They were just not very capital intensive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by an "IT" firm. But allow me to name just some of the firms that died, off the top of my head:</p>

<p>Global Crossing
Northpoint
Covad
XO Communications
Exodus Communications
Webvan
EToys
Genuity</p>

<p>Now, you might say that some of these firms are not "dotcom" firms. But that's completely missing the point, which is that the tech industry was completely prostrate during the bust. I make no distinction between the laid-off engineers who worked at a dotcom vs. the laid-off engineers who used to work at one of the telcos who died. After all, they all hired IT workers, and a laid-off IT worker is a laid-off IT worker. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You simply can't compare the dot-com bust with the current situation where major institutions have already disappeared including Bear, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman, Wamu, Wachovia with new banks being added every day

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure I can. First off, except for Lehman, none of those firms you named actually went bankrupt. They were just acquired. Similarly, I can name plenty of tech firms that didn't actually go bankrupt, but were just acquired. Compaq didn't go bankrupt, it was just 'acquired' by HP (who then proceeded to lay off tens of thousands of people from the combined company). Informix didn't disappear, it was just acquired by IBM, who then proceeded to lay off most of the company. JD Edwards was acquired by Peoplesoft (who was later acquired by Oracle). All of these were major IT firms that are all effectively 'gone'. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In the tech bubble, mostly startup companies were laying off people but you rarely see a CEO from an established company like Lehman Brothers went from a billionaire to a millionaire overnight.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I have to disagree. A lot of supposedly rich dotcommers lost plenty of money, at least on paper. </p>

<p>What was worse is that it wasn't just a matter of CEO's losing riches, it was a lot of regular employees who were losing millions (at least on paper). That engendered a lot of anger amongst plenty of regular people who worked at the dotcoms, were 'paid' with stock options, and who thought they were going to be rich and retired once fully vested and then realized that they weren't rich at all. </p>

<p>Just consider some of these sad stories from the dotcom era, not so long ago. Whatever might happen to the bankers, I doubt they'll be going to homeless shelters:</p>

<p>*Mike Schlenz, who recently installed computer networks for a living, had been sleeping in his Honda Civic for three months before he went to a homeless shelter.</p>

<p>John Sacrosante, who earned more than $100,000 a year as a free-lance database engineer, spent his 39th birthday last week with the "brothers" he met at the church shelter where he has been living.</p>

<p>Both are casualties of the dot-com bust in Silicon Valley, where a surprising number of former high-tech workers are rubbing elbows with society's castaways - the mentally ill, drug addicts and other hard-luck cases - in homeless shelters.</p>

<p>"We're all equal here," Sacrosante said. "When you're used to making six figures and working in a dynamic and exciting environment and all of a sudden it goes away, you do have a nice little world of depression going on."</p>

<p>Nearly 30 unemployed tech workers are among the 100 men at the Montgomery Street Inn and other shelters in San Jose run by InnVision, said Robbie Reinhart, director of the non-profit organisation.</p>

<p>"They're not what we used to call hobos on the street. Most have college degrees," she said.</p>

<p>Dot-com failures sent San Francisco's unemployment rate up to 4.2 per cent in May from a rock-bottom 2.6 per cent a year ago - with 18,000 people added, according to a state report.</p>

<p>In Santa Clara County, the heart of Silicon Valley, layoffs in electronic equipment manufacturing and business services rose for the fifth straight month, contributing to a 3.2 per cent unemployment rate in May.</p>

<p>Reinhart said most of the tech workers she sees have had their contracts canceled or been laid off from start-ups and other smaller technology companies. Other shelter residents still have jobs but don't make enough to afford the high price of living alone in the valley, she said.</p>

<p>Top consultants and contractors once named their salaries in the valley. Now, even those who qualify for unemployment benefits soon discover the $40 to $230 weekly check will not cover an apartment here, where rent averages around $1,800 a month.</p>

<p>Suicide and crisis hot line operators in San Francisco and Santa Clara counties report that job-related calls nearly doubled from October to April. Many callers complained of lost jobs or feared they would soon be out of work.</p>

<p>Schlenz, 35, a Bay Area native with a degree in environmental chemistry, made as much as $60,000 a year as a free-lance contractor, installing Unix networks, configuring routers and working in desktop support for small companies. Then his jobs disappeared.</p>

<p>"I'd been to all the job fairs. I'd followed up on all the resumes," he said. "Some of the larger companies approached me several times, but then kept leading me on for months. Departments were downsized and outsourced. Recruiters just stopped returning messages."</p>

<p>Schlenz still has some stock, but the value has dropped. "I cashed in half my stocks to eat. I couldn't even afford gas anymore," he said. He gave up his apartment after running out of cash, and "car-camped" behind a bookstore. He showered at a gym where his membership was good through May.</p>

<p>Someone told him he could get a meal at the Montgomery Street Inn, where he now stays. He volunteers in the shelter's computer lab, teaching residents how to use computers.*</p>

<p>Dotcom</a> bust sends techies to homeless shelters - GupShup Forums</p>

<p>
[quote]
This thread is pretty funny. Especially the positive comments about Wall Street opportunities. Entering Wall Street right now is like stepping into a snakepit that someone has stirred up with a big stick.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not advocating that people enter Wall Street right now.</p>

<p>What I am saying is that Wall Street will come back. Now, will it be as great as it was during the glory days of the recent past? No, probably not. But will it still be pretty good? I would say so. </p>

<p>Just like how those people who continued to study computers and information technology through the bust and the outsourcing hype ended up doing pretty well for themselves. Now, is the tech industry as great as it was during the boom? Of course not. Tech will probably not see a boom like that ever again in our lifetimes. But it's still a pretty good place to be right now. </p>

<p>The great(?) thing about the banking industry, if you're an employee, is that when things go really bad, the government will come to bail you out. However, if you're working in the tech industry and things go really bad, nobody will come to bail you out. Nobody was proposing that the government inject capital into tech firms, or buy bad assets from their books, or provide special lending facilities to them. The tech firms were all left to fend for themselves. I suppose that's one "advantage" that the banking industry will always have over the tech industry.</p>

<p>Don't count on any future bailouts. Instead there will be direct takeover or and orderly liquidation. There will be new regs to prevent such a debacle including much tighter monitoring of all investments. The black box stuff will disappear.</p>

<p>Hawkette, even those on Wall Street resent the arrogant aspects.</p>

<p>Sakky, I think PE has emerged the fair haired child, the best and brightest are rushing to Greenwich, this week anyway.</p>

<p>Barrons, I predict the next bail out will be the student loan bailout--basically honest people who got themselves in trouble much like the home buying population.</p>