<p>So you're saying that all the layoffs that is on the news from Wall St is just hype and that it's not really going to happen? Lehman didn't collapse, Merrill didn't get absorbed by B of A, Citi didn't split itself in 2 and dump Smith Barney to MS and no one on Wall St is worried cause all your Ibanking jobs are safe? </p>
<p>I'm not saying that ibankers are or ever will be commerical bankers. All I am saying is that the insane profits that were rolling in during the good times won't happen anymore b/c with all this subprime stuff and the madoff scandal and the overleveraging, there is no way these ibanks will be able to turn a dollar into 50 by going into risky investments like they used to. they're gonna be a lot more closely watched...not to mention we're not at the end of it...we could see some more failures yet....</p>
<p>
[quote]
it definitely won't be as lucrative as it was the past few years with all the big investment banks going commerical
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You don't really understand what investment banking is, do you? From a balance sheet standpoint, going "commerical" only makes investment banks better capitalized with a stronger cash position and more able to execute transactions. Yes, with the transformation into bank-holding companies, there will be more regulations and deposit covenants. But in the long term this provides banks with a better capital base for the investment banking business. Surely you know that JP Morgan, arguably the strongest investment bank from a PnL perspective, is a "commerical" bank.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, I'm with hmom5 all the way. No one is denying the fact that Wall Street is hurting. But to suddenly call this the apocalypse and the end of a profitable business is absolutely irrational.</p>
<p>It does speak to not understanding the business Omaplata. If ibanking is over so are corporations. Now I wouldn't want to be an LBO fund right about now...</p>
<p>Msl, my point was that few analysts, at least at my bank and others I know, have lost jobs. They are relatively cheap and the future of the business. People like me in our 50's are almost done, many will take the opportunity to go to the beach or move on to other pursuits. It was fun, but it's time for the young guys to reinvent the business.</p>
<p>"I would totally disagree that current employees do not see bright futures."</p>
<p>Then you can disagree with my nephew, who is my source and a current employee.</p>
<p>Yes he does not speak for everyone.</p>
<p>FWiW I was there for a good while, but no longer.</p>
<p>As for where all the functions go: might not lots of Lehman's stuff, e.g., go to Brits in the future? I've seen that in other industries; the acquirers increasingly put in their own people.</p>
<p>Observed friend in pharmaceuticals; seems every successive acquisition more jobs going to the purchaser's countrymen and staff.</p>
<p>i am not saying by any means that ibanking is over. all i am saying is that the astronomical profits and bonuses that wall st has been getting in the recent past is over (at least for a few years). having to keep more money on hand means you cannot make as much unless your return % is greater. if you used to be required to keep $1 for every $100 you had, you would make a lot more money (assuming the same return) then if you were required to keep $15. so from a profit perspective, ibanking is going to see a decline at least in the near term. and i am not calling an apocalypse by any means either...however, i do have some worries as to what will happen once this recession is over. a funny thing i've been thinking about is that the us govt is exactly like the us consumer...we borrow borrow borrow and spend way more than we make...what's going to happen when people start calling in our debts? not to mention the fact that we are against madoff all the way for his ponzi scheme, yet the way i see it, the social security system is the exact same thing is it not (taking the new money to pay off the old debts)? should be an interesting future for america...hmom you're lucky you're in your 50s...cuz somehow i think me and my generation will be having a rough time when you guys are long gone...</p>
<p>Msl, I have 3 smart kids in your generation. One thing I know from years of watching things like Silicon Valley grow from nothing, the biotech industry come to fruition, hedge funds get invented and so much more is that smart people who want to are always going to find a way to make money:)</p>
<p>Moneydad, a lot of the young kids have no perspective, they haven't live through cycles. Seeing their bonus cut in half for the year makes some feel the world as they knew it is ending. The dot comers thought the same thing.</p>
<p>As reported, it was also the layoffs, the departures, and the general mood.
But this is all typical of the point on the cycle. Point taken.</p>
<p>These are not easy to go through, repeatedly, for older folks either. They were not easy for me to go through. Actually they were miserable. My firm was never the same place to work after they started in the layoff game. The tension and the backstabbing made it into an entirely different place. No wonder my relative wants out.</p>
<p>What's different this time is the new banking structure going forward, and the new foreign, and other, control and ownership. It strikes me that these could have some implications down the road. But I don't know.</p>
<p>Its almost certain that investing banking is going to go back to previous routes. M&A is necessary for the economy, and well, ibankers play a crucial role. What you won't see is all the proprietary trading (distressed, alternative...etc), nor any more complex structures (CDOs, complex project finances). </p>
<p>I guess one reason bankers perceive futures less bright is because the traditional p/e h/f route is not there. PE will be dead for quite a while and hedge funds are still blowing up left and right + scams will definitely regulate the industry. Obviously profits are going to go down and people are scrambling off wall street for those reasons.</p>
<p>To the OP: Yeah... just listen to what hmom said. I'd even go a step further and say why not consider other options altogether (reevaluate at MBA if you really have a desire). Too many college students want to go into wall street without knowing what its really like and besides the money its not really that glamorous. I think this a fantastic time to do management, join a start-up, or the traditional consulting route (which would definitely lead to a top MBA program).</p>
<p>2. Attempt to get a I-Banking Analyst job through connections. This will be difficult from a non-target school, and if it fails get another position and gear up for a Top MBA school.</p>
<p>3. Some positions to explore with your math/finance degrees include:</p>
<p>Risk Management Positions
Corporate Finance
Try getting international experience
Work for a start up
At a "In house Job" for a corporatoin for acquisitions or developments
Heavy Duty Quant Skills (Which job has that?)
Consulting Route</p>
<p>4. Do well and get into a Top 5 MBA Program</p>
<p>5. Try to get an ASSOCIATES position in an I-Bank</p>
<p>Sounds like a good new route? Is this pretty much what people have been saying right?</p>
<p>Ok here are just some questions I have about the route</p>
<p>1. How would you rank all the options given in terms of chances at a Top 5 MBA Program? Like which one would they like the most or which one would higher the chances the most? If you had to rank...</p>
<p>Risk Management Positions
Corporate Finance
Work for a start up
At a "In house Job" for a corporatoin for acquisitions or developments
Heavy Duty Quant Skills job
Consulting Route</p>
<p>And if there are any others</p>
<p>2. What exactly would a "Heavy Quantity Skill Job" be?</p>
<p>3. Which one of these 5 steps will be the hardest to complete for say "in general"</p>
<p>a) Receive a 3.7+ on both Finance and Math classes (cummaltive)
b) Get into a Top 5 MBA Program
c) Get into I-Banking after MBA Program</p>
<ol>
<li><p>its almost impossible to answer this because all of them can be very good routes to a top mba program. it depends on the quality of the program and what you do there in your 2-3 years. however i will say the easiest way to get into a top mba is probably a name-brand consulting firm (mck/bain/bcg/ow/katzenbach...etc), and a very high percentage of analysts go into top programs.</p></li>
<li><p>i believe its heavy quantitative skills you're referencing. have you considered quant trading? if youre good at math you should have no problems doing that. another quant job that comes to mind is economic consulting which is heavy on econometrics and statistics. bschools value quant skills heavily.</p></li>
<li><p>getting a 3.7 should be the first of your priorities. don't think about bankign after an mba until after you get that and into a top mba program. your priorities should be 1, then 2, then 3, though in terms of difficulty probably 2,3,1. </p></li>
<li><p>if you're serious about banking you can contact alums and work at a boutique investment bank, then try to transfer into a bulge bracket. the only way you'll be getting in is through networking, so start now. also it helps tremendously to have a sophomore internship, and see if you can work for free at a small hedge fund/boutique ibank or something</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So would most agree that going towards the financial consulting field be one of the better routes to get into a Top MBA program? Like I know there are a lot of ways, but one of the ones that I have a higher chance in succeeding in (only considering my majors/education, and what happens in general). </p>
<p>With heavy quant jobs, and working at top for a start-up be close 2nd and 3rds?</p>
<p>Is it fair to say Risk management and corporate finance is after these 3?</p>
<p>No NBA, I don't agree. We don't know you, your strengths, your personality or anything else. The key is to do what you can shine at. That's what will get you into a top school.</p>
<p>Mony, isn't that the same in any field? As far as what I saw at my bank, many left for lifestyle reasons, many went to PE, lots of women stayed home and yes, some didn't make it.</p>
<p>That's a good point hmom, I shouldn't just aim at whats supposedly the best for everyone, I should aim at what I'm individually supposedly the best at. </p>
<p>Well I'm majoring in Finance and Mathematics, so I would say those are my 2 greatest strengths and likes when I'm graduating. I've always like working with numbers, objective data, reasoning, logic, money, risk/reward, planning, strategical work, and so on. Those I would say are my natural strengths.</p>
<p>Personality? I'm usually the guy in the middle. Not the guy who is always quiet and doesn't say anything, but also not the guy who steps and takes over right away. When needed I will take over, and when needed I will step into role play. So basically the guy who adjusts to what the surrounding brings. I guess I need to be a little more aggressive in leadership opportunities huh? </p>
<p>So based on all of that, you probably think a quantitative analyst would be best for me? To be honest, since I haven't gotten too far into my studies in finance (just in my 1st quarter as of now), I only have a very basic understanding of what the jobs you guys are mentioning do.</p>
<p>Why are you attracted to ibanking? What job within a bank do you see yourself in and why? "The guy in the middle" would not be a description of too many ibankers.</p>
<p>.. Then look at a tombstone from a large bond offering from the early 80s, and count the # firms that are still in business, vs. the # that aren't. Maybe if I get time I'll go to the basement and get one out.</p>
<p>And recognize that, with each and everyone of those consolidations, acquisitions & closings, there were people who lost jobs.</p>