<p>Of course they can call themselves investment bankers....if they are involved in capital raising or advisory services then yes...</p>
<p>Do you think members of Citigroup or JPMorgan's investment banking division refer to themselves as something different?</p>
<p>Goldman and Morgan Stanley are no longer labeled as investment banks but the bulk of their revenue stream will continue to come from such activities (advisory and capital raising) and will prob increase as they reduce their proprietary risk-taking and expand the wealth management.</p>
<p>Not necessarily, compensation packages of investment banking divisions within JPMorgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America, who are already subject to stringent capital ratios, had been competitive with the standalone banking model (LEH, MS, GS, BS, MER).</p>
<p>In the near term, yes compensation will be down but the paychecks will still be considerably larger than a variety of other professions a student could pursue upon graduation. </p>
<p>Anyway, last thing I want to mention is that while less leverage will hurt earnings, it is important to remember that it is the firm's ROE that is a better measure of compensation packages.</p>
<p>But yes in the near term, lower packages than the 2004-2007 years.</p>
<p>yahooo,</p>
<p>Like I said...expect Wall Street jobs, especially in S&T, will be harder to come by, as some desks are not coming back for a while, therefore, less needed slots.</p>
<p>Where does everyone think the work all these bankers were doing went? Sure, the mortgage backed securities guys are in a slump but companies still need to raise money and want to merge and acquire. Institutions still need to invest their money.....the work goes on. What Morgan and Goldman did will not change the nature of their businesses although it will certainly have regulatory impact so they will need to add a slew of bureaucrats. Most of the others have been units of commercial banks functioning no differently than when they were independent and did not lose a cent of compensation in the transition.</p>
<p>There is no doubt there will be a tough time ahead for many reasons, but the industry is far from dead. Smaller bonuses for now? Of course. Some job loss? Yes. Fewer college hires? Yes, but that does not at all mean no college hiring.</p>
<p>And I'll graduate in 2014, I'm hoping things will settle down by then. Yet I'll gun more towards consultants, HF, & PE than IB. </p>
<p>1) I actually want to have a life and know these 3 will give me that more than IB
2) I love to travel so why not do it under the company's account
3) I'm more creative and kinda a type B
4) Gain more connection in early stage than through IB</p>
<p>Without as much competition for talent they can stop paying those crazy salaries. You think a Bank president likes paying some guy more than he is making? No.</p>
<p>syncaster, sorry to burst your bubble and im doing it with a sense to inform you but..</p>
<p>1) its quite unusual for someone right out of undergrad to get into a HF or PE group. you usually do IB first to get into these buy side industries
2)hahah ive heard everyone working for consulting at first digs traveling. but once you are gone 5 days a week plus a missed flight here and there, its gonna tear on you. also not considering you will be paying rent for a house/apartment that you barely see
3) consulting employees, as far as im concerned, involve extremely confident, extrovert, personable, and smart people... type A people. i would even go out and say consultants are more extroverted and personable than Ibers, although i think Ibers have more ambition..</p>
<p>actually barrons, i cant really think of an industry that draws overly ambitious, personable, confident, smart, cocky, and arrogant people. and thats why i think the competition will not lessen THAT much...</p>
<p>unless you can name me some professions... i really am curious about this. there are marketing strategists and consultants, but i think these professions are not for the overly ambitious because of the returns to work ratio..</p>
<p>side note, on a basic supply and demand graph, a decreased competition would mean a decreased supply, which would mean an increased pay rate. </p>
<p>if the the banks arbitrarily started paying less, the number of students that were attracted by the pay would diminish, therefore shifting the supply curve to the left, which then would shift the pay back to where it should be. i think the pay would remain relatively equal. i mean also, if they diminished pay, the smartest students would no longer want to study finance and would go into the med or eng professions. banks NEED to keep the same pay in order to attract the brightest and the best. i think i am making sense... maybe im not..</p>
<p>Some of you all who really think that all of a sudden kids from top schools will completely stop being interested in Investment Banking are delusional.</p>
<p>Yes, in the short-term, bonuses will take a hit; we will not see 60-90k end of the year bonuses for 1st years like in 2007 for a while. However, grads will still make a considerable amount of money as a 22 year old grad as well as have a wide variety of exits. I'd imagine all in comp falling back to 100k for 1st years for a while.</p>
<p>So yes...demand may slow but ironically competition will increase as the number of Wall Street firms have lessened.</p>
<p>People will need to have an attitude correction or risk their own money. They can become an options trader or similar job for their own account. That's where many of these types used to go. Math--you need to restudy those graphs. Firms can hire the most competent person willing to work for the least on the labor supply curve. There are fewer of them but they don't need that many so it will clear the market at say $60k per year. Those who wanted more will be SOL and going to Law School. Believe me $60K looks pretty good when the real alternative is $30K and Teach for America. </p>
<p>I think the volume of business will be MUCH lower a decade. Lower volume + less demand for employees. It's really very simple. WS grew by adding a huge volume of business that is now gone. They also have lost trust with many investors which will mean raising money for buyouts and such will be ver hard. Want to sell junkbonds today? I'd rather sell ice to Alaska. IBs are not very charitable about keeping people around when there is no business. They know they can always hire when things get better. </p>
<p>I don't know how many people WS will hire but I think it will be more like the 70's level when things were pretty stagnant for a decade.</p>
<p>^ I'm going to New York around Christmastime... I expect the new tourist destinations will be the old Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns buildings...hopefully they'll still have the signage up. ;)</p>
<p>"Yes, in the short-term, bonuses will take a hit; we will not see 60-90k end of the year bonuses for 1st years like in 2007 for a while. However, grads will still make a considerable amount of money as a 22 year old grad as well as have a wide variety of exits. I'd imagine all in comp falling back to 100k for 1st years for a while.</p>
<p>So yes...demand may slow but ironically competition will increase as the number of Wall Street firms have lessened."</p>
<p>There aren't going to be as many exit opps because, within the next year, hedge funds/private equity groups are going to be going through the same thing banks are now.</p>
<p>The same folks that predicted the IB failures have a similar outlook for Hedge Funds and PE. When the economy sours it will not be possible for the firms they bought to do very well and cover debt service. It's all interconnected and nobody will be immune. </p>