Sales and Trading or IBD?

Career Opportunities & Internships
1

<p>Well they're both within investmenr banking industry..</p>

<p>Sales and Trading has less work hours, but lower pay. </p>

<p>IBD has much more work hours / and you don't really learn anything, spending your time making pitchbooks.</p>

<p>It's easier for you to get a job at Hedge fund / Private Equity if you go S&T.</p>

<p>It's easier for you to climb up the corporate ladder if you go IBD.</p>

<p>In short,</p>

<p>S&T
Pros:
-exit opportunity<br>
-less work hours
-pay depends on performance (could be pro or con)</p>

<p>Cons:
-lower pay than IBD
-volatile work style
-more difficult to get in, easier to get kicked out.</p>

<p>IBD:
Pros:
-more money
-relatively secure promotion (depends less on your performance)
-easier to get than S&T</p>

<p>Cons:
-crazy work hours
-boring, dull job
-more difficult to get a job in hedge fund </p>

<p>So... which one?</p>

2

<p>There are a few misconceptions in this post.</p>

<p>1) It is actually easier to enter Private Equity from Investment Banking, not S&T. Yes, hedge funds are popular exit opps for individuals in S&T, even then you will see that many L/S equity hedge funds hire investment bankers -- but yes in general you will see more S&T professionals joining HFs.</p>

<p>Additionally, one of the reasons many people enter IBD is as a springboard to other career fields, hence "exit opportunities" is considered a pro of IBD.</p>

<p>2) What do you mean that you do not learn anything in Investment Banking? </p>

<p>Yes, you will work on pitchbooks, but if you are in a group with a good dealflow, you will get solid financial modeling experience which gives you a good understanding of finance and that gives you a solid skillset.</p>

<p>3) The comment on the S&T pay is partially correct. </p>

<p>However, at the entry level (i.e. Analyst) the pay for IBD and S&T analysts is virtually the same, because they have the same base (60k), and the analyst bonuses for IBD and S&T are banded; so S&T -- whether structures, traders, or sales -- analysts will get similar bonuses to IBD analysts in similar buckets (top, mid, below).</p>

<p>In S&T, once you move up (i.e. associate and beyond), your bonus is tied more to the performance of your desk/product and your P&L. </p>

<p>In general, the earning potential CAN be higher in S&T than IBD depending on your desk's performance (e.g. commodities was ridiculous in 2007)</p>

<p>A better way to determine which you like is to ask:
S&T: Do you like the idea of managing risk? Do you like a fast paced environment? Does EQ, FI, and commodities interest you?</p>

<p>IBD: Do you like a more project-driven format? Do you want solid financial experience? Do you like the idea of seeing your deals in the WSJ?</p>

3

<p>personally, I prefer S and T. Mainly because of the fast paced environment, and just being able to make quick decisions on the "spot". Less hours than IBD too just as mentioned above</p>

4

<p>i glanced at the post and was about to rant on how misinformed you are, but majay already corrected everything. i am a senior going into a BB ibd full time and had both s&t and ibd offers. i did an SA stint at a BB and decided to return. i chose ibd over s&t because:
1) more exit opps- i want to go into p/e eventually, and bschool also tends to be easier
2) learn more about the industry; i don't know what you meant when you said bankers learned less. bankers learn a lot more, not just about financial statements but as industries as a whole. traders learn a lot but its more a niche skillset (making markets and handling risk)
3) better fit- i'd rather not sleep than attempt to and fail</p>

<p>in addition, trading has grown a lot over the years. wall street has become more trading oriented as most profits have been coming from ficc/equities. however due to the recent market events more firms as going to focus on their ibd departments and maybe exit out of structured credits; p/e may also be going down, so for ibd, thats one thing you need to consider</p>