Time to put this area to sleep

<p>Let's kill this now worthless topic board and start one for the best REAL companies to work for. Companies with actual products and a future outside of trading pieces of paper that are now worthless. I suggest the Fortune 500 Board.</p>

<p>Sounds like a good idea--but will people recognize it as a "prestige" area?--and if not, will they come and post anyway?</p>

<p>I have a better idea. Let's kill this worthless country and start one with REAL values for peoples work. Work that actually matters beyond insecure notions of "prestige" which are generally worthless outside yuppie America and the vapid lives of middle class social climbers.</p>

<p>wow, I wonder if everyone here is just bitter because they couldn't get a job at an investment bank. Just because you probably aren't suited for the position and couldn't handle the hours and pace of the job doesn't mean you have to try and degrade the industry.</p>

<p>No, I work for an investment bank actually. One that high school kids would consider one of the most "prestigious". How am I degrading the industry lol. This industry degrades itself every single day and doesn't need my help with that at all really. And that's fine. All I'm saying is that the whole prestige obsession really is that dumb.</p>

<p>No, just angry because the same industry has put the country into two economic slumps in under 10 years. That's a record. They should be paraded down 5th Avenue so the rest of society can show them how they really feel. I'd pay to see that. Sort of the anti-ticker tape parade. Rotten tomatoes for openers.</p>

<p>I agree, the prestige factor shouldn't play a huge role in deciding whether to enter the industry or not; however, they are an important aspect of the economy so it does carry a higher title to it.</p>

<p>^^ damn leftists...You have no clue of all the jobs and opportunity that IBs have created. And FYI, its not the end of the road for IBs, it the end of independent IBs. so what if the independent Ib model didn't work. None of you have the brains to think of any thing productive and creative. Quit whining and let the smart people do their jobs.</p>

<p>That is the funniest thing I have read in years. Pray tell about tall the jobs they created. Is that in the IB industry or real companies? Are you talking about all the great Dotcom companies they brought public in the last boom? How many of them still exist? How many Billions did that fiasco cost us? They might be smart at taking a few tests but they have no values or real business sense. If they did they would be starting real companies with a real product--not selling paper to others of their ilk. A guy on the street selling a good hotdog has done more for society than most IBankers put together.</p>

<p>...someone's a little bitter</p>

<p>so basically, according to your example, the world would be a better place if google, amazon and ebay never had the chance to raise equity capital to grow their businesses? while i do think some of the risky prop trading stuff banks have been doing is a bit sketchy, some of the services they provide like m+a advisory, ipo's, etc. are a valuable contributer to the nation's economic health. </p>

<p>But they are just that - services. The banks never forced people to subscribe to all of those failed dot-com ipo's, and the people who took on mortgages they couldn't afford because they thought they "deserved" a nice house are just as much to blame for the current situation, especially the hundreds of thousands who overstated their incomes and otherwise lied just to be able to get these risky mortgages.</p>

<p>"especially the hundreds of thousands who overstated their incomes and otherwise lied just to be able to get these risky mortgages."</p>

<p>I said there were a few examples left. Obviously I live near Amazon and know about their success. They also had a track record and profitable model from the get go. Any normal financing was open to them. Ibanks did not make Amazon or Ebay. Most of the early money came from VC firms anyway. They had good clearly workable ideas. But the many 100's of Dotcom firms that failed had nothing but a goofy idea and a friendly Ibanker to sell that crap to dumb investors who rely on the words of the Ibanker analysts who tout the companies the firm is selling.</p>

<p>And here's where I disagree about the role of Ibanks. They are not rug merchants trying to fleece the tourists. They are supposed to be experts and professionals and that means they should know better. People actually trust their opinions which is an obvious mistake to us that have ever seen them work up close as I have. I'm a professional in my field and had to pass a test and get a license to practice. </p>

<p>Also I believe most studies of mergers and acquisitions have shown little gain for the investors abnd more losses than gains. In the 50s and 60s Ibanks were very quiet professional places that took what they did seriously. In the 70's and thereafter growth and the drive for more profits forced them into more risky business to feed the beast. That's when they stopped being professional and became what we have today--pirates. They have cost this country far more than they helped create once they lost their way. I like VC people because they are playing with their own money and they are the stars of economic growth. Not the Ibanker pirates.</p>

<p>Banks will continue to exist, what's changing is the business model; and, while there might be a significant decrease in number, there'll still be investment bankers around. It'll just be much, much more competitive. So, consider other career plans unless you go to Harvard, Stanford or Wharton--and even then, try and keep your options open. (another "potential" exception are those who just got into the industry, or those who have experience.)</p>

<p>Here here to recognizing the differences between VCs (spending their own money) and i-banks (spending magical monopoly money, henceforth known as "taxpayer bailout dollars")</p>

<p>Reminds me of a Milton Friedman observation:</p>

<p>When you are spending your own money on something for yourself, you will go through the utmost in care and research to make sure you get your money's worth</p>

<p>When you are spending your own money on someone else, you will care, but not quite as much</p>

<p>Now when you are spending someone else's money on yet another person, then you won't spend nearly as much time seeing if you've got your money's worth, because it's not your money, and it's not your worth.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Here here to recognizing the differences between VCs (spending their own money) and i-banks (spending magical monopoly money, henceforth known as "taxpayer bailout dollars")

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're an idiot. Do you even know what venture capital and investment banking is? If you think VCs "spend their own money" and investment banks spend tax dollars, you clearly know very little about the fundamentals of corporate finance. Keep your mouth shut if you're incapable of adding value to this thread. Thank you.</p>

<p>Heh Heart--he was making a joke. And an accurate one. Now that the easy money from foreign investors has dried up the banks are asking the government and that means our tax dollars to bail them out of the investments thay can't sell to anyone else anymore.</p>