21–30 of 127 posts
> In previous lives, I've worked as a tennis-camp counselor, a juice bar barista, and a Biblical slave for a bestselling author. (Long story.) I've also written for magazines like GQ, Esquire, ESPN: The Magazine, and SPIN. I live in Berkeley, California. Interesting the author has no finance experience ever, which makes me question his motives.
> In previous lives, I've worked as a tennis-camp counselor, a juice bar barista, and a Biblical slave for a bestselling author. (Long story.) I've also written for magazines like GQ, Esquire, ESPN: The Magazine, and SPIN. I live in Berkeley, California. Interesting the author has no finance experience ever, which makes me question his motives.
> They're going because they hate risk and are terrified about what to do next and Wall Street has figured out a way to calm their anxieties.
This is somewhat accurate, but it doesn't seem different from other careers. Not all of friends know exactly what they want to do when they graduate. So it's logical for them to pick a job that is well-paying, will continue to exist for at least a few years, and offers good exit opportunities. For this reason, most of my intelligent friends in computer science are looking to work at Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. Similarly, most of my intelligent friends in finance are looking to work at premier investment banks (or premier consulting firms like McKinsey, Bain, BCG, etc.).
> So they created the two-and-out program. The idea is you're there for two years and then you move onto something else. That let them attract not just hardcore econ majors but people majoring in other subjects who had a passing interest in finance and didn't know what else to do.
This is absolutely correct; it's well known that you'll stay for 2 years and then move on to another finance world (Private Equity, Hedge Fund, Venture Capital) or perhaps business school. But the way the article describes this feature makes it sound as an evil trick. Maybe I'm the only one who gets that vibe, but I think this is a great feature for students who aren't yet ready to commit to a career (again, not exclusive to finance).
> And it's amazing, anecdotally, how often you see college seniors deciding between making huge money on Wall Street or making almost nothing with Teach For America.
I had a conversation with a TFA rep a few months ago, and he told me that my school was the largest feeder into TFA. Yet, I have never met someone deciding between investment banking and Teach for America -- obviously two very different career options. The TFA rep also said the major with most students applying to TFA was Accounting, which makes sense because the entry job for an accounting student is not as high-paying or "exciting" as the entry investment banking job.
> Being a young banker seems like an incredibly miserable existence. The people you follow are beyond unhappy.
Yes, some of my friends who did investment banking internships (it's near impossible to get the full-time offer without an internship) ended up being miserable. However, some enjoyed the internship very much, and they return for full-time. Again, this isn't unique to banking. I'm had an engineering internship at a top tech firm, and I haven't enjoyed it as much as I expected either. Nevertheless, some of my friends in similar roles at other tech firms are probably enjoying their experience.
> I talked to one guy who's a former Goldman Sachs guy who left to go to the tech industry who said the adage in the tech world now is "be wary when the pretty people show up."
This is not common. I'm majoring in Finance and EE, so I'm one of the few people who would potentially be making this decision. If we're talking about choosing between banking at Goldman Sachs and working on the acquisitions team at Google, then sure, that's a legitimate argument. But the only time students are making the decision between being a software developer at a tech firm and being an investment banker is when they apply for college and decide on their major.
Overall, I didn't think the article was horrible, but there were a few things I wanted to clarify. And although I don't plan on working for an investment bank, I hate to see the career ridiculed by misconceptions. I saw in another comment that it doesn't really take intelligence to work at an investment bank or it's not really difficult to do. Please don't insult a career if you've never really experienced it. Some bankers may not be very smart, but others are ridiculously intelligent and great at their job.
Anyone have thoughts on this gem? > I talked to one guy who's a former Goldman Sachs guy who left to go to the tech industry who said the adage in the tech world now is "be wary when the pretty people show up."
It's like so obvious, if you've spent any time at all working for one of these places. Or heck, even interviewing with them. Here's what it all boils down to: aside the quants, the genuinely alpha traders, and few other wonky actuarial types, most of the grunts (you know: the "analysts"... and the vast majority of the IT types) don't seem to be there, or to have any other propelling motive in life, other than: (1) th…
>The banks care less about their qualifications than their work ethic. Being a Rhodes Scholar doesn't make much of a difference when you're a young banker. More of it is being willing to stay at the office for 120 hours a week. This is very, very true. In my experience, investment banking is by no means a particularly difficult thing to do, given enough capital to play around with. Quants aside, the concepts that are…
> Quants aside, the concepts that are used (take, for example, "mezzanine capital") are mostly buzzwords used to give a professional air to really very simple processes/ideas. This is incredibly accurate. Aside from the guys who come out of MIT and Caltech to do quantitative analysis, almost everything on Wall Street is smoke and mirrors hiding what are incredibly simple ideas. Even a lot of the ostensibly esoteric a…
This is true for the majority of jobs out there.
Investment banking gets a pretty bad reputation in the media, and there are many misconceptions about the industry. I don't think this article was terrible, but I do disagree with a few of the points. For the record, I'm an undergraduate student at a non-Ivy but huge feeder into investment banks. > They're going because they hate risk and are terrified about what to do next and Wall Street has figured out a way to ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How necessary are the 7am-11pm hours really? Could the banks do just as good of a job if they hired more people who worked 40 hour weeks? (Increased salary costs notwithstanding)
I work at a law firm specializing in IPO. I had the same thought in mind when I joined. Hiring more people does help but there will still not be 40 hour work weeks. In many instances, some people in the team has built up the knowledge on a particular part of the deal that it is difficult to outsource since it would be much faster for the person to complete the work themselves. Hiring more people also means that the i…
I'm genuinely curious -- what do these recruits actually do while working these massive hours? Is there really 80-120 hours of desk-based work to be done, or does office politics or fraternizing play a role in those hourly figures?
There are various markets around the world that people trade in, and you are bound by the hours they are open -- unlike most coding activities. For example, someone where I worked had to stay up until 3am to participate in Japanese sovereign bond auctions.