| Topic Name: |
Which Has More Prestige? |
| Message Name: |
Elaboration |
| Date Posted: |
05/22/2000 |
| In Reply To: |
I think that you know very little of investment banking in general. First of all you talk about prestige and doing the right thing all the time. Maybe you should consider doing what suits you and what you can do better. S&T and IB are two completely different things, and you should do what you feel like doing and based on your skill set.
Anyway, it is completely wrong that you don't have bright people in S&T. Some of the activities in S&T require much greater technical knowledge than IB. Derivatives, structured finance, securitisation, high yield capital markets are usually part of Fixed Income and not IBD and provide some of the most technically capable people in banks.
IB is not rocket science, really you don't need to be a genius to do pitch books and run comps. The job is quite easy compared to some of the other areas described before. Usually in IB you get people with art and poetry degrees, which you wouldn't get in derivatives or high yield.
I am not saying that IB is not good (I work in IB) but I am telling you to choose a job based on what career you want to follow and your skills. I would say the interview process is the same or even harder for a job in S&T than IB. |
| Message: |
I am the original poster in this thread.
Do not assume that I misunderstand the industry. This is an enfuriating tactic that many replies take on. It would be more productive if you would simply address the question.
I did not say that S&T professionals are not intelligent. They may be MORE intelligent than banking professionals. That is not the point. In fact, I know of many individuals in retail who are considerably mor intelligent than some of the bankers that I know. I was addressing the status of the industry in general. Regardless of the intelligence of the individuals that make up these various subdivisions of the bank, THERE IS the perception that IB is more prestigious than S&T.
If the term "prestigious" irks you then you may feel free to substitute "respectable", "intellectual", "strategic", "refined", etc...
These adjectives may or may not actually be true; however, it is hard to dispute the fact that the rest of corporate America finds this to be the case.
I have neither the ability, nor the inclination, to try and refute this widespread belief. I also do not care whether the belief is justified. I only care that it exists.
Forget the crap about, "Do what suits you best". We all know that none of these jobs are exceptionally exciting at the analyst level. If it makes you feel better, assume that I am equally well suited for either career path.
Questions:
1) Is the likelihood of ascension to the CEO level (in either finance or industry) increased more through an IBD Associate position in a 3rd tier bank, or through an Associate position in the S&T Department of a Bulge Bracket.
2) Which is better as far as job security is concerned?
3) Which is better as far as exit options are concerned?
4) Which position will fare better in a prolonged bear market?
|
|
