Business vs Engineering Degree

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What lousy advice.

Stay until you get retrenched! If you're lucky, other banks will fall and yours will prosper.

Agree, situations are bad in europe and us, but not in asia.
many banks are still looking into expanding their pressence in the fastest growing region in the world. if your skillsets are asia specific, no reasons to fear.

bonus may not be great anymore, but hey everyone shld able to keep their job

try diversify skillset portfolio to additional asia language, regulatory/compliance, basel, risk management, capital management in next few years which is the main demand.

I do agree that everyone now knows about IB. That's why I'm glad to start my career on the buy-side.

Not to get into the discussion of trader vs Ibanker. Though I must say, the trader role (quant, directional) requires a certain level of smartness which a typical ibanker may not have. Speaking from experience here as my friend from MS did confess to me - He stays in the office until 2am just to receive a report from the branch in Hong Kong so he could put it in the powerpoint slide.

Do you really want your job to be like that?

For this topic, I would say that there is no right / wrong answer. I joined a graduate program in a bulge bracket. Of the cohort: 1 ended up doing prop trading, 1 ended up doing FX, and another did cross product structuring. There were 2 others who joined DCM/ECM, I joined Corp Fin and 2 more joined equities.

Corp Fin, DCM, ECM have higher base pay and a more structured bonus /promotion structure in the first 3-4 years. Whilst you don't make insane bonus, you are likely to end up better after the first 3-4 years. In terms of traits & skills: Hardworking, meticulous & attention to detail. Whilst you don't have to be brilliant, you still have to be smart. Hours are long but you do get periods in-between where you can take a breather.

The trader path is more stressful. First 2 years you probably do more support work / pupilage rather than actual trading. If you handle customer flows, there is still also a gestation period of about 1 year before you are independent on the desk. Base pay is lower but bonuses are more commensurate with performance. Working hours are short but intense. Performance is easily measurable which would mean that if you are not doing well, it shows up and you could fired.

Equities is somewhat in the middle. High base, lower variable. More manageable job hours. More "academic" job scope. In my opinion, a more friendly culture versus IB.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I do agree that everyone now knows about IB. That's why I'm glad to start my career on the buy-side.

Not to get into the discussion of trader vs Ibanker. Though I must say, the trader role (quant, directional) requires a certain level of smartness which a typical ibanker may not have. Speaking from experience here as my friend from MS did confess to me - He stays in the office until 2am just to receive a report from the branch in Hong Kong so he could put it in the powerpoint slide.

Do you really want your job to be like that?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The trader path is more stressful. First 2 years you probably do more support work / pupilage rather than actual trading. If you handle customer flows, there is still also a gestation period of about 1 year before you are independent on the desk.

Hmmm ... probably true if you are talking about traders in BB. Now, when expand our analysis to include any sort of firm in the buy-side, then I suspect that there are traders who skip the grunt work that exists in the middle/back office and sit right at the front office.

I didn't want to give too much away, but I know of a few places, those small little "shops" that are popping up here and there, where the traders make all the buying decisions without regard of what happens after the trade. Either through algorithms or pure trading intuition, they are the ones who call the shots leaving the people in the MO and BO to handle the admin.

You are correct. I am not talking about MS, GS or UBS here. But rather ... you probably know. I'll just say that as markets become more computerized, I find that there's this small group of people, those with the smartness to actually understand the technical side of stuff, that will prosper.

Maybe, they won't make more money than IBankers. Maybe they will. That's why I pose the prompt again ... high earning big name drone vs respectable buy-side smart guy, stay up late in BB vs make the right decisions in the short span of time.

Well, at junior levels, sell-side pay more. That is why we work harder. Decent buyside outfits won't allow juniors to trade unless the size of the portfolio is really small, or the junior is just executing on order of the PM.

I would say it is better to start of at the sell-side and move to the buy-side at mid-late career, in my humble opinion.

Just like most people start off on Corp fin before moving to PE.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hmmm ... probably true if you are talking about traders in BB. Now, when expand our analysis to include any sort of firm in the buy-side, then I suspect that there are traders who skip the grunt work that exists in the middle/back office and sit right at the front office.

I didn't want to give too much away, but I know of a few places, those small little "shops" that are popping up here and there, where the traders make all the buying decisions without regard of what happens after the trade. Either through algorithms or pure trading intuition, they are the ones who call the shots leaving the people in the MO and BO to handle the admin.

You are correct. I am not talking about MS, GS or UBS here. But rather ... you probably know. I'll just say that as markets become more computerized, I find that there's this small group of people, those with the smartness to actually understand the technical side of stuff, that will prosper.

Maybe, they won't make more money than IBankers. Maybe they will. That's why I pose the prompt again ... high earning big name drone vs respectable buy-side smart guy, stay up late in BB vs make the right decisions in the short span of time.

Hmmm ... I think it's more accurate to say that sell-side on average pays more. Since sell-side traders tend to stay market neutral, it is more likely that a buy-side trader makes a huge trade when he predicts the correct upswing or downswing of the market.

Your opinion, usually common among most future financiers, is well founded. Though I have been reading of many kids who wants to immediately start on the buy side. While a big generalization, I'll say sell side gives you a more macro view of the economy while the buy side specifically demands that you know of one market and one product well. But like you said, they usually start trading one or two years after joining the firm.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well, at junior levels, sell-side pay more. That is why we work harder. Decent buyside outfits won't allow juniors to trade unless the size of the portfolio is really small, or the junior is just executing on order of the PM.

I would say it is better to start of at the sell-side and move to the buy-side at mid-late career, in my humble opinion.

Just like most people start off on Corp fin before moving to PE.

My brother is worried because we don't have money to pay fees for engineering so I tell my brother to get bba so I want to know bba is right for him his feature please answered me fast

take both

s://.comp.nus.edu.sg/undergraduates/dd_computing_business.html