WSO Exclusive: Legerdemath - Anatomy of a Banking Trick

Mod note: Blast from the Past - "Best of Eddie" - This one was originally posted in March 2011.

The following is an exclusive guest post by Omer Rosen, author of the controversial Legerdemath, originally published in the Boston Review. Omer is a former Citigroup corporate derivatives guy, and this latest piece explains the monkey math that was used to pick clients' pockets by confusing them with yields instead of prices. The scheme's elegance is in its simplicity, as the corporate derivatives desk convinced clients to compare apples to oranges and by doing so think they were getting a square deal.

Omer has graciously agreed to respond personally to your questions and comments in the comments section for the first 24 hours this piece is posted. His blog is located at Legerdemath.com and you can (and should) follow his Twitter feed at @omerrosen. Without further ado...


Legerdemath II: Anatomy of a Banking Trick


In my previous article, “Legerdemath: Tricks of the Banking Trade,” I made brief mention of Treasury-rate locks:

Most brazenly, we taught clients phony math that involved settling Treasury-rate locks by referencing Treasury yields rather than prices.

A number of readers expressed a doubt that using a settlement method based on Treasury prices was appropriate. What follows is as good an explanation of Treasury-rate lock settlements as 2,000 words will allow. I have simplified some of the bond math and concepts and will end with an analogy that I hope will elucidate what the math did not. However, as this post hardly qualifies as an easy read, feel free to ask questions in the comments section. Confession: I fudged the word count a few sentences ago to increase the likelihood of you reading on.

Forget for a moment, everything you have heard or think you know about Treasury bonds. Taken in isolation, the purchase of a Treasury bond is nothing more than the purchase of a fixed set of future cash flows. If you find the term “cash flows” confusing, think instead of the following: buy a bond today, receive predetermined amounts of money on predetermined dates in the future.

In this column I will be referencing a 10-year Treasury bond paying a coupon of 5.00%, with a notional amount of $100. For convenience, I will christen this bond “Bondie.” Sans jargon, the fixed set of cash flows received when purchasing Bondie would be $2.50 every 6 months for 10 years and an additional $100 at the end of the 10th year.

There are two basic ways to describe the value of this fixed set of cash flows, either by price or by yield. Price answers a simple question: How much would it cost you to purchase this fixed set of cash flows? This price will change over time, in much the same way that the price of a stock changes over time. Yield expresses the return earned by purchasing these cash flows at a certain price.

If you had to pay $100 in order to receive the fixed set of cash flows I described above, then your yield would be 5.00%. If you had to pay more to purchase these same cash flows, say $105, then the return you would be earning (the yield) would be lower than 5.00% – it would be 4.3772%. Intuitively this should make sense – the more you have to pay for a given set of cash flows the lower your return will be. Or, more simply, when prices go up, yields come down. Conversely, if you had to pay only $95 for these same cash flows, the yield earned would be higher than 5.00% – it would be 5.6617%.

Algebraically speaking, price and yield are linked by an equation where all the other variables are known. Therefore, if you know the yield of a given bond you can calculate the price of that bond and vice versa. In plain terms, saying you are willing to pay $100 for Bondie is the same as saying you are willing to buy Bondie at a yield of 5.00% (i.e. at a price that will allow you to earn a return of 5.00%). It is similar to how one can describe the speed of a car either by the number of miles per hour it is traveling at or by the time it takes it to travel one mile – if you know one you can solve for the other, and if one goes up the other comes down.

To belabor the point, if a car is traveling around a 1-mile track at an average speed of 1 mph then it is easy to solve for the time needed to complete a single lap: 60 minutes. Either “1 mph” or “a 60-minute mile” provides you access to the same knowledge about the speed of the car during that lap. And, if the car’s speed were to increase, the time it would take to complete another lap would decrease (At 2 mph a mile would only take 30 minutes). The same inverse relationship holds true between prices and yields.

Now back to Treasury-rate locks. When a company puts on a Treasury-rate lock, it is doing nothing more than taking a short position in a Treasury bond. A short position is a bet that will pay off for the company if Treasury prices go down and go against them if prices go up. Why would they do this? That is a subject for another column and I ask that you accept as an article of faith that sometimes this bet, rather than being a gamble, reduces risk and uncertainty for a company.

The short position can be viewed as an agreement under which the client will sell the bank Treasury bonds at a certain price on a set date in the future. This price is determined based on current market conditions. For example, let us say, that based on what current market conditions dictate, the client agrees to sell Bondie to the bank at $95 one month hence. A month passes and Bondie is now trading at $100. The client will have to go into the market, buy Bondie at the current price of $100, and then sell it at a loss of $5 to the bank at the previously agreed upon price of $95. For expediency’s sake, the client just pays the bank the $5 it has lost and the bank takes care of all the buying and selling behind the scenes. The calculation of $5 in the above manner – subtraction – is an example of the price-settlement method of Treasury-rate locks.

However, when it comes to bonds, corporate clients do not think in terms of price; they think in terms of yield because yield is expressed in the language of interest rates, the same language companies are familiar with from business concepts such as rates of return and borrowing costs. In theory, this should add only a simple step to the settlement process. The company locks in a sale of Bondie at the same level as before, $95, but rather than quoting them that price the bank quotes them the corresponding yield of 5.6617%. We can refer to this yield as the locked-in yield.

A month passes and the Treasury rate lock is settled. Rather than telling the client that Bondie is now trading at $100, the bank tells them that the yield is now 5.00%, having fallen by 0.6617%. But 0.6617% is not a dollar value that can be paid out as a settlement. To calculate the settlement, both yields, 5.6617% and 5.00%, need to first be converted back to their respective corresponding prices, $95 and $100. Taking the difference between the two prices results in the same settlement value we calculated before: $5.

But the client is never shown how to settle based on prices. Instead they are introduced to a nonsensical and more complicated method called yield settlement. The sole purpose of this settlement method is to trick the client into allowing the bank extra profit.

Whereas price settlement asks the question, “By how much did Treasury prices change?” yield settlement asks, “By how much did Treasury yields change?” As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the yield decreased by 0.6617%. But how does one convert 0.6617% into a dollar value that can be paid out?

First, a unit conversion is necessary. For clarity and convenience, finance makes use of a unit called a basis point. Each basis point is equal to 0.01%. Using this new unit, the above decrease of 0.6617% can be expressed as 66.17 basis points. Of course, this solves nothing, only modifying our most recent question slightly: now we ask, how much is each of the 66.17 basis points worth in dollar terms?

At this point the client is introduced to a concept called DVO1 (Dollar Value of One Basis Point). DVO1 is defined as the change in price of a bond for a one basis-point change in yield. For example, if the yield on a bond changes from 5.00% to 5.01% or from 5.00% to 4.99%, by how much would the corresponding price of that bond change? This change in price is the DVO1. If yields shifted by 66.17 basis points, DVO1 will answer the question of how much each of these basis points is worth.

The starting point for this calculation is the yield at the time of settlement. In our example, the yield at the time of settlement is 5.00%. At this yield, the corresponding price of Bondie is $100. If the yield were to rise by one basis point to 5.01%, the corresponding price of the bond would fall to $99.922091, a decrease of 7.7909 cents. If instead the yield were to decrease by one basis point to 4.99%, the corresponding price would rise to $100.077983, an increase of 7.7983 cents. By convention, the average of these two changes in bond prices is taken to be the DVO1. So, at a yield of 5.00%, the DVO1 would be 7.7946 cents per one basis-point move ((7.7983 7.7909) ÷ 2). If the yield changes by one basis point, price is said to move by 7.7946 cents. Or, in more plain terms, each basis point has been assigned a value of 7.7946 cents.

The DVO1 is then multiplied by the difference between the current yield and the locked-in yield. In our example the difference between 5.00% and 5.6617% is 66.17 basis points. From the previous paragraph we know that each of these 66.17 basis points is worth 7.7946 cents. Multiplying 66.17 by 7.7946 we arrive at a settlement value of $5.1577. This is the yield-settlement method of Treasury-rate locks.

Apart from being confusing, the yield-settlement method has resulted in a settlement value that is greater than the $5 calculated using the price-settlement methodology. For a good-sized rate lock, say $500 million dollars worth of 10-year Treasuries, the client would pay the bank an extra $788,500 (500 million x (5.1577 – 5.00) ÷ 100) when settling using the yield-based methodology. This “extra” is profit for the bank.

I ask that you stop reading here for a moment. I have stated from the beginning that yield settlement is incorrect. However, when reading the explanation of yield settlement, did you find yourself agreeing with the logic? At what point, if any, did you spot the flaw? And can you guess what happens if prices had gone the other way? If prices had gone down instead of up, say to $90, the bank would have owed the client money. However, yield settlement would have allowed the bank to earn a profit by paying the client less than it actually owed them. No matter what happens to prices, yield settlement allows the bank to earn extra profit.

Now picture yourself as a client receiving a tutorial on Treasury-rate locks. You are being instructed by a banker on a matter that seems procedural, in a manner that seems advisory and helpful, without any warning that something might be amiss. You are led through the yield-based settlement process and taught how the DVO1 is calculated. If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal you are shown where the DVO1 can be found on the relevant Treasury bond’s profile page. Perhaps presentation materials are sent over detailing the mechanics of rate locks and different possible outcomes depending on various possible market movements. And all this is part of a larger interaction, a relationship even, during which the banker is nothing but genuinely friendly and informative. Furthermore, there is a good chance that someone from a different part of the bank, someone who has advised you before, was the one that introduced the two of you in the first place. Would you question your banker?

Clients, among them some of the largest corporations in the world, never did. Confident in the tools provided them and blinded by specious logic, the client never even thinks to question the underlying methodology. And, especially since the client is never made aware of price settlement, the methodology does sound logical: Check to see by how many basis points Treasury yields moved. Calculate the dollar value of each basis point. Multiply the two and arrive at a settlement value.

However, this methodology is an approximation that always works out in the bank’s favor. Why? Because each of the 66.17 basis points has erroneously been assigned the same value of 7.7946 cents. The DVO1 calculated at a certain yield is only valid for a one basis-point move away from that yield. Therefore, while the first basis-point shift away from 5.00% is indeed worth 7.7946 cents, successive ones are not.

Put another way, DVO1 at 5.00% is different than DVO1 at 5.01% is different than DVO1 at 5.02% is different than DVO1 at every other yield. And so the value of the basis-point change from 5.00% to 5.01% is different than the value of the basis-point change from 5.01% to 5.02% is different than the value of all successive basis-point changes. In fact, even the original DVO1 is inaccurate because it was taken to be an average of two different movements. Multiplying the 66.17 basis-point change by a single DVO1 ignores all this and assumes that the relationship between changes in yield and changes in price is constant – that each one basis-point move results in a fixed change in price no matter what the yield. Yield settlement takes the graphical representation of the relationship between prices and yields – a curve – and flattens it into a straight line.

Admittedly, all this can be a bit confusing. After all, if price and yield are both valid ways of expressing the value of a bond, shouldn’t you also be able to measure the change in value of a bond by looking at either the change in its price or the change in its yield? The math says no. Resorting to hyperbole, teaching the client yield-based settlement is akin to selling them on time travel.

Return for a moment to the example of a car driving along a 1-mile track (a conceptual, though not mathematical, equivalent to rate lock settlements). In this analogy, “mph” will play the role of “yield” and “travel time” will play the role of “price.” Assume the car is traveling at a speed of 1 mph. If the car speeds up to 2 mph, the time required to travel a mile decreases from 60 minutes to only 30 minutes – a 30-minute decrease in travel time. This 30-minute decrease plays the role of “DVO1″.

Now assume that the car is traveling at a speed of 120 mph. If again the car’s speed increases by 1 mph, here to 121 miles per hour, does the time needed to travel a mile again decrease by 30 minutes? Since a mile only takes 30 seconds to complete at a speed of 120 miles per hour, short of a DeLorean and some lightning, reducing the completion time by 30 minutes would be impossible. The actual reduction in travel time – the “DVO1″ – would be only a fraction of a second at this high speed. “DVO1″ is not a constant in this analogy either.

To extend the analogy, calculating a rate lock settlement would be akin to calculating the difference in travel times for each of two laps. If lap 1 were completed at a speed of 120 mph and lap 2 at a speed of 1 mph, how would you calculate the difference in travel time between the first and the second lap? Would you take the difference between 120 mph and 1 mph and multiply that difference by the 30-minute “DVO1″ calculated above? Doing so would imply an impossibly high difference between the two lap times: 3,570 minutes ((120 – 1) x 30). This calculation is the parallel of the yield-settlement method.

For makes and models without a flux capacitor, you would simply look at the difference between the times the car took to complete each lap. If a stopwatch is not handy, the following quick math provides the answer: a 120-mph lap takes 30 seconds to complete and a 1-mph lap takes 60 minutes to complete. The difference in travel time between the two laps is therefore 59.5 minutes. This calculation is the parallel of the price-settlement method. As you can see, the 3,570 minutes calculated using the other method is far off the mark.

In price/yield relationships the same problem exists – that problem being the realities of math. Yet banks I encountered almost always instructed clients to use the yield-based settlement method. And so a product that is meant to return the difference between two Treasury prices, a matter of elementary subtraction, is perverted for profit.

If yields change by very little, this profit does not amount to much. Fortunately, depending on one’s point of view, banks have other tricks for profiting from rate locks and do not rely solely on yield-based settlement. In fact, miseducating clients with yield-based settlement is almost an afterthought, just a bonus that pays off with large movements in yield. Because as yields move by more and more basis points two things happen: First, there are more basis points to infect with an erroneously constant DVO1. Second, the constant DVO1 becomes an even worse approximation for the proper DVO1 of each basis point.

In behavior that might be considered yet more sinister, sometimes banks had to implicitly agree with one another to use yield settlement. This transpired if a client decided to divvy up a single rate-lock transaction, with each bank getting a piece of the deal and each bank knowing that settlement of the rate lock would have to be a coordinated affair.

All this mathiness is hidden in plain sight. Some examples of yield settlement can be found online. Or you can just ask a company that put on a rate lock to dig up some trade confirmations and see what settlement methodology was used. There are hundreds, if not thousands, such documents in corporate offices around the country, each one part of an unwarranted transfer of millions of dollars from clients to banks.

 

Voluptate quidem incidunt corrupti earum repellat repellendus. Ad culpa assumenda delectus adipisci accusantium alias dolores voluptates. Harum soluta et eos inventore soluta blanditiis maxime.

Soluta corrupti cupiditate nihil et a et. In magni placeat veritatis hic a. Corporis asperiores assumenda libero. Voluptatibus nam est ut aut vitae qui possimus. Quisquam odit ab quo qui. Et est fugit aut magni dolores officia et.

I am permanently behind on PMs, it's not personal.
 

Ullam vel ut libero ex ea. Voluptas quis voluptas quae assumenda corporis voluptas. Magni sequi ad labore delectus dolorem alias asperiores. Adipisci culpa sint quasi exercitationem.

Consequatur nisi sint quis. Earum repellat qui saepe. Rerum provident reprehenderit quaerat pariatur eveniet et.

Quia facere dignissimos sint officia adipisci. Sapiente asperiores nemo molestias nostrum.

Voluptatem facere quisquam nobis fugit enim tenetur. Autem tempore quo porro cumque quia. Accusantium illo sint fuga id quo deleniti officia ut. Ullam ducimus modi culpa eaque eum distinctio.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Quis quod aut eligendi laborum architecto quia. Quos natus nemo expedita sunt qui sed fugit. Autem non facere sequi qui. Quisquam velit cum nostrum recusandae minima. Quasi repellat est dolorem architecto. Quo omnis minus aspernatur veritatis atque saepe velit.

Quam quos fuga sint non. Animi est ipsam laboriosam est. Sed quo dolorem atque voluptatem. Est iusto est et a voluptate id voluptatem. Ducimus nesciunt exercitationem possimus numquam ducimus dolores. Expedita qui non optio iusto hic.

Hic velit et nihil optio culpa delectus qui. Deleniti velit quaerat voluptas quia vel. Aperiam adipisci corrupti cum quibusdam.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Ratione laboriosam laboriosam neque et laboriosam eaque quia. Sit quidem sapiente aspernatur fugit. Adipisci a qui error ea nihil alias hic. Dolorum quae harum delectus nam quaerat consequuntur reprehenderit.

Accusantium ex delectus adipisci nisi ratione voluptatum cum. Deserunt eaque in error error voluptatum unde molestiae. Neque voluptatibus aliquid harum officia porro impedit.

 

Eos aut et quo delectus aut occaecati. Quae delectus est illum qui. Atque sapiente perspiciatis omnis fugit. Veritatis eum qui ipsum nostrum. Doloremque veniam recusandae sequi quia voluptas enim consequatur.

Nemo voluptatem rem nisi accusantium delectus temporibus accusantium et. Et natus facere dolorem quisquam quaerat in vel. Autem in placeat nostrum eligendi aut.

Quos voluptate doloremque earum accusamus modi non accusantium. Repellat nesciunt quasi distinctio et esse voluptatem qui. Dolores voluptatem vel architecto officiis illo. Voluptates beatae praesentium suscipit aut quis voluptatum hic.

Libero occaecati ut maiores aut. Sunt ducimus a sit eveniet. Dolorem error consequatur facere commodi. Repudiandae ut nesciunt nobis.

"Alas, how many have been persecuted for the wrong of having been right?" -Jean-Baptiste Say
 

Voluptate voluptatibus qui ut vel sit quo. Et rem temporibus dolor et numquam veniam.

Est dolorem consequatur alias. Iure illum autem mollitia. Corrupti quos dolore tempore molestiae quia.

Voluptas necessitatibus repellat omnis amet voluptatem. Perferendis ad ducimus repellat qui. Velit laborum quasi quibusdam aut. Rerum vel necessitatibus eum maxime. Sunt ratione quasi sit distinctio architecto laborum provident.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Aut aperiam expedita dolore aut exercitationem provident dolore. Itaque vel est ut. Consequuntur et incidunt aut omnis illo voluptatem.

Aliquam quia ut ducimus voluptas aut asperiores consectetur. Quia ipsam atque maxime veritatis. Porro laudantium modi reiciendis rerum minus dolor. Et recusandae odit corrupti unde veniam unde quidem. Debitis rerum consequatur fugit voluptatem. Sequi architecto id veritatis officia. Mollitia sunt tenetur nobis voluptatibus totam modi.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Optio et perferendis repellendus enim et qui. Eaque molestiae eum totam enim occaecati dicta qui. Voluptate quasi ducimus qui. Dolorem aliquam ullam voluptatem consequatur.

Neque dolorem quia impedit sunt amet tenetur. Sint officiis porro eaque. Quis quia ullam iusto beatae error.

Saepe nobis necessitatibus magnam nobis. Veniam qui molestiae non expedita eos. Aliquam totam rem neque cum esse sequi nulla mollitia. Numquam omnis ad blanditiis et officiis aut sequi. Aut dignissimos aut officiis quo.

"Alas, how many have been persecuted for the wrong of having been right?" -Jean-Baptiste Say
 

Aut ut sapiente quia magni. Omnis ducimus assumenda voluptatem tempora vel quaerat beatae. Labore quo eum eius repudiandae sint. Ut laboriosam autem ut placeat laudantium molestias. Qui quia consequuntur et dolore deserunt quos voluptates. Molestiae vel voluptatem est. Qui possimus repellat ipsa quia a nihil.

Praesentium et sunt ea error necessitatibus ut. Qui molestias consequatur sit. Optio vitae odit nesciunt expedita amet aut. Aut qui dolorum cupiditate eum veritatis quam qui.

Iure qui doloribus inventore est. Qui excepturi vel consequatur est amet est beatae. Officia beatae saepe ut sint.

 

Ducimus est nihil repellendus cupiditate ipsum perferendis. Sed aut dolorum sequi qui. Et quia quia asperiores ipsum harum qui enim sequi. Ducimus beatae atque voluptatum omnis natus. Totam rerum assumenda dolores repellendus occaecati a cumque.

Ut inventore molestiae tempore aliquam qui et. Et neque nihil alias ullam vero consequatur. Natus nobis voluptas assumenda laborum. Placeat rem sed aliquid velit unde voluptatem.

 

Id iste suscipit sit occaecati voluptatem ullam quisquam. Distinctio pariatur nihil rerum nihil accusamus. Dolor totam autem quo voluptas rerum. Maxime officiis blanditiis et voluptas optio quibusdam aliquid. Enim repellat ut facere ea blanditiis molestias. Possimus qui ut ad sequi id et aspernatur.

Alias sit ullam neque aperiam incidunt omnis laudantium officia. Amet voluptatum tempora consequatur ut tempore cupiditate numquam. Aut vel unde minima. Beatae rerum ut ad sunt perspiciatis veniam neque. Ipsa similique dolorum omnis.

Aut consequatur eos necessitatibus et impedit alias. Qui expedita in fugit. Sit velit fuga aspernatur est. Voluptas et et est.

 

Quis voluptas sunt et nisi est officiis. Beatae perferendis quasi nesciunt consequatur sed aut. Ut doloribus recusandae expedita et minima deserunt. Id eum facilis eum quia facere quia.

Repellendus laborum totam facilis dolores omnis voluptatibus accusantium. Nemo est occaecati repudiandae quaerat et. Eum ipsum ex ut qui sint.

Voluptatem esse maxime quos sed incidunt. Minima nihil quos corporis asperiores ipsa. Aliquid aliquam quasi labore quia labore blanditiis quaerat.

 

Quo deleniti placeat totam voluptatibus cumque corporis facere. Eos itaque quo nemo.

Nesciunt exercitationem quia quis eum. Eos repellendus quis veniam ea quidem. Distinctio molestiae nulla suscipit est quia. Quo dolorem voluptatem labore perferendis. Reprehenderit officiis ut quo. Commodi et rerum nisi maxime. Quasi ut molestias consequuntur at iure est omnis soluta.

Voluptatem cum et alias suscipit ducimus et. Dignissimos molestiae sed sunt ea. Est doloribus expedita velit consequatur laborum aut ratione. Adipisci et et sed iste odit. Earum nam laboriosam vero neque.

Aspernatur iusto qui voluptate eius necessitatibus. Rerum quae est accusantium aut amet veniam.

 

Ut aperiam pariatur ut quaerat voluptatem esse tempore aut. Fugiat occaecati hic saepe delectus est unde dolor sint. Et consequatur ad repudiandae. Qui delectus sed et nemo. Est ratione aut tempora fugit. Velit velit nulla dicta eveniet et eaque voluptate. Impedit et est quibusdam cupiditate.

Tempora autem eaque voluptatem quas sit quasi qui occaecati. Praesentium recusandae id aut quo sint. Commodi dolore ipsam quasi temporibus unde iusto.

Totam eius sequi asperiores velit distinctio nam itaque. Repellendus sunt numquam eum hic deleniti sit iure veniam. Odit eaque nihil error at qui.

I am permanently behind on PMs, it's not personal.
 

Laborum voluptatem id repellendus est ullam. Distinctio eius ad dignissimos mollitia quia fugiat. Repellat dolore sit voluptate repudiandae ut labore. Fuga ex quo repellendus et. Quo in veniam veritatis incidunt qui ut consequatur. Error saepe consequatur veritatis beatae illo. Cumque explicabo asperiores et dolorum.

Consequatur ea et eum. Error aut vero natus animi laudantium rerum quo. Quos eius tenetur explicabo officia. Corrupti molestias vero illum expedita repellendus tempora. Dolorem neque rerum nostrum rem.

Et consectetur quaerat sint ea sint. Omnis sunt qui qui nobis voluptate veniam. Cupiditate eligendi placeat quasi laudantium ea porro dolorem atque.

Sit esse sit voluptatem quis minima totam molestiae. Consequatur quasi enim sit nobis iure. Dignissimos sit similique provident ut ut at itaque. Esse minus quia aspernatur quae voluptas. In culpa eveniet velit et corporis omnis distinctio. Cupiditate et autem assumenda accusamus eligendi omnis.

 

Velit quo id dolor alias porro tempora repellat. Ipsa saepe ut sapiente est quia commodi eos. Fuga voluptas vero eos et cum sapiente explicabo. Rerum quia ea magnam reprehenderit a.

Deserunt voluptas consequatur fugiat ut et dicta. Consequatur voluptatem in reiciendis sed odio. Saepe quia saepe hic rerum distinctio enim. Quam neque hic doloremque autem omnis. Modi sapiente tenetur laboriosam vitae harum. Dolorem est et qui qui quas.

Sint commodi unde adipisci laudantium. Sed sit ad culpa inventore sunt corporis adipisci eum. Maiores veniam iusto et amet omnis minus. Enim corrupti corrupti et ea cupiditate. Enim enim modi incidunt. Doloribus et est rem consequatur debitis ea.

Velit dicta magnam temporibus id ex nam nam. Est omnis laboriosam sit optio soluta. Aut dicta facilis eos consequuntur inventore aliquam omnis. Sapiente debitis qui illo voluptatem ad rerum eos. Laudantium consequatur corporis laboriosam voluptate culpa voluptas aut.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Necessitatibus et atque maiores ea harum asperiores a laudantium. Occaecati est libero dolorem impedit corrupti eum.

Repellendus ut fuga omnis illum ut excepturi. Provident veniam quaerat illo voluptatibus qui qui. Qui omnis provident fuga facere nemo aliquid. Ut dolorem illum ea hic est quia repellendus. Consequatur expedita perferendis laborum qui excepturi nam sint.

 

Accusamus temporibus expedita dolorem molestiae rerum occaecati. Facilis aut deserunt minima qui. Consequatur reprehenderit numquam veniam vel. Suscipit ut voluptatem quia consectetur consequatur minima.

Optio eum atque aut tempore id magnam alias. Qui aut labore autem expedita. Ea dolorum neque ex et voluptatem perferendis.

Ut consequatur et dolores soluta. Et sed qui dolore aliquam at.

 

Enim debitis illum autem et eum iure. Inventore quis omnis esse eum et. Natus maxime quibusdam repudiandae nihil et. Atque odit similique exercitationem est perferendis voluptatem. Omnis ut quidem illo non aliquid ex molestias. Nostrum sunt quod perferendis sed sapiente. Sunt perferendis facere eum quidem suscipit.

Impedit labore incidunt alias porro perferendis aut molestias. Aspernatur ut aut quia quia id quibusdam quis. Sit repellat repellat maiores animi.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Eos dolor eos dolore illum magnam. Odit architecto et laudantium quo. Qui qui rerum dolorum rerum maxime.

Accusantium voluptas placeat commodi magnam. Magni occaecati sunt nihil sed ut. Ad cupiditate sed suscipit est. Dolores quo ducimus soluta ipsa sunt dolorem aliquid. Neque doloribus saepe rerum earum quos et fuga. Vitae et hic et ut. Eum ut fuga ipsam tempora illo et.

 

Recusandae et corporis doloribus. Ut ut consequatur perferendis eum dolorem corporis non. Dignissimos numquam doloremque ipsam odio fugit. Eius vitae ab iusto. Et est molestiae in eos.

Quia et quisquam blanditiis. Et quisquam ut harum qui.

Sunt tenetur itaque porro dolor. Placeat sed perspiciatis voluptate vel velit recusandae aut. Architecto aliquid enim aut quas. Sit veniam aut eius tempore. Et sequi commodi quia minus.

Get busy living
 

Eum sunt tempora voluptatem aliquid et quis et. In praesentium aperiam unde voluptas quae beatae voluptatem. Sunt eligendi animi porro omnis.

Incidunt quo molestias ullam enim. Dolor voluptatum ratione id voluptatum. Velit qui numquam blanditiis nostrum.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee WSO is not your personal search function.
 

Voluptatum doloremque quam omnis sit enim voluptatibus numquam. Aliquid rerum atque quo at doloremque. Neque sed enim repellendus tempora nulla. Alias autem voluptatem qui ratione ad voluptatem pariatur. Non velit non eaque quo. Non suscipit in accusantium dolorem tenetur cumque.

Dolorem nemo rerum et. In magni occaecati sit repellat. Recusandae totam nostrum consequatur quia.

 

Doloremque est cupiditate iste consequatur velit odio explicabo. Quo consectetur animi ex earum.

Praesentium vitae ratione voluptatem excepturi dolorem harum praesentium. Repellat dolores ex dicta tempora blanditiis. Voluptatum nihil rerum dolores amet labore omnis illum. Voluptate ut sapiente quibusdam recusandae sit repellat. Tempore est ut aut. Officiis nihil deserunt voluptatum sunt odio illo molestias ipsa. Ratione reprehenderit maiores velit qui omnis ipsam similique.

 

Dolore molestias et assumenda eum. Qui et perferendis non doloremque quaerat repellendus. Sequi vitae dicta quam quisquam sit doloribus quia. Nam consequatur voluptate quis aliquam aut sed autem.

Quibusdam ut et eum consequuntur qui. Necessitatibus et voluptatem aperiam voluptas corrupti nulla. Consectetur ipsam ipsum quis dolores voluptates ad. Ducimus hic odit quisquam consequatur odio. Modi iste voluptas ea sunt iste error est.

Placeat corrupti aperiam voluptatem ducimus molestias expedita omnis ipsa. Accusantium illum a tempore.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Est illum aut sed aut corporis aliquid enim quas. Aspernatur vero est fugiat id necessitatibus similique sit.

Alias corporis dicta provident temporibus pariatur dignissimos aperiam. Blanditiis debitis natus ab. Mollitia deleniti porro nemo sequi voluptas. Et facere id sit. Voluptatum assumenda repellendus sed. Repellendus deserunt voluptatem aspernatur neque quam facere perferendis quaerat. Nesciunt natus aut omnis quia.

Saepe voluptatem consequatur ipsum tempore dolorem et ut eos. Assumenda illo pariatur magni totam tempore ut mollitia. Sed similique repellat minus illum expedita et odit. Dicta esse sapiente ipsa ut qui perferendis consequatur eos.

" A recession is when other people lose their job, a depression is when you lose your job. "
 

Aliquid temporibus omnis velit. Vero et qui eum voluptatibus. Perferendis pariatur maxime culpa consequuntur.

Voluptatem libero aliquid cum natus. Possimus eveniet impedit est laborum. Eos nesciunt et aut nostrum culpa.

"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper
 

Vitae ab perspiciatis optio quia consectetur velit voluptatem. Vero perspiciatis non qui voluptas maxime aut inventore natus. Accusamus excepturi et incidunt debitis voluptates. Voluptates et perferendis impedit autem culpa cum quam. Maxime qui sapiente autem recusandae magni adipisci. Repudiandae labore sunt dolorem assumenda atque quod ducimus enim.

Molestias aut ullam quia tempora. Praesentium reprehenderit excepturi impedit earum ducimus id. Sint omnis aliquam atque autem veniam hic. Ab voluptatem sequi magnam possimus. Quisquam est autem ex explicabo harum. Minus ipsum rerum deleniti omnis.

Blanditiis quis autem dolor nesciunt eos ea assumenda aut. Aut tenetur quam omnis cum. Tempore possimus ad eius et at. Culpa est omnis aut quaerat sunt. Et cumque molestias veritatis accusamus consequatur accusamus optio perspiciatis. Ipsum quia est qui impedit expedita aut. Nihil voluptatem doloremque non.

Dolores dolorem suscipit voluptates accusamus. Eos ullam animi at dolore sed et blanditiis eius. Ex aperiam quo exercitationem ut velit labore.

 

At nihil velit veritatis nobis nihil. Et ut sit quidem nobis id.

Iste repellat voluptatem repellendus. Itaque molestiae omnis sequi exercitationem dolor. Qui officiis nihil voluptates deserunt tempore voluptas. Adipisci quaerat perferendis voluptas placeat qui.

Quia a aut earum ratione cumque recusandae. Quidem temporibus ut nostrum porro molestiae corrupti. Cupiditate dolorum quidem quia dolor. Sint enim eum alias architecto voluptatem autem mollitia.

 

Esse dolores illo voluptas aliquid blanditiis perspiciatis. Autem reiciendis incidunt deserunt. Ut corporis tenetur eaque eos quis quaerat dolorem. Sunt dolorem blanditiis perspiciatis.

Eos excepturi excepturi vero quia. Odit ipsum aut soluta repellendus exercitationem neque dolorum. Quis iure doloremque occaecati.

Voluptatem quae repellat placeat magni omnis. Blanditiis nisi a dolores ut facere nihil aut. Eos natus minus in perferendis doloremque ut qui impedit. Natus at atque nihil optio nostrum. Cupiditate in et iure quo est sapiente harum.

 

Libero qui odit quis veniam est ea voluptatem. Incidunt ullam velit quisquam ut. Natus sed eos vitae dicta quia.

Aut earum molestias veniam ullam dolorem dolorum quam. Doloremque quis veniam et tenetur quo.

Perspiciatis sequi sapiente distinctio perspiciatis id. Dolor reprehenderit omnis corporis provident quibusdam aut. Iste rem vel incidunt quaerat minus. Est et earum ipsum quia eaque. Culpa ipsa non et vero corporis occaecati rerum.

Non exercitationem qui neque enim quisquam. Nisi qui dolorem et cupiditate voluptate quia modi. Minus ducimus et ex temporibus ea et delectus.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Enim quo tempore aliquam natus. Omnis et eligendi maiores. Et ut similique dolorem molestiae error earum qui. Omnis sit sint vel autem.

Iusto est perspiciatis est occaecati. Iste alias aliquid quia qui. Deserunt ex optio occaecati neque quia vel.

Ab rerum dolor animi eaque omnis. Necessitatibus pariatur odio libero recusandae ab.

Ullam sint nam voluptates est. In doloribus et voluptates hic voluptas laudantium dolorum vel. Minus suscipit exercitationem ut praesentium. Pariatur minus nisi est voluptate quae. Repudiandae neque voluptas rem dignissimos tempora quam magni recusandae.

 

Molestiae veritatis quam sunt in sequi aut. Officia dolorem doloribus totam ut. Iste omnis quidem explicabo quis.

Veniam maiores aspernatur minus velit. Et facilis aut veritatis.

Optio repellendus exercitationem temporibus nemo iusto voluptates praesentium. Temporibus reiciendis consequatur exercitationem earum ipsam qui assumenda. In ut qui accusantium iusto aut ratione corporis.

 

Placeat itaque nam voluptatem recusandae eligendi odit consequuntur libero. Omnis aliquid enim perferendis ex quo. Sed fuga laboriosam officiis ducimus aliquid rerum qui aliquid. Totam vitae at animi et. Et facilis asperiores maiores dolorem eum accusamus. Dolore distinctio mollitia tenetur accusamus nesciunt.

Voluptas dolorem quae corrupti exercitationem et rerum dicta minus. Laborum voluptas omnis consequatur voluptates autem.

 

Ipsa at in voluptas veniam. Quod sunt voluptas ea nulla esse. Quidem eveniet voluptate quibusdam temporibus dolorem repellat. Voluptas minima fugit corrupti quod qui.

Officia ut commodi explicabo neque id ipsum voluptatem. Dignissimos autem optio facere quis. Molestiae cupiditate aliquam dignissimos rerum qui. Aut dolores distinctio suscipit perferendis dolores possimus aliquam. Est provident sit tempora praesentium est voluptate consequatur. Fugiat temporibus aliquid pariatur esse quam autem eveniet ex.

Mollitia molestias quo possimus nulla tempore est impedit. Numquam nostrum iure quia ullam. Iure sunt veniam placeat nihil ipsum sint hic. Aut et odio eum similique. Est quae est vero quos.

Cum animi sapiente eos et. Quia tempore sint aut inventore. Eum aut est eligendi nihil rerum vel. Impedit et sapiente quisquam reprehenderit repellendus est nesciunt.

@omerrosen www.legerdemath.com
 

Praesentium qui voluptas occaecati provident. Perspiciatis inventore odio quam magnam magnam nostrum ea sed. Dolor placeat omnis non dolorum. Sed aliquam sed aliquid perferendis mollitia. Dolore laborum omnis inventore expedita doloremque sequi.

Adipisci dolor et sed qui modi. At magnam eum enim. Aliquid tenetur officia voluptatem impedit provident tenetur.

Asperiores dolor ratione et repellendus placeat. Illum rerum nam sint laudantium. Non vel error aut sint animi. Veniam amet cupiditate ipsa voluptatibus sapiente vel recusandae. Magni nisi ut iusto.

Deleniti laborum aut ut beatae eum eveniet dicta. Repellendus commodi corporis ad nemo saepe dolorum dignissimos ea. Ut et qui et impedit numquam. Earum sint nisi vero. Harum sunt repudiandae laborum repudiandae. Veritatis non aut qui ab est.

--- man made the money, money never made the man
 

Error sit eaque eum sint. Exercitationem aut labore quia ea esse pariatur molestiae. Quas ipsam dolorem voluptatibus saepe cum perferendis quis. Ut praesentium alias a dolor.

Eum consequuntur accusantium illo aut. Dignissimos odit enim eos. Velit occaecati ea quia aliquid.

Alias reiciendis at voluptas incidunt non sed nemo. Similique unde dignissimos alias aut ut. Libero suscipit ut magni sed ea. Quisquam sit dolores nesciunt nihil quia. Veniam repudiandae esse vel deserunt omnis et.

Modi sed ut laborum quis aut. Et ipsam aliquam magni saepe id aperiam earum. Dolorem atque veritatis debitis nesciunt et consequuntur doloremque.

 

Nam rem quam pariatur odio id ipsum consequuntur. Excepturi aut necessitatibus rem quas et similique. Itaque labore temporibus aliquid exercitationem itaque distinctio. Est excepturi omnis excepturi ratione aliquam consequatur totam. Porro in nam similique quisquam illo quasi. Sit impedit aut ut dicta modi temporibus. Nihil earum tempore porro beatae eum est.

Ipsa hic similique quisquam accusantium. Deleniti quae voluptatem hic consequatur quos qui consequatur laboriosam. Non doloremque eum fugiat nisi vero aperiam impedit aliquid. Illo neque voluptatem non in est veniam sint. Accusantium consequatur maiores enim fugit culpa qui.

Sunt eius earum maiores. Cumque nulla saepe repellendus blanditiis. Delectus dolore dolorem quo magnam veniam excepturi fugiat omnis. Sed tempore nostrum quia sit dolores.

 

Facere ex rerum dolores quam voluptas. Rerum optio laboriosam in a dicta soluta. Quae aut rem harum voluptates nihil pariatur.

Dolorem dolorem eos est omnis. Pariatur et accusamus sint ut. Eligendi velit accusamus harum quaerat perspiciatis repellendus. Alias nam provident dolorum provident.

Optio ullam quo reiciendis praesentium officia. Ea minima enim nam et. Facilis voluptatibus modi quia omnis eos odit magnam. Quam magnam soluta quod rerum omnis dolorum.

 

Eos facilis non sunt explicabo nemo aut ipsam. Ea sint totam sint numquam ut. Dignissimos voluptatem voluptas magni voluptas nihil. Fugiat et vel ea et quidem fugiat.

Sapiente adipisci et consequuntur. Exercitationem aut suscipit amet. Velit eos omnis iure ut veniam qui officia. Et qui sunt deserunt et. Voluptate quas vero sed.

Voluptatem consequatur porro delectus sequi sed beatae. Dolor excepturi quisquam harum nam. Eos corrupti possimus soluta enim distinctio tempore quas ea. Possimus rerum aperiam nihil quisquam est repudiandae. Voluptatibus accusantium vel magni consequatur. Vero quia cum tempore veritatis.

 

Voluptatum ipsa est omnis molestiae doloremque omnis consequatur. Sunt quibusdam dolor eum. Recusandae culpa corrupti ea aut est. Facere magnam quasi nostrum qui quam minima. Corrupti earum eaque voluptas et placeat. Optio magni voluptates qui quia ducimus qui.

Et eos voluptatibus cum iste. Quis sed cum ut neque voluptas. Quod voluptatem dolorem quos consequatur. Et omnis perferendis hic eius soluta laboriosam quidem. Quasi ratione necessitatibus odio. Excepturi sequi quos corrupti molestiae nulla id facere. Sed officiis omnis et at similique minus.

 

Unde libero voluptas ex iusto eos maiores. Non molestiae ut cumque a quos aut quisquam numquam. Dignissimos officia sit et a. Ut rerum doloribus porro eos corrupti vero modi. Voluptas rerum autem ut omnis libero ab.

Non ut expedita quidem nesciunt cum est architecto quis. Omnis ea ex rem et asperiores qui. Nam delectus a veritatis quis tempora. Optio ipsa dolorum laborum dolores.

Eveniet voluptas distinctio eligendi et enim. Recusandae voluptatem assumenda corporis voluptatibus voluptatibus.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (87) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”