Is Investment Banking Boring?
Mind you I'm in ops of a totally different dept but it seems like IBD is boring. Would much rather do ER/AM/S&T/ etc.
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
April 30, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
I've found it pretty boring and tedious so far
ER as a junior is boring S&T as a junior is boring AM as a junior could be interesting IBD as a junior is boring at times
most of these jobs are boring. some have more bright spots than others but depends on the person.
Yes but ops is more boring
I agree that ops is pretty dull but the morale and camaraderie are pretty good at my firm.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out you're not hard to work with. A good team is always important
Thanks. You can have a lot of fun in ops outside of work so that's a plus. I take my junior employees out to 5-10 mlb or NCAA games and it's a great time. Can also leave work at 3 or 4 and go to my son's basketball practice. Don't think the same can be said in the cutthroat BB IBD sweatshops.
Work is boring in general. It can't be 100% balls to the wall action or nothing would get done.
My ass is always going 100mph to be worried about being bored
Do you make twerking videos on youtube?
blame my personal fitness trainer at Equinox
It's one of those things where it's interesting in theory but super boring in practice (as a junior person at least). I assume the discussions are a little more interesting at the senior level. Pays the bills for now though.
Boring af
Everyone who says i want to do i banking because I want an exciting career is a liar. If I become a MD one day, I will auto ding anyone who says this to me in an interview
What are you supposed to say?
You could say you enjoy M&A markets/transactions/investments; you enjoy studying businesses/sectors; etc.
If you said you wanted to do M&A for the excitement it just shows you're not very informed about what you want to get into.
I have answered this question for DCM and IB with the fact that I really (honestly) enjoy the breadth of tasks in this space. Old post, but I'll answer anyhow. I worked for very lean, smaller shops where the entire concept-to-completion deal was on my plate. Pitch, participating in pitches (even at a junior level, being given a section to pitch), research, writing, creating CIMs, modeling, credit analysis, going to credit committee, helping investors/lenders with their credit committee submissions/due diligence/inquiries, writing term sheets, reviewing legal docs, hosting and attending lender/investor meetings, working directly with senior management at clients, overseeing the deal process, strategizing on structures and lender groups/levels/fees, determining pricing, valuation, assisting on closings and fee calculations - all part of my job, pivoting in every direction each day. Love the variety of tasks and interaction with clients and MDs. I also covered broad spectrum of industries, so this is really interesting. And yeah, can be really exciting and fun. As such, I think a good answer is the broad variety of skills you get to develop, and varied quantitative & qualitative tasks, communication and team work are great answers.
When I become MD or HAVE MDs pitch my unicorn, I'm gonna ask all MDs in that bake-off: (MD mumbling on some totally irrelevant company that their fucking brainless VP chose as "the closest comp") hey, stop right here. why do you want to work in investment banking? What motivated you into this awesome industry?
If they say "because the work is super interesting", I'm gonna slap their ass and kick'em out of my office.
everything becomes repetitive and therefore boring if you're doing it long enough.
I can tell you that even at VP level, it is damn boring - because you are still involved in the so called execution part of the job (i.e. managing work stream, managing associates, reviewing works). Although I get to do more of the relationship building/ deal origination/ client management process, I am still expected to more of the so called technical work. So unless you move into Director/ MD roles, it will still be boring as hell.
Now that I am a director for two years; it is still boring as fuck.
Literally laughed out loud, thanks for the update
IB is a very linear career path, but that is exactly why so many choose to enter it. Most transactions are similar in nature and involve similar processes. Most promotions (at least up until VP) are based almost entirely on seniority and years worked. This affords individuals a greater oversight over their careers as opposed to other fields that have far more variables involved. That being said, at the MD level, working in IB is almost like working for oneself. Sure, MDs are employed by a bank, but they bring in their own business and are only as good as the last client they brought in.
I mean this in the least insulting way because obviously getting an ib job isn't easy but do you think that IB is seen as the "safe" route. Because I don't think anyone can say with conviction that ib folks that are below a MD have near as much skill as their AM/S&T/PE counterparts where you have to be pretty good as you move along in your career and your P&L and investments hold you accountable. Not to mention fundraising isn't something that can just be learned.
Of course it's a safe career path, and I don't think that's an insult or that there is anything wrong with choosing a safe career path. If you're graduating from an MBA program and sinking in student loans, IB is a sure fire way to pay that debt off.
I think skillsets are all relative. What one person thinks is an extraordinary skillset, another person might find too pigeonholing. For what it's worth, the exit opps from IB are incredible, especially at the senior banker level. I have seen associates and up exit to head of corp dev, CFO, head of finance, various PE roles, etc.
I had an Asset Management internship before starting banking and I can say that it was way more boring than banking. I am at a smaller MM firm for banking and so my experience may not represent a BB experience
In my very biased opinion, Equity Research seems to be underrated on this board
I think buy-side research is even more interesting, especially if you are in a generalist role. You aren't limited to a number of companies or industries, so to learn something completely new with each prospect is valuable. I don't think IB is bad if you can stay busy (helps the time fly by, obviously), but I've always enjoyed the "industry research" when writing some deal books. It's a good chance to step back from the other nuisances.
Because 20 year old college students are idiots like that wannabe GS guy. ER at a fidelity, wellington. T Rowe, etc. beats the fucking hell out of pumping out pitch books. This board thinks that ib is the end-all-be-all yet there are other routes to b-school than working at JPM.
Would agree. But those funds have high tenure and 'clog' of middle management that prevents big analyst classes and people moving up very fast. IB tend to churn and burn thus leaving holes to fill and opportunity. Also active funds have been slashing fees and seats.
Never thought I would see someone call Wellington underrated
100% agree, ER appears to be the redheaded stepchild of Wall Street despite being a very fun career, similar comp, and better hours. I think for those people in junior roles starting out, ER builds more actual technical skill than IB. Bottom of the totem pole in IB you're probably up till 4 AM being a powerpoint monkey and "formatting", in ER you're at least building/updating models, attending 1x1s at conferences, taking an earnings call while the analyst is on another, preparing earnings notes, etc.
Yet for some reason people act as if banking builds this superior skillset that is somehow absent in research - I think this is bullshit. On the sell side I've been brought over the wal with the blessing of compliance a ton of times to consult on potential deals the bank was doing in my industry. Are the bankers smart guys? Absolutely, ton of respect for them. Do any of them have any skill that I don't, any ability to model/analyze companies better than me, evaluate a deal better than me? No, they don't.
In the news, SocGen is outsocuring their ER capacity. Just saying. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-socgen-fintech-research-idUSKBN13Q3LF
Did ER myself in my early days. The problem with ER is that you will not have the deal transaction experience that you need to move into more lucrative roles. A friend did that from ER at BMO to an emerging market private equity fund - but that is very very rare.
The only useful thing that I can say is that from the skill that you learn putting together an initiation report at ER, the format is almost the same in IM (M&A) or Prospectus (IPO). Other than that from ER, you will never learn how to put together a Sales & Purchase Agreement (to be used in M&A transaction). Just saying.
I agree with you about how much people exaggerate 'skillsets' you learn at any introductory job (banking, consulting, etc). Quite frankly, most of these things are process jobs that you could learn to do while applying very critical thinking. The same can probably be said for ER at the junior levels, though if you push for the opportunities you can learn about companies, interact with CEOs, and develop skillsets that would be useful as an investor or enterpreneur.
The reason ER gets short shrift is that banking has stronger exit opps (including to the public investing side). I don't have a good explanation for this except that people are lazy. A lot of people on the buyside started in banking and there is a well developed process/pipeline to the buyside from banking via recruiters, etc, so people hire more bankers. "Bank prestige", also serve as proxies for talent (b/c you had to compete to get that banking spot), so recruiters/ employers can make the (lazy) assumption that the banking kids are the smartest/ hardest working talent around. Never underestimate the power of lazyness
ER deserve shit in comparison to IB. Sure it's more technical skillsets, but they're skillsets that apply to almost no other career on the street. ER has little-to-no client service element thus organization, time management and the other soft skills that make ex-bankers valuable in almost every field are less relevant than intricate models of public companies.
ER has been shrinking for decades due to lack of relevance, inherent conflict of interest and inaccuracies (price targets, lol). Why it really gets shit around here though is simple...ER does not generate meaningful revenue. It's a cost center.
Work in IB now, previously worked in Equity Research. They are very similar (in terms of skill set), however I would say that the work in IB is a little more fresh given the transaction based work, i.e. once a deal is done, you see the tangible effect it has on your bonus, and you move on to another deal vs. endlessly covering the same stock while never directly generating revenue for your bank (ER). That said, I have many friends in S&T and it sounds a hell of a lot more exciting than either one of the previously mentioned fields; sounds like there is more pressure though, and hours can be brutal if you aren't an early riser.
Grass is always greener effect?
Perhaps, or maybe it is the fact that essentially all finance movies glorify S&T compared to other wall street professions (Wolf of Wall Street, Margin Call, Wall Street, The Big Short)
Never did any work in S&T, I work in corporate banking which is akin to IB (transactional in nature with some relationship building/management elements), work closely with our IBD industry coverage group, and have friends that work in ER.
Would echo whats been said here already - the transaction process has very similar/recurring elements across deals. You are essentially going through the same motions for different transactions. Each deal will be nuanced and may require figuring out how to do something, but largely same core skill set is used.
Lets not forget the other half of the job, pitching and market updates. Our IB coverage partners cover x number of clients in our industry and are getting in front of management multiple times a year to ensure a consistent flow of ECM/DCM business. They will bring a book with them each time that provides an update on the sector, financial position of the company, market updates for ECM/DCM, and some other items of interest. A few of these slides are "off the shelf" or provided by product partners; however, the others are continuously refreshed/updated so its rather repetitive.
Same thing on my side of the house in corporate banking. I manage a group of existing clients that tap the bank market every 2 years. They are constantly pushing out tenor of existing bank facilities and re-financing to achieve better terms. Given they have several different facilities (I.e. revolving credit & term loans), sometimes the different facilities are re-fi'ed at various times throughout the cycle as opposed to doing both of them together. This includes more frequent touches to the client. The elements of analyzing the credit transaction are all the same given consistency in process is needed (i.e. you cant use different underwriting methodology to analyze various clients, then you wont have a consistent credit process).
From my perspective, what I have enjoyed the most is doing a transaction for a new non-public borrower that we previously have not had a relationship with. This means there will be lots of financial & operational due diligence, meetings with management, negotiating docs, and structuring a new deal.
From friends that work in ER...you are covering a subset of companies and each time earnings are released you will be publishing a re-cap of earnings, updating model, etc. This is very repetitive from quarter to quarter. The fun parts would be bringing new companies under coverage or the value-add research you are writing outside of the typical quarterly updates.
I think the fun aspects of the transnational side are idea generation, pitching new ideas, winning the business, hand off to someone else to execute (i.e. senior bankers originate idea and VP & below execute).
Honestly?
My advice is going to sound a trite but it's true.
Don't look to a JOB to make it not boring. A steep learning curve will help at first but is not a permanent state of affairs. It's the people who will make the job not boring. There were even plenty of stints as Army officer, deployed, that were extremely boring if you can believe that.
Boredom is a good thing on deployment. I agree 100% that the people can make or break a position. Just not enough to keep you there when something better comes.
Wouldn't boredom eventually come to any jobs since you're doing it repetitively?
Do you guys find it interesting at first and it gets dull by time? I mean, even activities I find interesting get boring if done everyday. Maybe crunching numbers and creating similar report everyday should be even worse.
Investment banking still seems to be an attractive career destination. That should leave bankers with more time to devote to the boring work of acting as intermediaries between the providers of capital and those who can usefully invest it.
In lieu of what has been said above, where do people think ECM/DCM fits into the debate? Is far more interesting work or more boring, but with better hours than IB?
I'm in DCM right now and think it's pretty damn boring. Trying to use it to go MBA business schools ">M7 MBA and get into IB or PE.
You don't need an MBA to make a move internally if you are in DCM. Can pull it off externally as well.
Yup, it is boring as hell.
Genuine question:
Aside careers like actor/professional athlete/world renowned musician or any type of careers that is not a result of a degree acquired in a superior education institution:
Which career really is fun?
There are investment bankers (MDs and above) and there are people who work in investment banking (the rest)
Try to be the former, your life is not particularly great if you are stuck as the latter
Speaking as the former, my life isn't boring at the least. I enjoy it very much and I recommend it highly, and it was worth it.
If you are stuck at are a more junior point, its simple. If you have the skill and perspective to find it interesting, great because you may have some use in your future life. If not, find something else to do before your lack of application and skill begin to stick out.
I've done data analysis, credit research, and now IB.
In my opinion, investment banking is significantly more mentally stimulating than the other 2 combined. Deals give me a hard on.
Boring and busy will always beat homeless.
I'm usually too busy to be bored. Is it stressful? Yes. Often intense? Yes. But given that most days fly by and it's the early morning hours before I know it, I wouldn't exactly say it is "boring".
Are parts of the job boring? There is no questions about it. Reformatting a potential buyers list because an MD decided to add a new firm at the last minute and then after you have finished formatting it decided that he/she wants to rank the firms differently at 4am is not just boring its infuriating.
Is sitting in a management meeting with the client's C-suite and the Managing Partner of a financial sponsor going through a deck that you created boring? No.
I would say (without any direct experience in the careers the OP mentioned other than IB) that a higher percentage of the day-to-day in IB is more boring than some of the other career paths but occasionally the highlight moments make the dull periods worth it.
If anyone is interested, I can go into greater detail on the boring and exciting components of stages of a deal in a longer post but below is a small sample on how every stage in a process can have both rewarding and boring
Pitching -
Rewarding: Digging into a company/industry, figuring out the positions, investment highlights, building a comprehensive model (where you are building from scratch or truly customizing a template), and being in the meeting where an MD crushes the pitch to the c-suite of the potential client using the materials you put together can all be rewarding.
Boring: Reformatting, slightly tweaking text/colors, printing and binding books, troubleshooting the printer when it breaks down in the middle of printing fifteen 80 page decks, driving out to MDs houses at 4am, etc are all incredibly boring (more accurately extremely tedious and frustrating).
Overall, when you are busy days fly by and you don't have any time to step-back and think whether the day-to-day is boring. However, when you have some downtime to reflect is usually when the frustration settles in over the mundane tasks that are destroying your social life and then you look down at the gut you have recently developed from indulging on the meal stipends and late night snacks.
There are six sorts of people that work in investment banking as an analyst. I care about 5 and 6 who are smart enough to get it. The rest will find it boring, :
Those that are really just incompetent and have no concept of what they are doing or why. Equities in Dallas. (20% of the analysts)
Those of you that are bright, but are millennials that wish your coworkers went to yoga sessions with you and that kale juice was served in the office. Tech busts await (10% of the analysts)
Those who consider investment banking boring because they do what they are told and are the drones that populate the office on an everyday basis, which represents a lot of you (40% of the analysts. Many of you will get jobs on the buyside but your careers will stagnate as you work for a declining industry without the capabilities of dominating it. And no one makes less money than a mediocre guy on the buysde)
Those of you who are good analysts and stay on because you don't really have the buyside potential or initiative to leave. You will get fired as VPs or Directors and get decent but lower paying jobs for corporates (15% of the analysts). Nice kids but workhorses and not thoroughbreds.
Those of you that really have skill, investment acumen and ridiculous work ethic and will make it work at one of 10% of private equity shops and hedge funds that will make real money in your career (10% of analysts). By and large these people are smart enough to appreciate the intellectual complexities of the deal business, but want and capable of doing something more and I respect them for that.
Those of you who stick in investment banking because you have gotten beyond the analyst tedium and love doing deals and all it entails (5% of analysts). This is all it takes and all we really want to sustain the business.
mergersandacquisitions78 Can you take a look at your thread for some questions that I'd be happy learning the answers to. I am looking to solidify my career and would be happy to get your perspective.
And I admit this is a view sitting in tNY. Life could be different in other places.
It's definitely pretty boring at the junior level. It gets a little more interesting as you move up and start getting more involved in the strategic aspect of the job as opposed to staring at the excel sheet all day
It doesn't matter if it's boring. The money, alone, should be enough to drive away any boredom
It Kdoesn't matter if it's boring. RThe money, alone, Ishould be enough to Sdrive Haway Nany boredomA
The ol' God of Compassion
Most Mundane/Painful Tasks in iBanking (Originally Posted: 10/02/2012)
I'm trying to look into solutions for the biggest pain points/mundane tasks that IB analysts and associates face frequently (ie. looking up NAV values, double checking numbers, etc.).
So, what are the mundane/painful things you have to do on a regular basis that are so simple, yet incredibly time consuming?
uploading docs onto data rooms
Going to work
This cracked me up.
ha! +1
database updates.
Potential buyer profiles
Putting buyer profiles in alphabetical order after adding 2 and deleting 3
PIBs
Spreading comps. I worked at a LMM bank this summer; spreading comps for companies you have never heard before was boring as f.uck.
there are parts that are not mundane and painful?
Getting asked about personal finance/investment advice/checking accounts, etc. would enrage me. Watching a grown man, married with kids, cry at his desk because he screwed up a model wasn't a "task" per se but probably the most painful thing I've witnessed, banking or otherwise. This wasn't crying like a girl, either, this was lost all hope, where did my life go type of weeping.
Remember to breathe when you type
Everyone gets to this state at some point, typically the weeping is on the inside though, and replaced on the surface with fuming stares and eloquent aphorisms such as "FUCKING EXCEL, FUCKING BULLSHIT, FUCKING PRINTER, FUCKING PAGINATING, FUCKING MODEL, FUCKING PAGE RECREATES, FUCKING DATA LABELS, FUCK THIS GAME!"
That's pretty unsettling. Maybe each investment bank should have a trained psychologist on site and always on call. Kind of like how elementary schools have nurses. Although this psychologist would need to have more than band-aids in her toolkit. It wouldn't hurt for her to give out brightly colored lollipops.
Reading through the due diligence list line-by-line and double-checking completion against the data room.
Essentially, every part of diligence in general.
I understand why it's necessary on the buyer's side, but being in banking, it's just so annoying.
If the DD firm is hired by 'the other side', the deliverables are just not meant to be readable. I've seen some queer radar charts along with c. 600 words squeezed on one PPT slide with literally no line spacing - 'Yeah you are fucked'.
There honestly must be an easier way to look up NAV values from research
What are the good parts of the job?
Judging by the lack of responses, I am going to guess nothing.
With the presentation center's macros, formatting PPT slides on your own was a breeze once you learned the shortcuts. Doing pitches in Word, now that was a bitch.
Logo pages. The worst fucking things ever. I can't count the number of times I made "Illustrative Buyers" pages...
Make Banking Boring Again! (Originally Posted: 06/11/2012)
Good morning monkeys.
In the face of the recent trading fiascos of JP Morgan, over the past month several articles have popped up that attempt to paint the $2bn trading loss as behavior that was detrimental to the entire financial system before the crisis. Many argue that the behavior of JPM and its peers has not changed since the crisis, and the behavior has only become safer due to banks having larger cash reserves.
Last month there was an op-ed piece in the NY Times about making banking "boring" again. You can find the article here. The article furthered an agenda of stricter regulation and adherence to the Volcker Rule. We all know regulation always fixes everything, right? The main gist of the argument is that the author isn't happy with the level of risks banks take on under the guise of providing clients with the best returns, when in reality bankers are trying to line their own pockets and folks like Ina Drew make $14mm per annum.
The bottom line is that boring banking is safer, and boring banking goes hand in hand with stricter regulations that would disallow hedges on hedges and mandate that banks use excess cash on hand to invest in government securities or set up subsidiaries that have higher capital requirements, ultimately separating capital markets and investment banking from the vanilla banking (read: lending) arm of a bank.
The way I found this rather old piece was through an article on Bloomberg that argues that this is in fact not the solution to the problem. You can find the Bloomberg article here.
The author makes a few valid points:
The author argues that a new Glass-Steagall Act, something implicitly suggested as a countermeasure in the above NYT article, would not stick. This is pretty obvious: Glass-Steagall is draconian and antiquated, and even greater regulation through a Volcker-type legislation is an extremely contentious topic. What banks need is to be held to a higher standard by investors across all lines of business, and those that fail to measure up should be shed.
I personally don't know how to fix the problem of overly-risky trades taking place in the capital markets divisions of banks. I also am not entirely convinced that it is a problem, but that's another story for another day. What I do know is that banks like JPM are extremely large, diversified, and complicated entities. This is, in some ways good, and the author in Bloomberg claims separation of services is antiquated and that banks should be large and complicated entities. But there is a problem when dealing with large and complicated entities in the manner that the article suggests: holding a bank to a higher standard with the potential of shedding it quickly becomes impossible.
First of all, what does "a higher standard" even mean? And secondly, you can't simply shed banks that do not meet this higher standard when large, diversified, and complicated banking entities reach the threshold of "too big to fail".
If we do agree that there is a "problem" here, I see the only solution as stricter regulations similar to the Volcker Rule. Simply holding banks to a "higher standard" or forcing banks to create subsidiaries for capital markets seems overly-complicated and expensive, not to mention not tenable. What do you all think?
Just bring back Glass Steagall and repeal the Commodities - Futures Modernization Act of 2000. In a sane world, this is what we'd do. It's far simpler than Dodd-Frank and effectively eliminates the problem of TBTF and interconnected zombie banks.
More seriously, I think the US didn't get 'hurt' bad enough to learn its lesson. Look at WWI and WWII, the 30's and the cold war, Gulf war I + II, WTC '93 and '01, Big Momma's House 1 and 2 ......do you see a pattern emerging? The US is completely aware of the precarious situation it will like face, but the citizenry too complacent and the politicians too petty to really be effective.
So, another crisis is highly likely. THEN...and only then...we will see a reorganization of the industry. For a definition of 'reorganization' see: postwar confederate states, postwar Germany, postwar Iraq, post 911 intelligence agencies, post Enron energy regulation, aka total decimation and then restructuring from the ground up.
Hopefully, I'll be OUT of this rat race by then. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Hopefully, the people working in finance will use their brains and not blow their companies up. But this stuff is pretty predictable. Gird your loins. Hide yo' money. Hukunamatata
These changes would be pretty cool for finance professionals though (especially those facing an existential crisis about their roles in society). Relationships, reputations, actual advice and expertise would matter as much as how big your employer's balance sheet is... Might even see a return to some kind of partnership model in advisory / M&A, etc... One can dream...
Question for the Gold supporters... Do you think that returning to your commodity money would solve this on it's own?
getting rid of the Fed and having money backed by real capital would solve this problem and more.
Ron Paul! How you been, bruh?
Glass-Steagall is like the most logical thing...I'm not sure why some politicians haven't been calling for it. I guess why solve issues when they can lay more taxes on "rich" people and argue about things that have no economic impact like gay marriage or abortion or marijuana.
Honest question though, if it was announced that tomorrow we were ending the Fed and going to the gold standard. What would happen? US$1 would be worth ~1/2000oz of gold? This would change almost everything about finance as we know it, no?
A Chicago Booth professor named Luigi Zingales wrote an op ed in today's (Monday, 11 June) Financial Times advocating a return to Glass-Steagall. It was interesting on many levels, especially considering that he openly admits to initially being against GS but has since changed his mind. He advocates for the "mandatory separation" of commericial and investment banking but believes that Dodd-Frank is too complicated and the Volker Rule not effective because of the somewhat blurry line between Prop Trading and market making.
His most interesting point was that Glass-Steagal helped restrain the political power of the financial services sector as, under the old system, commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies often had different interests and motives. This resulted in their lobbying efforts to "offset each other."
A follow-up article on Bloomberg about why making banking safer won't make i safer. Interesting...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-10/making-banking-boring-is-the-w…
[quote=DouglasDubya]A follow-up article on Bloomberg about why making banking safer won't make i safer. Interesting...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-10/making-banking-boring-is-the-w…] The editors of Bloomberg must think that their readers are motards...
The article doesn't have a single mention of CDOs, RMBS, Sub-Prime, Lehman, CDS, AIG, SIVs, etc... I wish I could throw monkey shit on their website.
Edit: It would be pretty cool to do a statistical analysis of how the rhetoric of the financial crisis has changed from 2007 to date... Could make for a great Masters/Doctoral thesis, or at least a series of essays / a book. Truly amazing. I can only imagine how finance students are going to make sense of this crisis in 10 years.
Luigi Zingales's (Chicago Booth) article in the FT below... "Why I was won over by Glass-Steagall"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cb3e52be-b08d-11e1-8b36-00144feabdc0.htm…
He's just published a book on American capitalism last week, so has a written a few articles in the major finance newspaper / magazines in the past couple of weeks.
The thing is that "boring banking" was a huge part of the crises. Mortgage lending was the issue aided and abetted by MBSs and rating agencies. The issue is a lack of conservatism in lending, not prop trading per se. It was a game of hot potato as long as you could ditch the shitty loans you won. Shareholders have to demand conservatism and be ok with lower profitability.
Necessitatibus et voluptatem vero hic dolores explicabo. Libero ut sit rerum vitae qui aliquam saepe rerum. Exercitationem dolores sed repellendus inventore dignissimos ratione.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Omnis sed occaecati ab. Perferendis minima omnis illo quod quia quo magni. Facilis impedit voluptatibus et animi et. Neque nulla consequatur recusandae.
Consequatur atque tempore quis quis quis. Et et reprehenderit quibusdam facilis. Quisquam asperiores aliquam tempore assumenda repudiandae deserunt enim voluptate.
Est et autem nobis et rem ut. Non voluptas reprehenderit et eos temporibus.
Enim consequatur consectetur et. Doloremque amet et iusto quisquam. Dolor est iste ut qui quam. Doloribus voluptas vel doloremque non voluptatem pariatur ullam. Animi labore voluptatem dolores.
Nobis voluptatem quasi debitis et iste. Fugit deleniti expedita perspiciatis vitae quo consequatur necessitatibus. Consequatur impedit deleniti at porro. Dolor molestiae libero inventore maxime. Sed quod quia cumque. Recusandae eaque mollitia laudantium exercitationem maiores et voluptas aut. Iste ullam aut consectetur non velit a.
Dolorum et enim possimus et eos. Labore exercitationem delectus minima neque sit. Et ratione quis odio magni. Sunt explicabo magnam laboriosam voluptatibus quae.
Veniam voluptatem similique odit. Placeat architecto suscipit sit amet culpa. Molestiae laboriosam aspernatur quia molestiae aliquid et asperiores fuga. Illo vitae molestias quidem in eum voluptatem.
Labore rerum ut libero. Vero eum hic animi.
Dolorum aut occaecati distinctio quae nostrum quas. Ea similique aliquam aut sunt dolor eius. Quis aut ex explicabo dolor dolorem itaque.
Suscipit esse sit nostrum molestias. Aspernatur porro sint ipsa numquam id at debitis. Dolores commodi tenetur perferendis nulla nemo minima voluptates.
Sequi incidunt voluptatem fugiat. Eveniet unde dolorum magnam rerum qui ab tempora. Ad ipsam magnam ea laudantium. Beatae explicabo voluptas et ut amet et est ratione.