London Vs. NY .. which one do you prefer & why ?
Hi everyone,
I want to know what you think about these two cities in terms of Investment Banking and M&A.
I've noticed everyone is going crazy about NY on many forums, probably because people who work in the US are a majority on this website (It's called WSOasis and not CanaryWharfOasis so kinda makes sense), but I strongly beleive EMEA has a great deal flow, and expect it to rise even more in the next few years to come, for tax evasion purposes, but also for the emerging markets growing nearby .. Maybe when it comes to salary or living standards it's a whole different story I don't know ..
Tell us what you think.
Wish you all a very nice day.
Hi Max,
it turns out I work for a salary benchmarking website here in London and we study a lot the investment banking industry.
Fom our findings, London is the #2 best paying centre in Europe (lagging behind Frankfurt) and in the battle between Canary Wharf and the City, bankers in Canary Wharf are better paid. The banks are increasing their staff here and in 2014, bonuses are bouncing back from 2013.
@"Dingdong08"
I loved living in London, moreso than NYC. It's probably more expensive than NYC, but I was there from 04-08 when the pound hit 2.11 so it may seem better now as an expat American who had dollars saved, but I talk to friends still there and they've said real estate has gone through the roof and it was already bad when I was there. Personal taxes are pretty similar to US taxes, especially for someone in NYC with state and city taxes but I honestly didn't pay much attention to taxes because my company and accountants took care of all the filings. VAT adds to the cost of everything but it's built into the price tag so you don't really see and think about it.
I like London more than NYC because it's a city that has almost the same population but the buildings aren't all 30+ story towers so it feels less hectic and crazy but you still have everything that NYC offers. That makes the city much more spread out and Canary Wharf is a bitch to get to if you live in central or west London but I worked in Mayfair and lived in Kensington, which are right next to each other and it still took me 45 minutes to get to the office. They also call it a city of villages, which is cool because you do truly live in your particular section of town and get to know the locals. And pubs are a thing of beauty. You pick your local pub and it basically becomes an extension of your living room, probably because everyone's living rooms are so small, and it's completely normal and acceptable to go at noon on Sunday to read the paper and have a few pints. Or to go by yourself because you'll most likely know at least a few people who expect that you'll sit with them at their table. The proximity to continental Europe is great because you can easily take a weekend trip to any country or city, and Paris is a two hour train ride, city center to city center.
As far as finance, I'd say they tie, but take into account that my first hand knowledge is outdated by 6 years. I know when I was there London surpassed NYC in some metric that I don't recall, but after the recession NYC went back on top. Finance folks in London think they're the top city just the as folks in NYC do. Like others have said, you get a lot more international exposure in London (and not simply because you're American and living internationally) but if the overall finance market is somewhere in the same ballpark for both cities, the US's GDP is something like 7x that of the UK so much more business is from offshore. It's fun but there's a really big chance that you're flying long haul flights on a pretty regular basis, which sounds fun and sexy at first but being on 10+ hour flights a few times a month takes a toll on your body and soul. When I was there it was also when SOX was new and it threw a lot of business to London that would have otherwise been done in NYC, but I haven't closely followed regulations in the UK since the recession. I know there was talk of some pretty punitive regulations (to corporations, financial institutions and banker pay).
Regarding pay, I just don't know what it's like now and never really knew at junior levels. I was there at the absolute height of the bubble and people were making tons of money in every aspect of finance-IB, PE, HF's, consultants and attorneys to anything finance related, basically everyone. I personally knew a few guys in their mid to late 20's making a couple million per year at HF's: they weren't the rule, but it didn't seem like they were a singularity. The government was talking about some serious actions on pay but like I said I don't know if they were ever enacted. It also seems that everyone in London is in the finance industry or a service industry for finance-everyone's a banker or a lawyer that specializes in finance.
It's also nice living there because, at least at my level, you get a ton of vacation days (I think entry level people got something like 25 days) and you're actually expected to take them and unplug much more than you do in the US. We were in the middle of a deal in August and took a two week vacation to Spain that I was about to cancel but everyone thought I was nuts when I mentioned cancelling. Then while I was in Spain I was replying to emails on my Blackberry and one of our bankers replied to me saying that I should stop doing work or I'll never come back refreshed. I don't think anyone has ever said that to me in the US.
pretty sure london overall cost of living is more than NYC
I'd rather chew broken glass than live in London (due to the weather), the irony is I've never met anyone who didn't love living there.
Can I write in Houston, Texas? I moved here after working at a BB for three years in new york - and I get paid exactly what I got paid in new york in a state with no state income tax. Its something of an arbitrage opportunity.
Just had to put in my $0.02 shill for the lone star state...
London sucks.
NYC is the epicenter. London is gaining but NYC will never ever be topped. hours aren't as bad overseas from what I've heard.
Does NYC or London have a better future? (Originally Posted: 07/06/2015)
Largely, I would assume, this is almost a question of does the US or UK have a better future.
I've read articles that show the UK has recently been outperforming the US in terms of growth. The US was supposed to have a great 2015/2016 with ~3.5% growth, but we've seen that shot down this year. I would personally think that the two share similar trajectories.
I'm considering applying to Msc Finance programs in London with the plan to work there after the program (I'm a US citizen). While applying for FT positions in NYC is my first option, I just can't help but think of the allure London has. I studied abroad there recently for a semester. I've only been to NYC twice, but London seemed way more laid back and livable. Being abroad is also such a different experience. I think it would be awesome to say I lived and worked abroad for the first 3-5 years after college and then returned to the US. Starting your career in NYC is also a pretty good story also.
What do you guys think? Personal opinions on NYC vs London? Which would you start out in if you had the option? Noteworthy that the move to London would require a ~40k-50k masters program.
The world is getting more and more connected, if i was you i would live and work in London and experience also New York later and travel maybe to some Asian country, why limit yourself to one city, i don't know about your age but i think all people in their 20's 30's value increased mobility
I would choose NYC for school and career. The only thing that would lure me into living in the UK would be watching EPL live and Glastonbury (and great music festivals alike).
Please note that this is a very subjective opinion.
I love London. To me it's kind of like NYC but with actual history behind everything. That said, it's unbelievably expensive. And you lose like 20-25% of your income in a flat tax before any other taxes/adjustments. If you were paid in pounds the same as dollars (£100k to $100k) then you could live there but to live in a nice area of London is awesome but exorbitant.
As far as economic future/growth, I'd imagine that both will be fine.
The U.S.has a better future than the U.K. so by default NYC.
They're both the two dominant global cities and the biggest centers of finance. In terms of where you should work, it comes down to the job/role/company, your long-term goals and money.
I think NYC is the best place to work in finance right out of undergrad because having a solid NYC name brand on your resume will allow you much easier access and credibility going forward. I could see London making sense once you've moved higher up, and the compensation can make up for the high COL or you work in say emerging market currencies and need to be in London for that reason.
NYC vs London Lev Fin - Work and exit opps (Originally Posted: 11/05/2014)
Hi
Anyone has had experience in lev fin in both NYC and London (junior level)? Wonder if differences in product between the 2 locations, ie analytical vs process work and hours. Also, what are classic exit opps in NYC - same as London (ie PE / credit shops)?
Thanks guys
I don't have direct experience of working in the LevFin groups in either one of these locations but have had a lot of discussions with both junior and senior bankers in LevFin groups in New York and London. My understanding of the differences is as follows:
New York: - Epicenter of Leveraged Finance world and sees considerably more deal flow than Europe or Asia - Deals range from typical PE LBOs to corporate acquisitions; arguably corporate acquisitions have a higher hit/completion than PE deals so you're likely to be involved in more closed deals - Significant amount of HY Bonds as well as TLBs and TLAs - Best place for experience at a junior level given the amount of deal flow
London: - Fewer LevFin deals though considerably more than in Asia - Deals are largely in PE space with fewer corporate-style LevFin transactions; you're less likely to see deals through to close - More TLBs and TLAs
Lastly, my understanding is that given you work with loan markets it is very important to be with the right player in the market. I.e. well-funded wholesale bank who can put down balance sheet to win deals. Hence, European banks have a considerable advantage in Europe and, like-wise, US banks in the US. This would apply to a lot of different teams but I think especially so to LevFin given the importance of being able to use your B/S capacity in transactions.
Again, I'll caveat this by reiterating that I haven't worked in either of these teams and my knowledge is second hand and limited. Would be interested to hear other people's perspectives too.
I don't have direct experience of working in the LevFin groups in either one of these locations but have had a lot of discussions with both junior and senior bankers in LevFin groups in New York and London. My understanding of the differences is as follows:
New York: - Epicenter of Leveraged Finance world and sees considerably more deal flow than Europe or Asia - Deals range from typical PE LBOs to corporate acquisitions; arguably corporate acquisitions have a higher hit/completion than PE deals so you're likely to be involved in more closed deals - Significant amount of HY Bonds as well as TLBs and TLAs - Best place for experience at a junior level given the amount of deal flow
London: - Fewer LevFin deals though considerably more than in Asia - Deals are largely in PE space with fewer corporate-style LevFin transactions; you're less likely to see deals through to close - More TLBs and TLAs
Lastly, my understanding is that given you work with loan markets it is very important to be with the right player in the market. I.e. well-funded wholesale bank who can put down balance sheet to win deals. Hence, European banks have a considerable advantage in Europe and, like-wise, US banks in the US. This would apply to a lot of different teams but I think especially so to LevFin given the importance of being able to use your B/S capacity in transactions.
Again, I'll caveat this by reiterating that I haven't worked in either of these teams and my knowledge is second hand and limited. Would be interested to hear other people's perspectives too.
london vs ny (Originally Posted: 09/11/2008)
y r ib finance compensation higher in london than new york . is the after tax earning also higher in londin than ny
With the GBP fall off, its not that much higher anymore. Cost of living is higher in London, too. At least that's my opinion.
Hmm hard to say. GBP is weakening, however tax on analyst salaries in London is around 26% whereas in NYC I've heard it as high as 44%+. Nominal salaries are higher in London. Cost of living is very high in central London (and less central affluent areas), but it is also very high in Manhattan. Cost of living can vary wildly depending on your neighbourhood in both cities. As for the net result, it probably depends on the types of things you spend money on, their proportions, and the area of each city in which you are living.
Overall, neither city is a very attractive place to live in real terms. IMO as long as you're a junior your short-run net disposable income will almost always be higher in 2nd tier cities like Chicago, Toronto, Frankfurt, etc.
Another question:
Given the current markets, would you rather be based in New York or in London?
given the current state, I'd say Asia.
Nauru - Taxes in london are quite high actually when you consider your bonus is taxed at 40% and the VAT is 17.5%, although you are right about the salary at 26%.
In current markets, I'd like to be in a place where I'm not worried about my job, maybe HK.
How high is the tax on bonuses in NY? 46%? Please tell me it's lower than that.
in hk you do get housing allowances, which is around 25k. so that plus the 60k base will get you a guaranteed annual of 85k. plus 15k for "relocation" (same as sign on bonus) will net you 100k for the 1st year before bonuses.
there is some kind of weird ex-pat tax in hk as well. kind of complicated so banks give US citizens a free tax consultant to work out all your problems, making sure you don't double pay taxes etc.
job mkt is quite stable in hk, esp ibd. s&t is the same situation as nyc or london though.
o yeah, cost of living is pretty low in hk except for housing. but the 25k housing allowance (more than 2k a month) is more than enough to cover it if you're not picky (and whatever is left over you can keep as cash).
meal allowance of 200hkd (~$25) a day is also wayyy more than what you need. you can get a decent chinese meal for $3-4 haha
46%, that's rough man.
Are workers ought to speak foreign languages? I mean are there any American who work in Asia, yet they don't speak the country's native language?
I think Indian Banker can fully answer this question.
I have experience with both London and NY, and can easily say you get paid vastly, vastly more in London - even after taking into account the higher accommodation costs, FX, cost of living, tax etc.
In London a 2nd year analyst gets £45k salary and can easily get over £100k bonus in Sales/Trading (perhaps more £80-90k in this bear market), £75-100k in M&A at a top-10 bank. A 1st year associate gets a £60k salary and easily £100-150k bonus. £ vs $ was recently 2:1 and recently down to 1.85:1. Do the maths, you get enormously more.
And now taxes are actually less than NY - income tax on your salary is just 30% for a new graduate, 35% or so for a 1st year associate - the first £5k of your salary is tax-free, the next £35k at 20% before you start paying 40%.
Cost of food, nightlife etc not enormously more than NY, accommodation is a bit more, but small change compared to the huge amount of extra money you get being in London.
Having briefly looked at salary/bonuses vs cost of living, tax rates etc, right now London hugely beats not only NY but Dubai, Singapore, HK. Moscow may be on par.
But of course there's other factors to take into account...
=== 23yr old Associate
Okay so the first half of the comparison is fine. But what about the numbers for New York?
I'll immediately disagree with you on accommodation being "a bit" more in London. It is considerably more expensive in London (although London is also the nicer city to live in) and housing is generally the single largest expense for any junior person. Nightlife is more expensive in London. Restaurants are more expensive. Clothing is more expensive.
What are these "other factors" you would take into account?
Even when you take into account £20 nightclub entry vs $20 in NY, £20 stakes vs $20 ones, £100 shirts instead of $100 ones etc, I'd confidently say you save more money in London, as the difference in paycheque, particularly the 5-figure difference in bonus, more than supercedes these relatively smaller costs.
By "other factors" I just mean things like weather (give me Dubai over London/NY anyday), where you may have a personal advantage (languages spoken, culture) etc.
=== 23yr old Associate
at the bb i was at this summer, everyone there associate and under in IBD knew at least one asian language, whether it's indian, chinese (most common), or korean. surprisingly the white guys in the bank knew how to speak chinese too, haha. most deals coming through are chinese related so frankly if you're only doing english speaking deals, it's very hard to keep someone busy in a slow mkt like right now.
have met other analysts and interns at other bbs tho who only know english. it all depends on the bank i guess
For the quality and location you get for 100 pounds a week in london (and the number of people you have to share your flat with) I think most on here will agree you get something better in New York, sharing with fewer or no other people. I'm curious as to what you consider "reasonable central accommodation" in London. Google maps link?
By 'Central' I mean anything within Zone 1. Look at London and you'll see anything within Zone 1 is pretty central - http://grimebeatsonline.com/london-underground-tube-map.gif
My friend pays £69/week to be 15 minutes walk, or a 5 minute Tube, from Canary Wharf - home of BofA, Lehman, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, HSBC. 4 people sharing a 4 bed house
I paid £125/week to live near Liverpool Street, 5 minutes walk from UBS, Deutsche Bank, RBS/ABN. 3 people sharing a 3 bed flat.
You can live on your own with a studio apartment at most 10 minutes tube from your firm (whether in west end, east end or canary wharf) for about £180/week.
Again, sure, New York is considerably cheaper, fine, but the 5-figure difference in paypacket (last year, what our NYC counterparts got in $ pretty much matched what we got in £) completely trounces a couplea thousand (at most) a year more for accommodation.
=== 23yr old Associate
How is NY housing considerably cheaper, when, at least to my understanding, most analysts residing in Manhattan pay at least $1500/mo for rent?
£180/week is about £800/mo, which, given the current exchange rate, is a bit over $1400/mo.
=== 23yr old Associate
Ft: New York v. London (Originally Posted: 10/13/2014)
Hi,
I just came across the ft article "New York and London vie for crown of world’s top financial centre ". The article isn't too thorough so I was wondering what u guys think of it. What is the financial center of the world? Will there be any change soon? I am not talking so much about raw data, but would be rather interested if ppl here have lived in both cities. Can u describe why u think one city is more important globally when it comes to finance, law, accounting, etc.?
Best!
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b388de4c-174b-11e4-87c0-00144feabdc0.htm…
New York, without question. That being said, if weighing an offer between the too, I'd say go London because that kind of opportunity doesn't come around every day.
Would u mind elaborating why?
Absolutely reasonable ;-)
@"Dingdong08" has done both NYC and London I think so he'll have a good opinion.
if it were me and I didn't have anything tying me down, I'd do London.
I lived in London from 04-08 and NYC at various points since the mid 90's so my viewpoint was skewed by living in London during the last boom, but at that point, and when Bloomberg ordered that study, I think London was on its way to overtaking NYC and by some metrics it did during those years. I personally ended up in London because SarbOx had really turned off my firm at the time's desire to do anything in the US public markets because it seemed like they wanted too many people involved in it to sign their lives away if some junior accountant or auditor flubbed a number the CFO was going to prison so there was very little market for IPO's on the smaller side. London kept its rules relaxed and the AIM market at the time (I work in lower to middle market PE type of stuff) was exploding and we were investing, putting some lipstick on the pig and making exits in no time on AIM. I also saw the boom years from within London and while I was in NYC often, that colored my perception of the markets at the time.
I think NYC came back better from the recession, although that may be colored by the fact that I've been back in the US since 08. Like that article states, the NYC financial markets have the advantage of having the largest economy in the world as its primary customer. That's pretty tough to overcome. But you really can't understate the benefit of London having a much better time difference to South and East Asia. I've done business in Asia from both GMT and EST zones and it's so much easier on your life when you're making that call or taking that flight from London.
If you want to be involved in more international stuff or are trading currencies or other OTC stuff, London's probably a better choice. Not that you can't do those in NYC by any means. I know that some would like to make it a competition between the two cities but I think they both have their place as financial capitals. I personally like living in London more but that's more of a personal thing of not liking every building being 40+ stories with the streets being like canyons in between skyscrapers. London's a little easier to live in with more greenspace and it's truly a city of villages, but it's still expensive as hell. It's also nice being a 2 hour train ride city center to city center with Paris, a 50 minute flight to Amsterdam, etc, in London. New York has, well, Long Island and North Jersey (just kidding). The guy who comments on the commute must be one of the few people who live in London with short commutes and must basically live in the City and work in the City (of London, where no one lives but everyone works) or in Canary Wharf (where once again no one lives) because I lived in Kensington and worked in Mayfair, which are two areas that are almost next to each other and my commute on the tube was 45 minutes door to door. I suppose commuting in from Greenwich CT or N. Jersey is longer than from within London, but that's no worse coming in from Kent or Richmond.
I do believe that the UK's relationship with the EU will have profound effects over the coming years but I can't comment with too much authority on that as I haven't followed it anymore than the most people over the past couple of years.
Regarding new financial centers in the East: they'll definitely become more important but, and this is an entirely different conversation, I don't think China's emergence is a guaranteed smooth and quick process by any means. HK's having its protests now and I wouldn't doubt over the coming years seeing more those on the mainland. But that's just my opinion.
@"Dingdong08" thanks for your thorough inside! from ur perspective, where d u start ur career if u could choose? i m only talking about the professional point of view, not lifestyle etc. assuming the same job, which city d position u better for your career (i know both do it well) after having worked there for 2,3 years?
Not to hijack an answer but I think it's basically wherever you want to end up after... you'll likely be able to get jobs almost anywhere starting from a top job in either place, but obviously getting a job in the EU will be easier if you start in London and getting one in the US will be easier if you start in NY
Like @"notthehospitalER" said, it would probably depend on where you want to end up long term, but I believe it's more difficult to start off in a place where you didn't go to school regardless of where you want to end up in both the short and long term. I moved there when I was almost a decade into my career and had done business internationally previously so it was a choice, and because of my age I didn't really know any 22 year old recent grads, but I didn't really see too many recent US or Canadian undergrads there so I'd imagine it's tough to get a job straight out of undergrad unless you had had an excellent and uncommon network in London. I'd assume it would be similar if you were a Brit and tried to get a job straight out of OxBridge in NYC. I knew plenty of Americans in London but they had experience before they moved to London, similar to Brits I know in the States.
Thx guys!
This has been covered in other threads but I think it's worth mentioning here as well. Don't underestimate the negatives of needing a work Visa. Assuming you are good at your job, the only reason you should be laid off is when it all goes sideways and there are big layoffs across the board...
In that scenario you're competing with loads of equally qualified people who don't need visas and only for a few openings. Natives have the luxury of time, you don't. When you're young it doesn't matter as much, but it can be devastating to be sent packing after building a life there.
Compensation: London vs NY (Originally Posted: 12/20/2010)
Ok so I am in the process of applying for internships and have already applied to a handful in NYC. I'm considering applying to the rest in London just to spread my bets and to have more options.
I was wondering what the entry level compensation packages were like in London? I have a rough idea of NYC, but anything that will help compare will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
In London, until last year BB SAs were being paid anything between £35-38k p.a on a pro-rated basis. Currently, I think £1 = $1.55 (approx).
On that note, what's with the disparity in comp between London and NYC?
I have several friends at BBs and almost all of them as first years pulled in around 75K GBP incl sign on which at GBP/USD = 1.6 = $120K......compared with NYC analysts who are getting $70+10+50-65
Comp between the two is pretty close at the analyst level, NY bonuses were a bit higher, base is roughly identical. London is a more expensive city though.
What's the tax situation like? 50% for both NY and London?
London or NY, center of fixed income? (Originally Posted: 09/01/2013)
Hi guys:
I was wondering if anyone knows whether London or New York is more of a center for fixed income trading/fixed income investing? I am quite interested in EM (as well as the majors) so I was wondering if London would be a bit better? I have also heard that London has more commodities/currencies investing, so I was wondering if you guys can tell me more about how the 2 cities compare in terms of FICC investing.
Thank you!
This is a silly question. You realise EM isn't one thing? It's a combination of different local markets. As such, Latam trading will be biggest in NY, European emerging in London and Asia Emerging in HK/Singapore... it's not rocket science.
Same goes for G10, US rates will be biggest in NY, EUR/GBP in London, etc etc.
As far as FX, London is definitely the most active.
i am a macro rates trader, i have worked both in London and NY, and I find london to be better but is just because of the time zone...in London you get a good part of the Asia session, all of europe, and all of the US during normal waking hours. But defining one city as the "center of FI" is somewhat dubious...different markets trade primarily out of different cities.
Thanks guys! If one is interested in oil/middle east, would you say that London is a better place (as it is closer) then? I get that US has more Latam focus, and was wondering about London's exposure to Middle East. Thanks!
Middle East markets are traded mainly from the London floor. I'm not entirely sure about oil though, no exp in commods.
NYC
London vs NY S&T (Originally Posted: 08/30/2011)
How does London S&T compare to NY? Does the US regulation improve London as an option now?
How hard is it to transfer over to the US after starting there?
Is the best way to get in doing an MsC Finance over there? Does this set you up to be a quant or is it normal to go into regular trading afterwards?
All Americans will beat me, but I say, starting in London is better than in NY.
When you want to get in MsC Finance at LSE, the best way...
And I never realized why you guys think that quants are something great. They´re just programmers and analytics. The "real" trading is automatized or done by traders without quant background.
There are no succesful quant traders making a few hundreds of millions. Best traders have no quant background.
Mark McGoldrick and desk Pierre Henri Flamand and desk Pierre Andurand Morgan Sze and desk Richard Lee Ed Milman Boaz Weinstein
Yeah, who is that Jim Simons guy anyway? How about cliff asness or the PDT guys?
I would agree however that London tends to have a higher take-home all things considered, and that it's a great place for rates and fx, g7 or EM.
Incidentally, does anybody know what Mark McGoldrick did at CIBC and before that? I remember him having a pretty non-traditional background which showed how far you can get with some hustle. I remember seeing that in an article but I can't find it anymore.
Wouldn't you say it is extremely difficult starting out in London if your from the US though? I would love to work in London for a few years while I'm young but have read it can be a pain unless your already working for a company who will sponser you.
London v NY for S&T (Originally Posted: 04/20/2010)
Any opinions as to which location is a better place to start a career? I'd like to spend some time working somewhere other than NY before settling down. Assuming I want to end up as a market maker in NY, would it hurt to start out in London? Is it easy to move around in S&T geographically?
A lot of people in London are trying to run to NY, it seems. Not sure about career prospects but if it's a lifestyle choice you intend to make, I'd steer well clear of London. Though I haven't actually worked in NY and most of my views are formed through convos with people, NY seems better than London on almost every count I can think of: pay, quality of city life, taxes etc. Also, don't forget that the socio-political environment for banks and bankers has turned very, very hostile in the UK, with daily talks in newspapers and by politicians of windfall/bonus taxes, pay caps, stupid regulations etc. You're basically made to feel like you caused every ill of society (of which there are many in a welfare state like the UK). Most of this may well blow over post-election but I honestly think if you want to try something a bit 'different', go for Hong Kong/Singapore/Tokyo.
London is better for currency and certain types of exotic products, but for everything else NYC wins out easily. And as the above poster said, Britian along with the rest of Europe is pretty close to socialism. If Labour wins next month, expect more taxes and regulations that will severely limit your ability to make lots of money. And NYC is a much better city than London.
Don't go to soviet UK
awesome town, if you are american, i'd recommend you live abroad for a bit just to round out your life ... travel to europe on the weekends, etc
go where the work is interesting
As someone mentioned, London is the center of FX trading, so it see's the most flows, particularly on the derivatives side.
London vs NY HF pay (Originally Posted: 10/14/2011)
What is the pay differential between london and US HF jobs? Say if you are a buy-side analyst in NYC making 95k base, and you were looking to make the jump over to a similar fund in UK, does anyone have a sense as to what that differential is? Or what is standard base over there?
Cost of living seems to be about 30% higher in UK. Curious if comp differential is higher or lower typically.
Really, 30% higher? Just curious where you got that.
Sorry, not much value added in this post, but wondering if that's accurate or not.
if cost of living in the UK was 30% higher, IBD analysts would not be able to survive (analyst salaries are identical across the pond)
how is the cost of living in London? Does not seem to be much information on WSO regarding that. I currently live in NYC, I am guessing it would be comparable. Can somoene please elaborate?
I would say, from my limited time living there (4 months), that it's comparable to NY. I mean that in the sense that £10 gets you about the same distance as $10, maybe a little less. So if you are earning the same GBP in London as you would be earning in USD in NY, you would be roughly even. Again, just my experience.
What I cannot comment on is the tax laws and such. This could easily change the makeup of the cost of living.
I spent a decent bit of time in nyc, costs of live are roughly similar.
eating out in nyc is alot more expensive than london cuz of lololol 20% tips, technologoy is alot cheaper.
London vs. NY - Pay Differences for Analysts? (Originally Posted: 08/06/2009)
How are the differences in Analyst average compensation between New York vs. London? How do bonuses compare?
I think it is about the same.
Guys, correct me if I am wrong, but base is around 35-38k pounds, and bonus is lower than NY, but not by much. Because of the European culture, you work less than you do in NY, therefore a lower bonus is probably warranted. Glocap has a UK report on IBD/FICC/ST bonuses. If I remember correctly, bonuses are about 20% less in Europe (when converted to USD's)
I would like to know this as well. Any London Bankers out there?!
UK base is around 40-45k now. BO base is currently at 35-38k.
note: Not a banker. Above heard through word of mouth.
Still first year analyst so would not know about the bonus. BB should pay about the same to their NYC and London analyst.
Is that on par??
London vs NY HF (Originally Posted: 12/26/2012)
Are there any differences between a hedge fund based in London as opposed to one in NY regarding things like pay,hours, etc.?
There may be a slight difference in culture (i.e. London HF may be a bit more laid back, you may go for pints with colleagues more often, etc.), but the same can be said for any job in financial services when you compare London to NY.
From what I've seen, pay is a similar story - the equivalent job may pay less base salary in London vs. NY. For example, if you earn USD 100k base in NY, the same job may only be worth GBP 65-70k out in London. And yes, the USD-equivalent of that is greater than USD 100k; however, London isn't exactly a cheaper place to live than New York.
You have to take into consideration a few other things. Some taxes are lower in London (like property taxes), additionally, you have free healthcare and so on.
Are there more opportunities in HF in london (i.e. is it easier to get a job, less competitive etc.)?
I would say no. It's generally easier to get hired in the U.S., and there are more HF firms in New York, so I would say it's more difficult to find a HF job out in London.
What type of roles are you referring to within HFs?
I have worked both In NYC and London and I would say aside from the general cultural differences and the differences socially between the two cities there isnt much of a difference. As a macro trader the london time zone is better but that doesnt mean less hours worked or a more laid-back lifestyle it just means its easier to be on top of everything while having a semi-normal sleep schedule. I also do not think its any less competitive to find a job in London although I did have a job when I moved there so cant say 100 percent.
how difficult is it to get a Visa to work in london?
It's not that it's difficult to get approved for the UK work Visa as a US citizen, it's just difficult to find an employer willing to sponsor you these days. The talent pool has grown immensely since the downturn (departures, layoffs, other frictional drivers), so it's a tough argument for the company to spend more money hiring someone from across the pond.
If you can somehow become eligible for citizenship within any EU or EEA country, I suggest looking at that route.
NYC has a lot more opportunities, with a constant flood of launches, although not always successful: http://www.hedgetracker.com/top_hedge_funds_regional_directory/Top-New-…
London is definitely still tops for Europe, but it has lost some big names with its tax policies and the troubled Euro: http://www.hedgetracker.com/top_hedge_funds_regional_directory/Top-Lond…
[quote=nyhedgefunder]London is definitely still tops for Europe, but it has lost some big names with its tax policies and the troubled Euro: http://www.hedgetracker.com/top_hedge_funds_regional_directory/Top-Lond…]
I agree, although London isn't really losing many firms to New York. Geneva is probably taking most of the defectors.
and some of the funds that move to geneva leave their team in london with the founders moving to save taxes.
getting into finance in general will always be easier in London I would guess just because you get less ppl that have interned in finance since 3rd grade, build their first dcf by 4th grade and have never seen the sunlight than in the US
NYC >> London ? (Originally Posted: 03/27/2008)
I just talked a friend who has had a lot of M&A experience with a large US bank and a large European bank and has given me good advice so far.
I'm going to start in M&A in London, and I'm obviously not ecstatic about the possible working hours.
However, this guy said that, hands down, NYC guys always work much harder. He said that during his time in NYC, he got completely dominated and that London / European guys generally don't work as hard as their American counterparts.
To conclude, he said a stint in NYC is a MUST for anyone who wants to be a good banker.
Discuss...
Well the majority of bankers in London haven't worked in the US and they do perfectly fine. We have a few people on transfer from our ny office and they say that the longer hours are due to "culture", which they basically explained as having to work a lot more hours than was really neccessary. I even see this within our team which is split into sub teams, by having a chilled out boss who is very well organised in terms of giving ample warning on upcoming work that our guys work less than some other sections but with the same deal flow
Seeing how there doesn't seem to be a pay/bonus difference, this makes London look slightly more attractive than NY.
Yea, you must be an idiot for wanting to work less and getting paid the same. Also considering that career opportunities are the same why would you ever want to go to London? And did I forget to mention that London is in Europe? What a pain in the ass it is to have to take a train for 2 hours to get to Paris. Definitely if you want to be a good banker you have to be in New York, I heard they are about to put the French 35 hours in London banks.. Who on earth would want to work less?
Remember, you will always be a salesman, no matter how fancy your title is. - My ex girlfriend
i'd never thought of it being possible to do banking and not have to put in the insane hours. go to london and be happy, that'll be amazing. also - your friend's conception that real bankers hail from nyc/have done an nyc stint is, imho, outdated. london's becoming increasingly important, if not more imp than nyc in the finance world.
M&A bankers in London work crazy hours as well - late nights, weekends, the lot. However the big differences are
1) Face time is not necessary - go home when you're done is usually how things work
2) Taking vacation/days off is standard and often encouraged - as long as you clear it with your boss/team in the calendar.
(keep in mind I work at a European bank, not sure if US banks in London are more like NYC style)
How anyone could believe that working in NYC is necessary to being a good banker is beyond me. You do understand that London investment banking is the center not only for Europe but for basically the whole world outside of the Western Hemisphere.
No. London IB is the center for EMEA. NYC is the center for the Americas. The 300 pound gorilla outside the western hemisphere would be Asia (China, Japan, India and other Asian countries), and the centers there are Tokyo and Hong Kong. London does not participate in deals in Asia unless of course there's an EMEA element to it.
My own preferences would be (in order):
(1) NYC - still the best training and best street cred in the banking world. That's why I choose to be in NYC. (2) Hong Kong - exposure to Asia and China, the hottest market in the world now and for the foreseeable future. Tax rates are also super low (something like 18% for the top tax bracket). (3) London - better working hours, but really it's neither here nor there. Can't compare to NYC in terms of street cred, and can't compare to HK in terms of hype, exposure to China/Asia and the low tax rates.
I know of at least one top US bank in the UK that in the employment contract REQUIRES you to take 5 weeks vacation per year, during which time you do not have access to your office email or other job-related stuff at all.
Well yea considering the street is ONLY in NYC you would have a pretty damn hard time to get any street cred in London. Although city cred vs. street cred, I would definitely go with city cred in London, sounds fancier.
NYC is still the biggest market, and then comes London that's true. But Hong Kong? Come on, look at some cold figures there, in no way does that market compare and is comparable to London and NY. We always hear about Chinese and Indian companies IPOing in NY or London, they need to get more capital, and for that they come to NY or London.. The London markets are growing exponentially at x^5 as opposed to NY at X^2.
Derivatives trading in London, and all sorts of other trading is beating any other markets.
London has passed NY in the number and value of IPOs in 2006
"MasterCard is just the latest organization to publish a study, in June, which ranked London ahead of New York as the world's top center for commerce."
" U.S. accounted for 57% of IPOs valued at more than $1 billion in 2001; in 2006 that share was just 16%. "
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/08/06/10014… So that I don't just pull out numbers out of my ass, check out that article...
Maybe some of you should really stop looking at the US as the center of the world for one sec, and maybe realize that there are other things going on around you. Wasn't it Morgan Stanley who moved most of their top management to London a year ago????
And finally speaking from personal experience, I could have stayed and get a banking gig in NY, instead I busted my ass to get a Masters in London so that I could have the honor of working in London, in a market that is completely booming, and where shares of business are not as rare, so you do not have to go and cut the throat of every single one of your competitors.
Remember, you will always be a salesman, no matter how fancy your title is. - My ex girlfriend
Since you mention the equity cap markets, it's clear that NYC's market cap is head and shoulders above the rest ($20 trillion) vs the second (Tokyo at 4.6 trillion).
The Chinese stock exchanges (HK and Shanghai combined) are $6T, more than London's $4.2T. Bankers in HK lead IPOs in both HK and Shanghai (Greater China) so it's fair to aggregate them. Even if you take HK and Shanghai separately, London is not heads and shoulders above either. It's only slightly higher, and HK and Shanghai are growing at much faster rates than London. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_exchange
As the Asian capital markets further develop, I can't see why Asian companies will want to come to London to raise money. Asia is awash with capital now. London's long term flow of IPO from Asia is not sustainable. In fact, that time has already arrived. Chinese companies (from 2007 mid year onwards) are not allowed to IPO overseas. London's #1 ranking for IPOs came in 2006 before the regulations came into effect.
Next, I am sure London's trading is OK, but it's still playing catch up and not like what you say "all sorts of trading is beating any other market".
Read this: "London has also outgrown New York to become the world’s center of OVER-THE-COUNTER (Ed: not exchange traded) derivatives. It is even SHOWING SIGNS OF CATCHING UP with the U.S. in bond trading and securitization. While New York remains the financial center to beat, London has momentum."http://nymag.com/guides/london/29440/
London is no doubt doing well, but certainly not the center of the financial universe as some people thinks. Personally, i think its long term competitiveness is the weakest of all the major markets. Both the NY and Chinese exchanges have major huge hinterlands to draw from and an almost inexhaustible pipe of IPOs. London has none of that - its domestic economy is relatively minuscule. Continental Europe has a plethora of developed exchanges (frankfurt, Milan, Benelux etc.) and companies there don't necessarily need to go to London to raise capital.
Is the street cred of NY still that valuable now if deal flows are down? If you compare NY vs say HK where activity is relatively strong, there's an argument to say spending 2 years in NY right now may mean you see less deals, which is I guess what all bankers want to have on their cv. I guess the higher level of technical skills acquired in NY counters this somewhat
London is where all the bankers for EMEA deals come from.
Disjoint, HK is second in IPOs. I would very much like to see how much better they'll get after all your subprime mess.
Delirium, if you are going to lump Hong Kong and Shangai why don't you go ahead and lump the German/French/Spanish and all other European stock exchanges? You might get even close to the NYSE... Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the OTC market for derivatives is incomparably bigger than the exchange traded one (sources?) Also what some people might tend to forget is that as someone said: EMEA deals all happen in London. And with all the oil money that is pumping in those countries, it's not tomorrow that we will see them stop growing in IPOs and influence. Where as for the subprime mess as you correctly mentionned charlemenge, it will affect the US with even more stringent regulation which will switch some more business towards London, just like it did a few years back. The subprime mess is more likely to affect China (there link to the US is stronger) than EMEA countries, so in the near future I'd see more growth coming in London than in any other parts.
Remember, you will always be a salesman, no matter how fancy your title is. - My ex girlfriend
Disjoint, I have to burst your bubble again. Even if I don't lump Shanghai and HK (and treat them separately), the LSE is not heads and shoulders above either. Shanghai and HK's market cap is $3T EACH, while London is $4.2T. Shanghai's stock exchange is non-existent 10 years ago - can you imagine how quickly it has grown? the LSE's growth rate is minuscule in comparison. With the new regulations that Chinese companies can only list in China, do you think any more mega Chinese IPOs will head to London?
EMEA deals go to London for now, but have you heard of the up and coming Dubai? You can go on and on about London, but the fact remains that UK has a (relatively) small and low growth domestic economy, while international companies which London relies on for its business are now looking to their own exchanges (Continental Europe, Dubai, HK, Tokyo, Shanghai etc.) Shanghai and HK (and NY too) have the incomparable advantages of a giant domestic hinterland. This is something inherent, which London unfortunately does not have.
Your comments about the subprime mess affecting China more than Europe is laughable. Northern Rock? UBS? Credit Suisse? The talk has been of Asia being more (not less) insulated than Europe in the subprime crisis.
London (specifically the City) has been a center of global finance for centuries. The domestic economy of the UK has very little to do with the City's success. I'm also confused as to why you think continental European exchanges have anything to do with making London weak. DB, UBS, CS are continental banks but their European HQs are in London - which still means the bulk of the expertise is in London, regardless of on which bourse deals are actually done. It's also painfully easy and cheap for London bankers to be in Paris, Frankfurt etc for the day thanks to the Eurostar and London City airport.
Anyway at the end of the day I think this whole debate really depends on specific markets and industries. Just my 2 cents.
Isn't that my point? The so-called international business, Chinese IPOs specifically, are no longer coming London's way, with the new regulations that Chinese companies have to list in China. London has been a center of global finance in the past but as countries develop their own exchanges, companies no longer need to come to London. There's nothing which London can provide which Hong Kong now (or Dubai in 10 years) can't. If the money and market shifts, expertise will relocate. Talent is mobile. This is why the number of bankers and traders in HK/Shanghai have increased exponentially in the last couple of years. Why? the market/capital is there. Let's see how London's going to maintain its "global position". I am certainly not waiting with bated breath.
Bursting my bubble, isn't it China's bubble that is about to burst one of those days? ;) (No need to argue against that, I have no idea whether China will burst in the near future)
You mentioned CS, they did suffer a bit in the subprime, but barely compared to some of their competitors. UBS suffered a LOT because of their business position in the US, it had nothing to do with London or Europe. You have a point w/ NR, but it is a minor problem considering what is plaguing the US right now.
I never heard of Dubai before; but while they develop their markets and show a bit more transparency on their exchanges, all their business will go to London. And it will take way more than 10 years for consumer confidence to shift from London to Dubai. Even if those markets develop it does not change the fact that everything is based out of London. Traders, Sales people etc... In the EMEA zone your sales guy will cover Russia, SOuth Africa, Turkey etc... They won't bother with having just a desk in each country. True with time people will be sent abroad to open up desks in those countries as business will be too big in those countries for bankers to cover so many markets. But everything will still be based out of London. For example, as the Russian markets develop, GS' Russia derivatives desk is still based out of London; one day a desk will be created in Moscow, but it does not change the fact that the Moscow office will still report to GS in London. There will always be traders and salespeople dealing with Russian derivatives in London so as to hit clients all over Europe.
Finally, as long as I am alive and working in London I am sure London will be just fine, and I'll be able to get as much models and bottles as I want to. So NY, London, or HK? As long as the bonuses are still big and juicy we will be ok. On this note, I will go ahead and study so that I can graduate and start my job in London capital of the world.
Remember, you will always be a salesman, no matter how fancy your title is. - My ex girlfriend
Blanditiis vel consequuntur eius et et nostrum at. Quod minus aut aut placeat vitae et. Aut fuga praesentium quod quibusdam perspiciatis sunt vero.
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...
Occaecati voluptatum nostrum praesentium. Nulla eum corporis quia atque dolorem impedit. Aut et libero quo omnis sed nisi provident.
Inventore distinctio quae et quidem temporibus. Harum eius accusamus facilis.
Et blanditiis rerum nihil delectus. Consequatur sapiente qui velit autem voluptas. Sapiente nobis veritatis aut. At nemo maiores perferendis pariatur numquam assumenda recusandae. Natus molestiae autem provident est. Explicabo aut qui quidem dolorem molestiae.
Est et magni porro odit neque iure totam. Error amet harum impedit aut et odio officiis et. Est aperiam quasi fugiat officiis maxime. Non consequatur ab est optio vel sunt. At rerum minus omnis consequatur.
Fugit quia aut blanditiis. Enim labore corporis eius.
Ad hic dolorum voluptas est aspernatur quaerat. Reiciendis accusantium non quo sunt. Doloribus rerum vel accusamus perspiciatis labore. Dignissimos corrupti inventore perspiciatis consequatur voluptas voluptatem.
Ea nostrum quos nisi eum alias hic a magnam. Dignissimos expedita odit sit tempore. Explicabo error nihil reprehenderit rem qui cum ut laudantium. Officiis adipisci in et est.
Architecto reprehenderit quas consequatur rerum. Minus excepturi earum ut consequatur eaque id unde. Consectetur nemo nam culpa quis earum repellat.
Explicabo impedit atque maiores assumenda nesciunt. Sit omnis libero esse pariatur est est pariatur. Quis sint aspernatur vel. Commodi enim dolores qui sit id sapiente.
Odio ut aut natus alias dicta perferendis. Praesentium itaque tenetur et quod eum inventore. Rerum quod accusamus est enim excepturi. Et vitae soluta velit illum aut ullam.
Animi eum ipsam dolorum molestiae praesentium reprehenderit ea blanditiis. Quidem doloribus ducimus expedita. Voluptas eum repudiandae expedita aut assumenda ut. Praesentium adipisci non tempora sed in minus in quas. Ratione aut quam voluptates quia sint ex. Delectus vel labore expedita atque omnis. Voluptates vel eos repellendus iste.
Quos sint dicta incidunt quo. Explicabo ut dolorem cum sit. Accusantium minus aliquid aut doloremque expedita ullam exercitationem aut. Iusto qui ut reprehenderit rem. Ut autem quaerat eum sequi perferendis.
Dolorem asperiores cupiditate dolor est. Sit quam voluptatum tempora. Rerum dolorem quasi vero enim.
Aut eum et temporibus quisquam est quis. Modi quidem aut harum. Voluptatem sed doloremque cupiditate officia magni.
Amet autem et nulla quo non officia. Praesentium et et adipisci enim eveniet quas modi ducimus. Ipsum aliquam aut possimus molestiae amet. Et occaecati esse delectus. Unde dolor libero voluptate iusto assumenda ea. Nihil accusantium similique velit sunt.
Aliquid sint expedita sit et et vel aut. Aperiam velit hic perspiciatis voluptatem quia quo veniam. Reprehenderit et ut voluptas. Doloremque ut fuga vitae ipsam sed quam omnis.