Millenials don't want to do finance anymore?

So I went to an MBA info session for a top 10 business school the other day, and I was the only person in room of 20+ people that wanted to do anything remotely related to finance. Not only that, but after mentioning I wanted to go into investing, I got dismissive remarks from several other applicants and one of the alum about how all investors suck, the industry is worthless and contributes nothing to society, etc.
I argued my points a little bit, but I figured wtf is the point, the whole thing was for networking anyway, and you don't really network by arguing with people.

Afterwards it occurred to me, I'm a little older than many of the applicants, (I graduated undergrad before the crisis), and I wondered if this is just a millennial thing. I remember reading that millenials don't trust banks and Wall Street. All of this comes days after john Oliver wrote a bit about how active investing is total crap.

Granted the success rate in investing is pretty low, but it surprised me that nobody wanted to do anything in finance, even private equity, banking, etc.

My brother said in his MBA program, almost nobody wanted to do finance, and those who did ended up in corporate finance rather than working on Wall Street.

Curious if you guys have seen a similar trend in recent years? Do MBA applicants not like finance anymore? Are there fewer talented people going into finance now?

 

Finance--not banking or capital markets--generally just leaves a nasty thought in most people's minds. It's kind of the precondition for what it means to be a millennial. All millennials believe they will do something to change the world. Right now, we're still recovering from the financial crisis. If people felt better about themselves, could all buy a house, new car, 'turn up' on bottles of rose, no one would really give a shit about finance. They'd all have forgot about it by now. I recently saw a clip of a movie (a terrible movie by the way from some new writer) where the guy happened to be an ex-pat investment banker. His description of what he did everyday when casually conversing with a friend included jokes like, "ruining the world", or "causing a recession," but it's funny because even he had to admit that what goes on in there was not at all like what's on a movie, but instead just a bunch of number crunching. Right now, it makes you cool to be "too smart" for finance. At the end of the day, none of it matters like all of the other trends, such as Tinidad James or a girlfriend who loves hockey. B-school is probably full of those elitist, higher moral types. I would just keep it pushing if others can't stand your desired career path and learn to cooperate with the tolerant types to gain their friendship.

 
Best Response

Thoughts from a fairly recent MBA grad that works in finance:

  • most financial services careers are not what they used to be. Sell side research, buy side, S&T, and even investment banking compensation is flat to down.
  • Finance headcount is going down across the board. This trend started in 2008, but there are no signs that reductions will stop anytime soon.
  • The younger generations want to do meaningful work. Some on here will scoff at that, but I think it's pathetic that people are willing to sacrifice their first 30 years (or 50, or 70) doing a job they hate so they can buy crap they don't need. If you're attending a top MBA program, pretty much any job you get will pay you very well.
  • tech is booming right now along with entrepreneurship in general. This presents attractive alternatives to finance.

This cycle happens with every generation. In the 40s it was popular to have served in the military. In the 60s it was electronics and autos. In the 80s it was finance. Now it's tech and entrepreneurship. Crying about millennials and how times are changing is the equivalent to the old man yelling at the cloud.

 
Do you think all of that even applies to the buyside?

Yes. The buy side is such a better job to begin with that it still remains very attractive, but its facing the same pressure. Compensation on the buy side will be flat at best. Headcount is already going down, see the GMO and PIMCO layoff announcements today. You're talking about a handful of positions anyways. The buy side has never hied anywhere near as much as IBD, S&T, and ER.

 

Hey, I'm not knocking doing meaningful work. I think the entrepreneurial drive of the current generation is probably one of the most positive developments going on in America. Sure, we're probably passed the golden age of financial services. And I get it if finance is uncool. But what took me by surprise was the scorn, from BUSINESS SCHOOL students. I guess I just assumed that people in business school would have some understanding of/appreciation for financial markets. And I thought that out of a room of 20-25 people, statistically there should be several that had an interest in ending up in finance. I mean the industry may be laying off, but it still needs a fresh supply of some amount of MBAs every year I think... It also may be a sampling error. You said the buy-side jobs are still pretty competitive, so maybe there are people from different locales that I just didn't run into.

 
But what took me by surprise was the scorn, from BUSINESS SCHOOL students. I guess I just assumed that people in business school would have some understanding of/appreciation for financial markets.

It turns out that business encompasses more than just investment banking, though you wouldn't know it by talking to people on here.

And I thought that out of a room of 20-25 people, statistically there should be several that had an interest in ending up in finance. I mean the industry may be laying off, but it still needs a fresh supply of some amount of MBAs every year I think... It also may be a sampling error.

When I visited Wharton everyone I talked to was either working in finance or wanted to go into finance. Looking at the employment stats for top programs, a large number of students still go into finance.

I believe that the risk adjusted return in finance is still the highest among all careers.

I'm LMAO at how pathetic this sounds. "My risk adjusted life is way better than yours!"

 
You think it's pathetic that people want to bust their ass when their young so they can be on easy street when their older and retire early?

Busting your ass so you can work even harder and longer in a job you don't give a shit about sounds pathetic to me. Don't get me wrong, if its about survival you do it, but most people in IB are doing it for the money, prestige, or some other venal reason.

Of course, some people in IB are legitimately passionate about their work. More power to them.

 

My dad joined the Marines in the 50s. According to him, it was popular/cool at the time. Look back at photos from the 50s and early/mid 60s and you'll see a lot of men sporting crew cuts for this reason. The popularity of the military, as a career and in general public perception, declined rapidly with the Vietnam war though particularly in the late 60s.

 

Why don't you show me the metrics you're looking at? A lot of these studies count people opening restaurants, bars, c-stores, etc. as "entrepreneurs." I suspect that type of entrepreneurship is flat to down.

On the other hand, VC-backed startup activity is booming. Activity may have cooled off this year but from a good level of activity in 2014-2015.

Personally, 20-30% of my MBA class either did their own startup or joined an early stage company. I suspect that percentage is way up from what it was 10 or 20 years ago.

 

I graduated from a top 5 b-school in 2015 and work in finance. models and bottles made some really good points here.

At my school, buyside finance (hedge funds, long-only mutual funds, private equity) was still highly coveted, but they were very hard to get. Banking was seen as an unfortunate last resort for those who struck out elsewhere. I remember showing up to my campus for first round OCR banking interviews, and my classmates who were there looked depressed that they had to stoop so low. In contrast, MBB consulting firms' info sessions were jam packed, and people were pumped up to get offers there.

I think there's a few things going on here. First, as many have remarked, the regulations of the post-financial crisis have crippled the banking sector, especially the more risky ventures such as trading, Second, investors are becoming fed up with the pathetic performance of active funds, and they are flocking to passive funds and roboadvisors. To make matters worse, people at the mutual funds don't leave their jobs, so very few spots open up while AUM in general is declining. Third, firms have become skeptical of the value-add of MBAs and are preferring to hire and train undergrads from STEM or business programs at top schools and promoting them rather than sending them to business school. One thing that really caught me by surprise was the paucity of OCR for finance jobs aside from banking and some long-only mutual funds. And I went to a school that is considered to be one of the finance powerhouses.

I think the future in general looks bleak for finance. I talk to a lot of people in both the sell and buyside, and not a single one is optimistic. Most are downright gloomy while others are "cautiously optimistic" (euphemism for "I'm scared as fuck, but I don't want to come across as scared"). Lot of my banking friends have already quit after just 1 year because the horrendous work-life balance just isn't worth it.

 

I am guessing you went to W. I went to another top school. I generally agree with you, but would add a modification to your statements from my personal experience: those with previous high finance/MBB experience thought of banking as a back-up. Those without looked at it as an opportunity to break into the PE shops that some of their peers were able to out of school.

I have MBB peers who graduated within the past 2 years and it sounds similarly horrible in some cases, more especially those with McK (due to cross-country traveling) or Bain PE group (due to hours).

I have a less than optimistic outlook for larger banks due to the increasing cost of regulation, but am optimistic for continued growth of smaller advisory shops with counter-cyclical components (RX) or alternative revenue generating platforms (AM, PE, VC).

 

Mexicans haven't completely replaced Americans in the trades and robots won't completely replace humans in banking. Where else can an owner fulfill his dying wish to sell his company if not with a 'Trusted Advisor'. The boutique trend will most likely surge but bankers won't become extinct and the future is not that bleak.

EDIT: Americans decided they were too good for trades as much as people deciding they're too good for banking. Immigrants are coming over killing it in the trades because they're willing to work long hard hours and pour resources into the trade to ensure they are damn good at satisfying their customers. When it comes down to it, for most Americans it's about prestige. What doesn't bring it, doesn't satisfy.

 

A lot of the MBA programs nowadays also tailor towards people who have entrepreneurial ambitions. So, I'm not that surprised that a lot of people at those info sessions are keen on doing something along those lines.

I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. See my Blog & AMA
 

Which I always found strange. If you want to be an entrepreneur and have an idea I don't see how on earth going 200k in the hole for a top MBA is a good detour or value adder when one could just start working on that startup idea...

 

I think that the main driver behind this is really the hyper surrounding start-ups nowadays. People get fed up with their jobs (just using an example here, IBD Analyst), switch to something else hoping that it will be better (MF PE, just as an example) and notice that it isn't that much better or still doesn't give them what they want. Hence, they start thinking that a start-up would be awesome. Work for yourself, be doing something cool you can talk at dinner parties about and on top of that dream about getting rich quick because tech is so hot right now. However, the standard path dictates that an MBA works as downside protection and hence people enroll and if they can't get something off the ground in 2 years, they just go back to working for someone else.

This is obviously quite generalized, but hits the gist of it.

I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A player. Or nothing. See my Blog & AMA
 

The millennials are indeed stupid - if they want to raise funding they would need to turn to a VC...and who is he? A financier. One of those "evil finance types" holding the keys to their destiny.

Millennials think that they are unique little snowflakes who will "create a difference". Their optimism is cute - but the harsh reality is that the chances of you being in a position to "create a difference" at a large scale are very slim unless you occupy an influential position or are powerful enough to influence those who occupy such positions.

Power follows money (and money follows power).

I believe that the risk adjusted return in finance is still the highest among all careers. Unless you're a successful serial entrepreneur, the chances of you making serious money ($5mn+ in my definition, yours might differ) are the highest in finance. And the best part is you don't need to do anything entrepreneurial or "out of the box" for a shot at real riches. Sad as it may sound, you can follow the herd and still be rich.

I have worked as an engineer before and I have seen the "tech world" and by joe I do not wish to be a part of that scam again. I work my @$$ off for 80hrs a week coding while the owner enriches himself. Atleast in finance I get a fat bonus at the end of the year for busting my @$$. If I am gonna be a part of the hoi polloi anyways (excl billionaires, politicians and other powerful folks), I want to be near the richer end of the spectrum.

Sure you might canned in finance, but given the state of the economy, pretty much all jobs are at risk. Heck even truck drivers are scared of losing their jobs to automated trucks. Atleast if you get canned, you will have a decent chunk saved up (assuming you're not an idiot who squandered all his money on models and bottles).

PS: I am a millennial myself.

 

I always found it strange how our generation has entered the workforce with an America that has increasing inequality and global competition, and instead of doing the rational thing and trying twice as hard, they give up and decide that they don't care about money.

 

I agree completely.

It seems that saying you "want to make a difference / make the world a better place" is the cool thing to do now, so much so that it's become a parody of itself (see:

).

I went to a school known for producing a number of people like this, who go into public service, TFA, AmeriCorps, etc to "make a difference." The problem is, people who do this often reflect on their work as "not intellectually stimulating" and are unhappy with their income staying flat as time goes on. More often than not, these people aren't quite sure what "making a difference" looks like to them, but in their mind, any job that works for a so-called "social good" (e.g., a seedy non-profit) is considered infinitely better than the "greedy, capitalist" alternative (a big corporation with a well-developed pro-bono arm).

Looking at my classmates who want to "change the world!" now that we've been out of school for a bit, they look at their classmates who went into careers where they can build transferable skills (e.g., PE, consulting, etc) with envy instead of scorn. Moreover, the kids with transferable skills are making more of a difference by giving their time and expertise to organizations that need help but can't pay for it, either through internal pro-bono efforts at their work or programs like Taproot. The irony is that the "I want to make the world a better place" set is still getting coffee for their boss, and thus, is not bettering anyone's life at all (not even their boss' life, because they're apt to get the order wrong, anyway).

 

To your point, Bono of all people pointed out several years ago that the very best way to make a difference in the "developing world" is to encourage entrepreneurial capitalism (i.e. private investment). After decades of activism for charity in the Third World, Bono realized that it was investment that makes the difference.

Goes to show that all of the intelligence in the world that these know-it-all college kids have can't replace wisdom.

Array
 

I am a millennial and I don't think all people in finance are "evil," but I am more intrigued that you were an engineer before you switched to a finance career. Any chance you could share that regarding the tech job itself and transitioning to a finance role? If not, that's cool.

I've been thinking of making a lateral move from accounting to tech (coding seems interesting, been learning the basics through codecademy and whatnot) or finance (there's no IB in Hawaii, so only private banking; otherwise I will have to move to the mainland in order to take that leap of faith.)

Thank you.

 
GanNing221:

I am a millennial and I don't think all people in finance are "evil," but I am more intrigued that you were an engineer before you switched to a finance career. Any chance you could share that regarding the tech job itself and transitioning to a finance role? If not, that's cool.

I've been thinking of making a lateral move from accounting to tech (coding seems interesting, been learning the basics through codecademy and whatnot) or finance (there's no IB in Hawaii, so only private banking; otherwise I will have to move to the mainland in order to take that leap of faith.)

Thank you.

Engineering is interesting. Many jobs are based on projects and needs of the company/firm you work for. I suggest doing the atypical route (most likely a grad or post-bachelor program for CS - Check out Oregon State University Computer Science online, they have a solid program), or attend the local CC for a certificate in programming (more well regarded).

I am still technically an, "Engineer," in due part because I specialize in an area already, and the fundamentals of code/finishes/test-runs are practically the same. The problem with the code boot camps is that they teach you what you can learn on your own. I have connections to many recruiting firms that recruit for Start-ups or projects receiving seed funding, and most of the responses has been that only 1-2% ever make it after bootcamp has been completed.

I start coding back in the DOS days, when I was a lot younger (kid even), but I was more of the techy-hands on kiddo. I just hate the fact that my family does not understand that projects get cut, funds run dry because of poor management, or how volatile the industry can be because they realized the product is crap and is a sinking ship. HP, SONY, QC, etc., went through a monstrous leadership change after the mass layoffs not too long ago. I think roughly 25,000 engineers in San Diego, California were laid off for some time. I had to compete against people with PhD's for positions that required 1-3 years of experience, go figure.

 

Who gives a shit what others are doing

"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
 
jmbasset:

If anything, you should be happy-if you want to work in finance and others don't , that's less competition for you.

This x infinity. In Russian there is a saying which literally means "Less people - more oxygen".

 

"I got dismissive remarks from several other applicants and one of the alum about how all investors suck, the industry is worthless and contributes nothing to society, etc."

Wow. It's incredible how some of the most intelligent and well educated people lack basic commonsense. Does this guy realize that he essentially said, "Capitalism is worthless and contributes nothing to society"?

Array
 

That's just what the top MBAs are selling now, especially the finance schools. They know Wall Street placement is going to suck, and they need to re-brand asap to compete with The Harvard and The Stanford (who always produced entrepreneurs before this whole tech hype).

I noticed some serious identity issue with a business school that I applied: Traditionally a power house that feeds its students to investment banks, there was no mention of finance during the school info session.

 

What part of the country are you in? Most people doing MBA's aren't getting it for the sake of a finance career. If it's HBS/GSB/Wharton, though, there will be plenty.

And the competition gets fiercer year by year for both buy-side and sell-side positions so there is no shortage of people. Just go on efinancialcareers.com and look at the number of applications trying to get into some entry-level AM role. The number of submissions are 1,000+ after a couple days. Among all job sites, the opening probably gets over 5K resumes.

 

I think in asian countries the trend seems to be opposite. In countries such as Singapore/India the holy trinity used to always be engineering, medicine and law - people would actually scoff at you if you graduated with a BBA/BCom (according to my father).

Now, take a look at the top universities in SE Asia such as NUS/NTU where the requirements for getting into Business/Econs is almost the same as Law/Medicine. Electrical/Computer Engineering and even CS are relatively easier to get in which honestly makes no sense considering the coursework for STEM majors are much much harder.

The only viable explanation is that more HS kids apply for BBA/Econs than STEM majors pushing up the entry requirements - quite surprising considering the current tech bubble. I can confidently say that being part of high finance still earns you a fair amount of respect in Asia as over here it's still money/prestige > everything.

Just thought I'd share this.

 

Exactly my point. Everyone around the world is now trying to break into finance because of it's perceived as one of the best careers now. Do millenials in the USA know something that the rest of the world doesn't? Probably not.

 

"In countries such as Singapore/India the holy trinity used to always be engineering, medicine and law - people would actually scoff at you if you graduated with a BBA/BCom (according to my father)."

That's because in India prior to the 1990s, your options were either to study engineering or medicine and try to emigrate to the US, become a lawyer and get a steady civil service job, or be a street peddler or a corner shopkeeper. (Unless you were from a really well-connected, wealthy family and had more options.) A business degree didn't do you much good in a country where "major" businesses (airlines, utilities, banks, etc) were government-run and everything else was basically just being a food/housewares vendor, which you don't need a degree to do.

 

I see a rather increasing trend at these top programs where kids will do stuff they absolutely hate, because they "need" to do it. This applies to startups, and finance. You could smell the insecurity in the air at a lot of these events.

Always fun to poke someone's "perfect" plan after B-school; you could see these kids holding back tears if you question anything.

I think- therefore I fuck
 

Full disclosure: I am a millennial.

This isn't just millennials - it comes back to the same problem that was being discussed in another thread: people have literally zero understanding of economics.

If you told these people that there is a strong correlation between individual wealth generation and the wealth this individual generated for the economy, you will face a barrage of abuse on all sides.

If your goal is to maximise your contribution to society, then you should also aim to generate the highest wealth possible. The profession is irrelevant.

 

I can share some data for Booth for this year, but don't know the YoY trend.

Based on club membership data for industry recruiting groups (and you have to pay to join the clubs, so the correlation is pretty good between membership and actually recruiting):

~200 recruited for PE ~200 recruited for IB ~163 recruited for IM

You can expect a good deal of crossover between these groups but definitely not everybody. I know plenty of people that recruited for IM but not PE/IB and so on and so forth. I'd guess at least 300 people all told.

So finance recruiting is far from dead. For comparison, there were ~300 in our consulting club and ~250 each in corp strat and Tech/Entrepreneurship/VC.

Our corp fin is separate from those above.

 

I loved tech, specifically biotech, so I went the finance route because I saw it as the best way to contribute meaningfully to the highest volume of new technologies.

Tech dev can't happen without incentive, and money is a pretty good incentive.

Further, dismissing business / finance as evil just tells me you don't know much about much.

 

This thread made me chuckle for awhile. I choked on my piece of orange too. For those who are working or in finance, I would stick with it. Why? ANYONE, ANY COMPANY will need cash investments regardless to either OPERATE or fund a project or side-line (think retail or research projects), and where does the money generally come from? Banks and investors (or so I am assuming).

These startups we keep hearing about? It's just another company being formed providing a service. Nothing is ever free, this is what I have been told many times before.

Growing up, those who had money had power and influence. If you work in tech, they think you're smart, but finance positions holds a better viewpoint of life because people are generally awed by it.

 
SnapHappens:

Growing up, those who had money had power and influence. If you work in tech, they think you're smart, but finance positions holds a better viewpoint of life because people are generally awed by it.

What do you mean by this?

 
Predilection:
SnapHappens:

Growing up, those who had money had power and influence. If you work in tech, they think you're smart, but finance positions holds a better viewpoint of life because people are generally awed by it.

What do you mean by this?

Let's just say the local tax guy was more well known then the engineers in the community. He could go down the street and get free coffee/lunch/dinner paid for by the businesses he did taxes/finance for as opposed to the engineers who helped him fixed/install stuff.

Ain't that ballin'? :-D

 

Goldman Sachs is a specific company and does not reflect the entire sector.

Furthermore, to be completely objective, we would need number of SA applications and the number of FT. A lot of people absolutely want a SA, not necessarily the FT with ...

 

I used to intern as an undergrad at a large, reputable nonprofit. I was similarly minded in disdaining finance at the time but I eventually realized how into themselves they were for working there and "making a difference". Things were so dysfunctional there I had to see what the other side is like and so far it has been much better.

 
MoelisOrBust:

- millennials are generally less inclined to work for sociopaths/assholes/shitty personalities. unfortunately very common in banking. as most of you (hopefully) know, your colleagues truly don't care about your well-being. millennials are softer than previous generations and unwilling to put up with this abusive, slave-like job

- not really worth it to sacrifice 80-90hrs of your life per week, deal with extreme stress, enjoy premature aging/balding, and perform mindless/retarded work for some unhinged associate/VP/MD. the compensation/perks of this job have declined immensely and are awful in relative terms. enjoy your "big time" paycheck of 130k!!! while spending atleast 2k/month in rent, dealing with egregiously high general living expenses, and your 40% tax rate - all while working like a slave, feeling perpetually like shit, and perhaps enjoying your few precious hours of free time on saturday while frantically checking your blackberry/phone for work requests from your shithead colleagues

and a whole host of other shit that I'm omitting as I could write a novel on this. no point in doing this trash job when there are a number of solid-paying alternatives with reasonable working hours and decent human beings to work with. If I were to go back, I would gladly take some entry-level 60-70k/yr job at some fortune 500 company, work 40 hrs a week at most, and enjoy a 100x superior quality of life and start my own business after a few years. or even join some bullshit startup with napping pods. this job is shit and the people are shit. don't be enticed by the 'prestige' - interviewing and interacting with one of the many investment banking assclowns out there for the first time should give you enough reason to stay away.

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/2-weeks-into-internship-and-im-al…

 

A lot of Millennialisms in this thread, especially regarding "cool" entrepreneurship (Uber, FB, etc) vs. "boring" entrepreneurship (restaurants, food companies, convenience stores, etc). The year has nothing to do with what should be driving economic growth. A successful company by definition drives economic growth. It doesn't matter if this company is perceived as "revolutionary" or not.

Also "boring" companies are not disconnected from scientific innovation. Quite the opposite actually- consumer goods companies are at the forefront of scientific innovation, and employ massive R+D laboratories to create and test products.

Lastly, we need to stop pretending that every tech company is god's gift to the American economy. For every Microsoft of Apple there are dozens of worthless dating or media apps that are essentially marketing schemes for traditional companies to advertise their products.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that the pinnacle of American industry is to create a cell phone app that locates the nearest laundromat .3 seconds faster than its competitor.

 
CX1988:

A lot of Millennialisms in this thread, especially regarding "cool" entrepreneurship (Uber, FB, etc) vs. "boring" entrepreneurship (restaurants, food companies, convenience stores, etc). The year has nothing to do with what should be driving economic growth. A successful company by definition drives economic growth. It doesn't matter if this company is perceived as "revolutionary" or not.

Also "boring" companies are not disconnected from scientific innovation. Quite the opposite actually- consumer goods companies are at the forefront of scientific innovation, and employ massive R+D laboratories to create and test products.

Lastly, we need to stop pretending that every tech company is god's gift to the American economy. For every Microsoft of Apple there are dozens of worthless dating or media apps that are essentially marketing schemes for traditional companies to advertise their products.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that the pinnacle of American industry is to create a cell phone app that locates the nearest laundromat .3 seconds faster than its competitor.

Please show me where I said anything about consumer goods companies being disconnected from scientific innovation.

The fact of the matter is, restaurants and convenience stores will not and should not be driving significant economic growth for a mature economy in the year 2016 (and going forward).

And no one is pretending that every tech company is god's gift to the American economy. In fact, no one in this thread said that.

 

For the record, this asinine mindset of creating more restaurants and convenience stores is a perfect way to pave the way for countries like China.

The People's Republic will keep plowing money into scientific innovation because it is revolutionary. From an economic perspective, it is extremely high yielding. They will not stop pouring money into nuclear fusion and cyber warfare, simply because the US wants to open more convenience stores and restaurants.

Ask yourself what the world would have looked like if the Nazis or Russians developed nuclear fission before the Americans? What would have happened if Alan Turing did not create the first computer to crack the Nazi enigma codes?

Yes, convenience stores and restaurants do contribute to the economy, but they will not drive any significant economic growth presently or in the future. Nor do we need another Tinder.

The US is already facing the consequences of not investing enough into scientific innovation. It is well-know that the Chinese and Russians are WAY, WAY ahead of the US in fields like computer science. These guys can hack into any US corporation or government body, without anybody even realising it. The only way we end up finding out is if they do something catastrophic or slip up years later.

 

1) Are we discussing where individuals should allocate their time or where governments should invest their resources? Your comment seems to conflate the two.

2) You're making a security based argument in a discussion of economics. Your thought experiment is a great one if the concern is "how do I ensure the US remains a world power". It's a really shitty way to prove your original comment - that real economic growth will only be generated vis-a-vis technological innovation from this point forward. I say it's shitty b/c 1) it's only tangentially related, at best and 2) there is an overwhelming amount of evidence better suited to making your point (e.g. you could have highlighted the historically high levels of GDP growth in the world from ~1940 to ~1990 etc. etc.)

3) For what it's worth, nobody's arguing that technological innovation is not extremely valuable. Nor is anybody arguing that tectonic shifts in the economy are gonna be driven by a convenience store. I'm just pointing out your first comment ignored the facts (i.e. entrepreneurship is not on the rise) and you doubling down by insisting that we're 'paving the way to China's rise' because we're too focused on restaurants/convenience stores is nonsensical and distracting.

4) I think the whole Russia/China is overblown, and has been. While your points are not wholly inaccurate, it's important to remember that we've been hearing variations of this story for a long time, and it never seems to play out the way the nationalists say it will. The USSR was thought to be light years ahead of us technologically, up and to the moment of it's collapse. From the 60's till the 90's, every american pundit was convinced that that Japan had stolen our secret sauce and would rule the world. Even with China, we've seen them stumble in the last 6 months, and it doesn't look like there's gonna be a turnaround in the People's Republic any time soon.

5) Even if China were to surpass us economically, I'm not clear as to why that should matter. The reason that we call them 'goods' is because having more of them is, well, a good thing.

6) Finally, I'd argue that the US's success to date hasn't been a function of some technological edge or ~higher~ levels of public investment in R&D (although it is most easily observed by our high levels of technological innovation). In my opinion, the economic success of this country has been the result of a population that has historically exhibited low levels of risk aversion (due to the US's founding population being composed entirely by entrepreneurs), a less restrictive government (this has changed recently), and our 'money fetish' . In large part, this success is the ultimate case study for efficient markets - by having less restrictions on capital and labor (sorry Trump), the US has consistently been able to better allocate resources than other nations (I'm referring to the private sector here).

Life's is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
The Stranger:

1) Are we discussing where individuals should allocate their time or where governments should invest their resources? Your comment seems to conflate the two.

2) You're making a security based argument in a discussion of economics. Your thought experiment is a great one if the concern is "how do I ensure the US remains a world power". It's a really shitty way to prove your original comment - that *real* economic growth will only be generated vis-a-vis technological innovation from this point forward. I say it's shitty b/c 1) it's only tangentially related, at best and 2) there is an overwhelming amount of evidence better suited to making your point (e.g. you could have highlighted the historically high levels of GDP growth in the world from ~1940 to ~1990 etc. etc.)

3) For what it's worth, nobody's arguing that technological innovation is not extremely valuable. Nor is anybody arguing that tectonic shifts in the economy are gonna be driven by a convenience store. I'm just pointing out your first comment ignored the facts (i.e. entrepreneurship is not on the rise) and you doubling down by insisting that we're 'paving the way to China's rise' because we're too focused on restaurants/convenience stores is nonsensical and distracting.

4) I think the whole Russia/China is overblown, and has been. While your points are not wholly inaccurate, it's important to remember that we've been hearing variations of this story for a long time, and it never seems to play out the way the nationalists say it will. The USSR was thought to be light years ahead of us technologically, up an to the moment of it's collapse. From the 60's till the 90's, every american pundit was convinced that all American convinced that Japan had stolen our secret sauce and would rule the world. Even with China, we've seen them stumble in the last 6 months, and it doesn't look like there's gonna be a turnaround in the People's Republic any time soon.

5) Even if China were to surpass us economically, I'm not clear as to why that should matter. The reason that we call them 'goods' is because having them is, well, a good thing.

6) Finally, I'd argue that the US's success to date hasn't been a function of some technological edge or ~higher~ levels of public investment in R&D (although it is most easily observed by our high levels of technological innovation). In my opinion, the economic success of this country has been the result of a population that has historically exhibited low levels of risk aversion (due to the US's founding population being composed entirely by entrepreneurs), a less restrictive government (this has changed recently), and our 'money fetish' . In large part, this success is the ultimate case study for efficient markets - by having less restrictions on capital and labor (sorry Trump), the US has consistently been able to better allocate resources than other nations (I'm referring to the private sector here).

You bring up many good points.

 

It seems that most people's take on this debate is to take one side and defend it to the end. The reality is that we're seeing significant convergence from status quo opinions on employment from both "finance-type" and "I want to change the world" millennials, and both are misguided in their approach.

From my experience dealing with "I want to change the world" millennials, they are less interested in making a difference than it appears on the surface. They've been strongly affected by a "self-esteem first" educational system, keeping up false appearances on social media, and negative depictions of Wall Street coming from pop culture and the media. Most of those who talk about changing the world wouldn't be caught dead associating themselves with finance or even omitting #blacklivesmatter from their Instagrams. They're willing to keep up the pretense up until life grows hands and smacks them in the face in their mid to late 20s and tells them they need to find a way to pay their $2.5k/month NoHo apartment. Perhaps even more importantly, the competition for finance jobs and the effort needed to get somewhere make millennials decry the injustice of people actually failing to get what they want.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are many people who assume BB IB -> PE -> M7 B School -> PE -> Instant Millionaire is a given for everyone. In reality, what happens is many people would claim they live and breathe finance in college then flame out after a BB analyst stint. Also, there's a sizeable contingent of people who come from well-to-do families and wouldn't even dream of doing something other than finance to avoid any possibility of disappointing their friends and family.

From a purely practical numbers standpoint, yes, there are few better places to be outside of finance. The pay is great, the advancement opportunities are excellent, and the networking is unparalleled. But people need to stop glamorizing IB and its exit opportunities. The work is thankless and unfulfilling, your health and social life will suffer, and you will hate your job and life. And before you say, "I'm sacrificing now to have a better life later", take a look at your boss and ask if owning a Ferrari and a house in the Hamptons will be worth the same to you as a maniacally depressed, mostly bald, pre-diabetic 40 year-old self as it is to your image-obsessed 22-year-old self. In any case, your odds of reaching that level of wealth is less than 10%.

What I do wish for is that more millennials would swallow their pride and rationally think about their career decisions. Of course, in today's world of Instagram filters and people falling off cliffs while taking a selfie, this will never happen. Just hope that robots and virtual reality advance fast enough to wipe out the need for human labor in the next 20 to 30 years.

 
Gangster Putin:

It seems that most people's take on this debate is to take one side and defend it to the end. The reality is that we're seeing significant convergence from status quo opinions on employment from both "finance-type" and "I want to change the world" millennials, and both are misguided in their approach.

From my experience dealing "I want to change the world" millennials, they are less interested in making a difference than it appears on the surface. They've been strongly affected by a "self-esteem first" educational system, keeping up false appearances on social media, and negative depictions of Wall Street coming from pop culture and the media. Most of those who talk about changing the world wouldn't be caught dead associating themselves with finance or even omitting #blacklivesmatter from their Instagrams. They're willing to keep up the pretense up until life grows hands and smacks them in the face in their mid to late 20s and tells them they need to find a way to pay their $2.5k/month NoHo apartment. Perhaps even more importantly, the competition for finance jobs and the effort needed to get somewhere make millennials decry the injustice of people actually failing to get what they want.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are many people who assume BB IB -> PE -> M7 B School -> PE -> Instant Millionaire is a given for everyone. In reality, what happens is many people would claim they live and breathe finance in college then flame out after a BB analyst stint. Also, there's a sizeable contingent of people who come from well-to-do families and wouldn't even dream of doing something other than finance to avoid any possibility of disappointing their friends and family.

From a purely practical numbers standpoint, yes, there are few better places to be outside of finance. The pay is great, the advancement opportunities are excellent, and the networking is unparalleled. But people need to stop glamorizing IB and its exit opportunities. The work is thankless and unfulfilling, your health and social life will suffer, and you will hate your job and life. And before you say, "I'm sacrificing now to have a better life later", take a look at your boss and ask if owning a Ferrari and a house in the Hamptons will be worth the same to you as a maniacally depressed, mostly bald, pre-diabetic 40 year-old self as it is to your image-obsessed 22-year-old self. In any case, your odds of reaching that level of wealth is less than 10%.

What I do wish for is that more millennials would swallow their pride and rationally think about their career decisions. Of course, in today's world of Instagram filters and people falling off cliffs while taking a selfie, this will never happen. Just hope that robots and virtual reality advance fast enough to wipe out the need for human labor in the next 20 to 30 years.

It is actually interesting you mentioned this. A lot of kids my age like to show off their wealth by purchasing luxury line vehicles, along with living the 2.5k-4k studio/1 bed whathaveyounot area, and portraying their excitement via facebook/social media. Many of the kids my age are working in finance and hate their jobs, and they do not see a way out because they're afraid of what their friends may think or say about them. It is really stupid, the mentality.

Many people looking for a career change due to unsatisfactory with their current work will still be unhappy, regardless of the change of the environment. For what it's worth, I have done odd jobs at shipyards and docks, making minimum wages at times just to get by when I was younger while the other kids I knew were pulling in 55-65k+ at banks/firms in my early 20's. They spoke ill behind my back but never to the front, but always came asking for information or help with personal matters. These now said kids are the same ones owing more than 100k+ in debt. To be frank, I am happy where I stand on life.

 

Op if you want to put a twist on this and see how people's reactions change.... suggest to your peers that you want to work in finance for emerging capital markets. the reaction you get will be completely different I bet.

 

Lol I am in Asset mgmt., work 35-40 hrs a week with all-in compensation at 70k in a city that costs 2/3 of NYC when you consider taxes, my bosses are also generally cool dudes. Apparently I hit the lottery judging from some of the comments in this thread. In any case, I have never had any desire to work for someone all my life so the point of the finance game for me is to save as much $$$ as possible in order to start a business, idgaf if it is a dry cleaner or the next Spacex as long as it is belongs to me.

Array
 
Dollar for dollar, Facebook and Google are highly inefficient contributors to the economy. Facebook, for example, is worth $323 billion and only employes 12,700 people full time, world-wide (that's even less efficient than federal spending for job creation).

Strange definition of efficiency you have. A company that is more profitable and valuable per employee is "inefficient"? Bars and restaurants are great businesses because they require a lot of employees which drives costs up? Something tells me you wouldn't make a great investor...

 

Perspiciatis cum esse id quia. Sed et beatae totam beatae accusantium. Nam debitis ut quia eaque. Ab fugiat repellendus quisquam et qui id error ea.

Array
 

Reiciendis vel blanditiis aut quam. Cupiditate voluptate occaecati facilis quia. Iste modi soluta sapiente quis deserunt eum temporibus. Dolores et ea modi expedita quod nobis.

Voluptates eligendi quam accusantium iusto cum iure ea. Quidem quas sint dolores consectetur aut sapiente. Necessitatibus doloremque nam voluptas perferendis saepe. Ut ullam veritatis eos. Ut rem totam quia non ipsa dolorum reprehenderit.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

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

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 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

March 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

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $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

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
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...”