Which are the top 3 MBA programs that recruit in Sales and Trading

S&T job market for MBAs is horrendous right now. This is a secular shift, unlikely to change anytime soon. If S&T is what you want (i'm assuming actual trading as opposed to sales), then get a masters finance or a Phd.

I will be blatantly honest:

Do not get an MBA if you are planning to do S&T. 1) It's not really looked good upon, your first trade is already a bad trade: a 200K vacation, 2 years away from the market? 2) You will highly unlikely be able to work in trading, and will mainly get sales roles. 3) You do not need an MBA to get promoted or advance in your career in S&T (only your bloody P&L counts!) 4) The 2 people who had MBAs on my sales team at my old bank were behind everyone career wise, and we would constantly take the piss out of their MBA in meetings. 5) You do not get an MBA for the knowledge, but for networking. It makes much more sense to get an MBA if you will be going into the corporate world, PE, M&A and all that bollocks so you can build a very strong network for the future. You won't find traders studying with you! The very few guys who are going to go into hedge funds, will most likely do it in a few years time, and there will only be a few of them, hardly a big network... 6) MBAs are not ideal for S&T 7) MBAs are not ideal for S&T 8) On the sales front, look at it this way: You get out of an MBA - you have no relationships, you are a nobody in the street, yet you require the salary of an associate, but you are as good as an analyst. Why would I hire you? It makes no sense to me. In the good years, everybody hires everyone anyways, and won't mind getting a smart MBA kid to start as an associate; maybe in 2-3 years we will see good times again and you won't have to worry about it... I would not bet on it...

9) Given you will ignore all the above: Stern better than Booth; for S&T networking is the key thing to get a job - be in New York. (Although you would be better off networking at the pub IMO - you'll be just as drunk and for much less money)

PS: I am not BASHING M&As in general, only in this instance. I still believe if you are going to be wheeling and dealing corporations for a living you need a strong network and this can help you.

Bear in mind Disjoint is London-based (which is obvious enough from his diction), and after working with plenty of Brits in multiple cities (including London), I can tell you that they have a knee-jerk disdain for the MBA, so take it with more than a pinch of salt - Disjoint's opinion is very much a City of London opinion.

Booth: similar placement rate but NYU MBAs spend a lot more time networking to get those opportunities than Booth students.

Disjoint is definitely looking from the vantage point of the City. But I think he is correct in saying that an MBA is off-course for a career in trading.

West Coast FX:

Stern also has nearby finance-rival Columbia to compete with, whereas Kellogg at Northwestern is thought of more as a marketing program.

Stern’s location in New York, where most sales and trading in the US takes place, seems to yield it a clear advantage. It makes it easier to interview and network with industry professionals.
If you had to decide between these two programs and were most interested in S&T, which would you choose?

Coming at this from some experience; I worked in S&T (inst sales, actually) for about a decade -- on Wall St and later in Asia. I have an MBA from that unknown school on the Charles. You m ake your own luck in that business.

Not so sure one should worry about Stern vs. Columbia if you are already at Stern and looking for a job. It feels like upside-down logic to me, and you worrying about some potentials that may not even exist. T If you want to be in NY, and you want to drink that in, then go to Stern. There is nothing like being able to walk to your interview!

Don't get me wrong, I love the city of Chicago and think the quality of the entire student body at Booth is probably higher than that of Stern (I think the top quarter will be similar). And, correct me if I am wrong, but recruiters aren't going to compare you to Kellogg students. You are being compared with the entire pool of potentials.

We all know the industry is shrinking, but a)it's still from a very large base and b)your specialty, (eg, fixed income vs. equity derivatives vs. exotics) may also drive your attractiveness. Figure out where you think your long-term ROI will be better served. And by R, I mean life return, not just immediate job return.

Don't you love this process?

I think disjoint's post is a bit extreme, but in Europe the MBA is not as valuable as it is here in the states, so his views are understandable.

I do agree though that an MBA is not the best degree for "pure trading" jobs. Trading desks now prefer promoting their analysts, lateral hires, and quants/programmers who can write profitable algorithms. Most of the MBAs who land in S&T are in sales or structuring, not trading. A former co-worker graduated from Booth in 2011, very sharp guy, and he ended up getting only 1 offer in S&T. According to him, the rest of his class did poorly as well. Granted, 2011 was a lousy market for finance, but i think the industry in general is moving towards that direction. A computer science Phd is now more coveted on trading desks than an MBA is, regardless of the school.

I agree with UFO that at stern, you will have to work A LOT harder to get the same opportunities as Booth. For that reason, one should take booth over stern even if they want to work in NYC. Columbia vs Booth, however, is a much closer call.

I agree with pretty much everything that was said. I do think the advantages of Stern's location are overrated precisely because you have to compete with columbia students for finance jobs. Competition is inevitable of course, but when you attend the 2nd best b-school in the city, things will be rough. Similar to haas students competing for tech/vc jobs in silicon valley against stanford gsb students.

Trading desks have soured on MBAs in recent years, but from what i've gathered, columbia/booth do reasonably well for the sales&structuring roles, followed by wharton. Stern does ok, only because of its location, but booth wins out by a country mile.

Bump

Bump

Bump

For sales, maybe.

For sales, trading, or structuring the MBA will be better from a recruiting point of view. A masters in finance is probably better from a practical viewpoint, but banks don't do anywhere nearly as much recruiting at those types of programs as they do at MBAs.
Most MBAs I know have been going for trading or structuring recently, not sales.

i guess you just posted this to increase your confidence, yea a job is virtually guaranteed for you

You have a better shot than most, but there are no guarantees. MBA is needed for Associate roles in IB, but I have read a lot of posts and a few articles where they really say MBA isn't necessary in S&T like it is in IB.

Expand you list to include some MM firms and you should be able to land a S&T gig no problem. That being said, if you have a 2.5 and network like crap you will probably struggle.

Nothing in life is for sure.

Nothing is a guarantee, especially in this economy. Also, a top MBA is only part of the equation. If you have a top business school with an excellent GPA, you have ticked a few boxes. If you have good work experience and interviewing skills, you have improved your chances a lot more. If you also get good luck and “click” with your interviewers, you should get an offer. Contacts/networking is a big factor too, depending on your background. There is no one thing that will get you over the line, but each one of these helps inch you forward.

Why would you get an MBA if you want to break into S&T? Makes no sense, you're not guaranteed shit!

No it's definitely not guaranteed. In S&T you can get promoted up from analyst without doing an MBA. While most of your classmates may be going for consulting or PE, you'll be competing against lateral hires with proven S&T experience, in addition to the fact that the desk might just promote their juniors instead of hiring from outside.

Connections/Networking and history trumps any shiny MBA, especially in a revenue generating position. Proceed with caution when it comes to FT designer MBA programs. I know a few UChi and NYUs that didn't get onto Wall Street and now make less than what they owe in school debt. Get a job first, prove yourself, do your MBA PT so you can pay a chunk out of pocket. That way if you get picked up by a trading desk, good. If you don't, at least you won't have a 6 figure loan tab for nothing.

If you're a career changer going to grad school will help in terms of providing a structure and networking opportunities for recruiting. Getting a job on a desk is not guaranteed. Fewer jobs in S&T than on the Ibanking side.

Good luck.

I think it would help your chances vs. coming from a S&T background like hosa said in terms of recruiting but overall as most people have said its not like IB where MBA's are part of the structure...I have been specifically told by someone at a top BB that they would prefer someone with an extra year of trading experience than someone with an MBA (ie, 3 years in S&T vs 2 yrs + 2 mba)

good luck however

why dont you like into MFIN programs...i think that would place you better into S&T than MBA anyway... princeton's has pretty great placement. (takes 24 kids a year tho..)

MIT's says that all you need is like calc II...i dont know how accurate that is though

I wonder how many offers a firm like goldman gives out to MBA students each year for their S&T program. i think wharton sends at least 5 to goldman S&T each year.

I think the point you should take away from all this is that firms will hire MBA's based solely on need. If one particular desk had 6 quality analysts and they didn't have any departures and thus no need for additional heads, they'll hire at MOST 1 MBA ,if that. But the pattern is that most desks will have spaces because they didn't have enough 2nd year analysts to promote.

But note that they will probably not over look a 2nd year analyst who's done well in favour of an MBA with minimal experience

CD~

In line with the reduced demand for MBAs to fill in S&T positions, I hear that the list of targets is also much smaller: it's essentially Wharton, Chicago, Columbia and NYU - with some schools also taking HBS. Compare this to IB, where basically anything in the top 16 (ranging from Stanford to Kellogg to Yale to Cornell) is basically a feeder.

If wrong, would very much like to know. It seems strange that a BB S&T desk wouldn't be interested in a Stanford or Kellogg MBA, just because those aren't finance schools. And conversely, if it was just the finance schools that are interesting, then USC and Rochester are pretty left out.