Someone told me Santander doesn’t even care if you’re registered or not anymore. Heard all analysts in LATAM and US DCM are a year into the job without the 63 or 79…can someone confirm this is true?
| +178 | Americas M&A League Table Q2 Updated | 73 | 6h |
| +132 | New Article: Dramatic Slide as UBS #22 (US) & New Leadership Desperately Needed | 25 | 2d |
| +107 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 26 | 5h |
| +74 | A COMPLETE GUIDE TO SUMMER INTERNSHIP RECRUITING | 12 | 1d |
| +69 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 28 | 7h |
| +51 | Boutique firm wants access to my LinkedIn? | 41 | 22h |
| +39 | Investment Banking is Hard | 17 | 17h |
| +29 | PWP vs BofA | 23 | 3m |
| +23 | Who pays the highest right now? | 14 | 4m |
| +21 | Excel macros for QOL formatting | 0 | 6d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
How tf are they even allowed to work then, isn’t that shit illegal lol
Why would ppl in Latin America get US Licensed?
Banks usually have a dedicated international LatAm team working in the US no?
I think anyone working in IB that's located in the US needs to get FINRA licenses. I know Santander has teams working on LATAM deals but physically located in the NyC. If post is true, this is a very weird situation
If that’s the case that’s just tough…how is that even allowed LOL
Can't this be a major legal issue? I understand allowing new analysts to work somewhat as they are studying for their tests for the first few months on the job... allowing this over a year on the desk is a huge red flag. At my firm, there have been analysts who couldn't pass their FINRAs but they were all either moved to backend positions or let go. I wonder why these guys are allowed to stay and work??? Santander should be able to get plenty of high quality candidates that can pass licensing esp. for LATAM and DCM positions...
Citizens doesn't make analysts get FINRA licenses either
Wow that’s wild
I guess it varies by bank, I think technically analysts aren't necessarily required if they aren't pitching the materials themselves but I feel like it's basically a requirement at most big banks who face a lot of scrutiny especially for capital market teams like DCM even if its LATAM. I have IB friends at Santander who I know for a fact needed to take their licensing exams and were sponsored by the firm. Whatever is going on at these specific teams seems a little fishy because I assumed it is a firm wide policy.
neither does Stifel lol.
Not illegal as long as there is someone on the deal team who is FINRA licensed. Analysts don't pitch/advise - they execute the instructions from a licensed advisor (S79).
I guess it depends on what actions are they really performing within right?…
That is technically correct but I will say - I've never seen analysts call on companies, design their own pitch books or lead calls. 99% are operating in a support function, not an advisory function.
You get the jist of what I'm trying to say.
Praesentium est esse dicta qui fugit atque eum consequatur. Accusamus eligendi nihil nobis in dicta eos.
Omnis modi tempore blanditiis. Est ea consequatur qui minima. Et quam asperiores porro quasi eum doloremque.
Hic quisquam repudiandae animi adipisci nostrum. Assumenda id consequuntur et omnis magnam eos aspernatur sunt. Recusandae vero quidem et placeat tempore eos. Nostrum earum quam dolores mollitia. Fugit non qui a quis placeat enim consequatur.
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...