I know that this forum is very front office IB focused, but I have compiled a list of reasons why the back office isn't really that bad. Full Disclosure: this is from a junior at a non-target who has never worked in finance, so I'm open to rebuttals and hearing your opinions.
Most people in back office don't know the difference between front and back office and, if they do, don't care. Outside of Ops, most people working in the back office are actually doing what they like to do. Working in IT, Marketing, or HR at a BB is as a good place as any to do any of those functions. I really think the people in Ops are the only people that realize they are in back office and care about it.
Jobs in non front office functions are more careers than something you do for two years before trying to do something better. Because of this, people in non front office jobs are likely more stable in their careers than front office folks. Also the jobs tend to be more recession proof for several reasons: they don't make as much and their jobs are necessary in good times and bad.
There's exit ops in back office too. While nobody will be going to KKR and making millions of dollars, they will definitely be helped by the BB name and find jobs in corporate finance that their skills are transferable to.
Who cares if any of that is true? It doesn't make it less worse...
looking forward to your next thread about things you don't understand
@Brosef Stalin17" feel free to add some constructive criticism instead of making passive aggressive comments. If you read the post, you'll see that I have full disclosure about my background and asked for input from people who have actually worked in finance.
That's not the way banking or the world works. In a recessionary environment, banks will downsize revenue generators because they are generally indistinguishable and easy to re-hire or train since trainees are much cheaper. Companies don't have to IPO, so if the market for IPOs is going to be shot for a year or two, why keep high paid bankers on the payroll when you can just cut them, save dollars, and then hire a similar person in the next couple of years when the cycle returns?
Contrarily, companies have to make payment on their accounts, funds have to be transferred, an individual's holdings has to be re-priced, portfolios have to be adjusted, the bank has to pay interest on their deposits and collect their interest on their loans, etc. All of those functions are performed in the BO/MO. A bank can't afford to lose any clients in a soft market when the higher profile business is drying up and no new money is being generated. Plus, this army of receipt checkers is so cheaply paid and somewhat scarce (training them takes a while, but the quantity needed is fairly high) that the teams developed become somewhat special in that they don't cost a lot and they are pretty content.
While what you said about revenue generators is most certainly true, I have seen the BO downsized in a couple of banks while I was in the Big 4, right after acquisitions/mergers. Were these BBs, not even close, but it demonstrated to me that even when its seems that the BO/Compliance is safe they found a way to eliminate about 25% of the people. The people left were stuck working 60+ hours for the same shit pay. I think the fear with lot of BO roles is that it can be hard to find other opportunities outside of your specific niche, and there can be limited high paying roles in that space leading to a lot of roadblocks that must be circumvented. I think there are corporate positions (Accounting/Finance, Marketing, product management) that don't have as many roadblocks to high paying positions. In my mind it would be better for someone who is considering BO/MO to look that these positions instead, more likely to build a stronger business skill set in these roles.
HR, Marketing, Strategy, and I would argue a lot of tech roles aren't MO or BO, they are corporate roles.
Marketing, strategy, and tech aren't front office because they don't meet clients but they certainly drive business. I can ensure you the tech team at any bank is seen as crucial. Banks are spending a ton of money to build more client friendly applications so they can thrive.
BO/MO is more of an auxiliary role that supports FO directly.
Take it from someone who has worked in the back office long enough to know what's going on.
1a. Everyone there knows the difference between BO and FO.
1b. 0 amount of people at the BO like what they do. 70% hate it, 30% have just accepted it.
The first jobs to go during a recession are in the BO. See point 1b. A lot of people hate working in the BO, so they actually don't work at all. Those are the people who are targets for being fired. FO brings in the money. Why would you cut people during a recession who are bringing in money?
Yes there are exit ops. To other back offices. Horray..
As a final point I would like to offer you, if you think working at a BO isn't so horrible, try to spend at least 6 months working at one. Bonus points to you if you don't contemplate suicide more than 5 time in the week.
In my short career so far, I'm of the mindset that being in a BO function is never terrible, but its not really where you want to reside long term. Ideally you should also try to apply your skillset to where you're as close to the "Front Office" or revenue generating side of the business as possible. For example, in banking lots of functions such as IT, Engineering, Marketing are all back office functions whereas out in the Bay Area where I work all of the BO and FO roles are switched.
I've done both Product Management as well as Corp Dev as large Tech companies and PM was way more respected than the Corp Dev team. People in Corp Dev tried to play it off like they were close to the C suite and making strategic decisions, but a Product Leader/Head of a BU was much more influential on inorganic growth than anyone from Corp Dev. Product and Engineering was the life of the company and thus got paid the most and were the most respected.
Few leaders in the field of finance have come from the back office the same way that few leaders from tech companies come from Finance or HR. I'm sure the same could be found across nearly all industries. If you want to move and grow quickly, align yourself with the front office wherever you are and work your way up.
Recently made an AMA about making the switch from BO to IB, and going to say why the OP seems to be very misinformed: 1. Everyone in BO knows the difference between BO and FO no doubt. Nobody genuinely enjoys BO work, from my experience the tech/IT guys were the only people who were happy with themselves since that is what they went to school for and enjoyed doing. 2. An overwhelming majority of people I worked with in BO were trying endlessly to get the fuck out asap which definitely hindered the camaraderie that was able to be built between us since everyone spent all of their free time strategizing on how to get out. Definitely not a "career" as opposed to FO. The BO is also definitely not recession proof/more secure, the BO is a cost center with no revenue generation capabilities. As processes become more and more automated and with the looming Trump deregulation, the BO undeniably has a much more grim outlook than any FO capacity with respect to near term job cuts. 3. Traditional BO exit ops are completely irrelevant to markets/true finance that WSO is not even the right website to discuss them.
The back office is absolutely terrible for those who have the mentality that 99% of the people on this site possess, so OP you're doing us all a disservice by making posts with misleading titles/inaccurate information especially when you're a junior in college. Take it from someone who knows.