UBS FX or GS Eq.
analyst s&t position from target school, have the choice between UBS fx derivatives and goldman equity derivatives. need advice on which to choose.
pro goldman is obvious, it's the best BB. also UBS is in stamford (though they are moving?) pro UBS is that regardless of the bad news, it's great in FX, and on top of that from what i have heard, equities is generally compensated substantially less than anything in FICC.
your thoughts?
I'm assuming it's FX Options, if so I'd give them the edge.
FX will allow you to have more mobility into other areas of FICC, should you ever decide to switch. In my experience it is harder to move from equities to anywhere in FICC than to move from one group in FICC to another (not that it's always easy). I know guys that started in FX that later ended up in swaps and commodities at the same firm. That said each firm may have a different reporting structure or stance on mobility within FICC, and I know little about how UBS operates in these matters.
In trading the firm name matters a lot less, UBS has a very solid FX Options team so you're not talking about some middle of the road shop.
Keep in mind I am biased (FX Options trader), but I still think it's the best choice all else equal.
I agree 100% with Revsly here. For trading, the firm name doesn't matter that much. It's the reputation of the specific desk. More importantly, currency options experience gives you a lot more exit options than equity derivatives; you can transition into other areas of FICC at a bank or trade currencies at a macro hedge fund.
Id say whicever product interests you more, but if its a toss up then FX might give some more mobility. Keep in mind trading equity derivs is not as huge of a stretch as people make it out to seem. Id even argue that going from trading equity vol to FX vol is a smoother change than going from like FX vol to govt bonds.
I will agree with you there, trading vol is much more similar to trading cash/dv01. However I will point out that as the junior on an FX Options desk, you'll often end up trading the rho book, which definitely would ease the transition into a more cash or swaps IR product. In general, if you like macro, go FX. If you like equities, go equities (obv). And if you don't care, I'd give edge to FX. Either way though, great opportunities, it's like choosing between an Aston Martin and a Maserati.
I'd agree with the above comments about firm name not meaning as much in trading. It's more about your specific desk and P&L.
I'd clearly go with UBS. Like said above, FX gives you more options, so if you're not clear about what you want to do in the future that option closes fewer doors. Besides, it seems to me that you are undermining UBS, which is a great bank and specially in FX. And Goldman is getting shit thrown at them every day these days, so even if they are the most prestigious the difference is not that big (despite what some people in this forum might say), and prestige is not that important in trading, as said above. And of course, like derivstrading, consider what YOU like. I like macroeconomics, so I'm more into FX, IR, etc... but other people really like equities. You are gonna spend a lot of hours trading, so if you have a preference stick to that and fuck desk/bank prestige. Both positions are incredible, so you'll be fine anyway,
Macro products in FICC are the best place for any analyst in S&T to start hands down. Equity derivs is a fine business to be in, but the skill set in FICC is more transferable to other businesses.
Voluptatem hic sint voluptates odio qui qui. Quaerat quidem suscipit molestias molestias.
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...