America is in for a rude awakening

On Tuesday, the American people voted for the most liberal and inexperienced president in modern U.S. history. The current financial crisis and Bush's unpopularity were too much to overcome for the McCain/Palin ticket.

A lot of well-educated professionals voted for Obama because he's smart, articulate, thoughtful, and calm. And of course, in cities like Chicago and NYC, which are liberal bastions of political correctness, there was the pressure to vote for the black guy because it will be historical and transformational.

Here are my predictions. Within the next two years or so, the American people will realize that they made a huge mistake in electing Obama. With a liberal congress pushing him on every issue, the weak Obama will move sharply to the left on taxes, government regulation, entitlement programs, unions, fairness doctrine, national security, etc. The rich finance professionals and silicone valley techies who enthusiastically supported Obama will be shocked when their total tax rate, including income, social security, FICA, state, and local, reach upwards of 65%. They will come to realize that Obama's empty slogans of change and hope were mere euphemisms for socialism and an expansive welfare state. Those of you in NYC will especially regret your decision, as liberal legislations strip NYC of its status in the world financial scene. London, Dubai, Hong Kong, wll all become more relevant in the next several years.

I hope you guys are happy with your choice. After all, voting for the first black president is way more important than actual policies, right?

 
The rich finance professionals and silicone valley techies who enthusiastically supported Obama

Freudian slip much?

As far as the rest of your post, I have nothing constructive to add that hasn't been beaten to death a million times over the past six months. Point it, what's done is done. Obama is our president and there's nothing a post by a pimple-faced teenager on WSO can do to change that fact.

 

Lol jjc, you made your point like a month ago, we get it: you hate Obama.

But honestly, its going a bit too far now. Its this kind of stuff that makes me wish Obama becomes extremely successful.

 
jjc1122:
It's just insane that so many finance professionals voted against their self-interest by voting for Obama.

I don't know why you're surprised. Country first my friend, and my wallet second. My conscience did not allow me to put Palin anywhere close to the White House.

 

Why do you hate Obama, jjc112? Don't you realize the significance of the first black president? It means that anybody can do anything they put their heart in without worrying about their skin color. I'm sure you wouldn't know since you're probably caucasian, but for us minorities, it's a landmark.

http://www.deadstock.ca/ Your closet will never be the same again.

 

A Bathing Ape:
Why do you hate Obama, jjc112? Don't you realize the significance of the first black president? It means that anybody can do anything they put their heart in without worrying about their skin color. I'm sure you wouldn't know since you're probably caucasian, but for us minorities, it's a landmark.

http://www.deadstock.ca/ Your closet will never be the same again.

seriously?

 

A Bathing Ape:
Why do you hate Obama, jjc112? Don't you realize the significance of the first black president? It means that anybody can do anything they put their heart in without worrying about their skin color. I'm sure you wouldn't know since you're probably caucasian, but for us minorities, it's a landmark.

http://www.deadstock.ca/ Your closet will never be the same again.

Oh. My. God...

 

A Bathing Ape, are you freaking serious? Just like other liberals, you imply that those who oppose Obama must be closet racists. You got me! I'm really an imperial wizard in the Ku Klux Klan!

In all seriousnes though, my opposition to Obama is based on his radical socialist ideology. I still wish him well, for the sake of this country. But in no way did race play a role in my decision to not vote for him.

 

Oh please, why is this "jjc112" even on here. You don't contribute to discussions, or give any advice. You just slam NYC and Obama. And your profile says you work at a hedge fund. What kind? Stat Arb? Macro? Fund or Funds? You're worse than 'Dr. Mark Klein, MD'. He at least said some sensible(albeit harsh)things in his run on WSO.

http://www.deadstock.ca/ Your closet will never be the same again.

 
Best Response

JJC im with you on this one...

Gladiator, By voting for Obama you clearly do not love your country. This country was made great by capitalism (capitalism was not made great by this country). Paying high taxes is not patriotic and dissolving the lines between state powers (as most socialists seek to do) goes directly against the principals of Federalism that the Constitution was built upon.

Obama is a very accomplished guy and I like to believe that he is well-intentioned but at the end of the day I remain baffled by the hippy liberal idealism displayed by many finance professionals.

Do you really want to work 100 hours so that the government can take a significant portion away and spend it on wasteful social programs that you have no discretion over?

 

Honestly, let me say I am blown away by the ignorance on both sides. Some of you really need to reevaluate what you stand for/how much you believe of what you hear on TV, etc. I hear people confusing Republican with conservative and Democrats insisting that race had a significant impact on a sizable amount of votes. Obama took more of the white vote than previous Democrats, and stole 1/5 registered Republican votes. I'm just as naive as anyone else on this board .s Unfortunately none of us can honestly say we've been around enough to understand the difference, because we've just read about different regimes. Most of us are two young to truly understand the difference (yes, living through a political cycle and reading about it are very different. I don't know much, but I know that).

Strawmen, anyone? I'm not sure who blows me away more: the idealogical laissez-faire capitalists who refuse to consider even the possibility that the economy is not a grayscale that moves toward "socialist" or "capitalist" paradigms (sorry, considering we are all supposed students of the economy (not just Wall Street), it seems like people: for fear, or greed, or what they see as a dual-party system that they try and make themselves believe aligns with their beliefs. Wow. Some of you really need to consider what you believe v. what you are told.

Here are some facts: these are not presented to say "OH LOOK AT ME I SUPPORT DEMOCRATS" or "hey hey IM A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE I WUH WUH WORK HARD AND IM A CAPITALIST AND NO DEMOCRAT BELIEVES IN DAT!" These are for discussions on economy v. capital markets, and to see what others think.

But please, for the love of...anything, the arena most of us want to build our careers in has egg all over its face. The last thing you want to do is build arguments with no premises or basis or use broad generalizations (strawwwwwmen). All I hear is empty rhetoric on both sides of this argument. Wall Street and the world of finance is hurting. The last thing it needs is more idiots.

Something to muse about:

* Since 1901, the S&P rose an average 7.2% under Democratic presidents vs. 3.2% under Republicans, according to Ned Davis Research.
* Out of the 10 years of negative stocks performance since 1970, 7 occurred during a Republican-controlled White House versus three under Democrat control, according to Ashraf Laidi of CMC Markets U.S.
* In the last seven periods when Democrats had complete control of U.S. political power, the S&P 500 rose 14.7% percent on average, according to Bespoke Investment Group.
  In the eight times a Republican was president and Democrats controlled Congress, the <span class='keyword_link'><a href="/resources/skills/trading-investing/benchmark" target="_blank">benchmark index rose</a></span> 7.4%.
* Still, the notion that "gridlock is good" is also borne out, at least in relatively recent history. Of the 28 years of positive stock performance since 1970, 19 occurred during partisan control between the White House and Congress, according to Laidi.
 

you may be paying twice the rate of tax that you think you should be paying but you're also making five to ten times more than you should be making so in your big game of "looking out for number one" you're still way ahead so you'd be better advised to keep your head down and your mouth shut lest something even more idiotic comes out of it.

Seriously, please don't tell me you can justify what you "earn" without trampling on others.

 

This is ridiculous, try telling a trader that he didnt "earn" that money or that they "make five to ten times more than they should be making", I would be suprised if you still had all your teeth in your head 5 minutes later. You are all products of the liberal education system. Shame on you.

"Oh the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion" - Frank Slaughtery 25th Hour.
 
trade4size:
This is ridiculous, try telling a trader that he didnt "earn" that money or that they "make five to ten times more than they should be making", I would be suprised if you still had all your teeth in your head 5 minutes later. You are all products of the liberal education system. Shame on you.

Exactly for the last five years nobody told the traders anything, they enjoyed their big bonuses. As well nobody told them to leverage themselves to death to make fake profits, and sell structured crap of other crap.

Similar to Enron, where the traders were so greedy to abuse a market that made no sense, and instead of efficiency just wanted to make as much money as fast as possible. Extreme stupid regulation came afterwards, i.e. SOX.

You want someone to blame for your higher taxes, blame your future MD who has already made his millions mostly tax-free.

 
trade4size:
This is ridiculous, try telling a trader that he didnt "earn" that money or that they "make five to ten times more than they should be making", I would be suprised if you still had all your teeth in your head 5 minutes later. You are all products of the liberal education system. Shame on you.

I didn't think my thoughts through before I posted? You think this view means I had a liberal education? And that I should be ashamed for having this view?

You, son, need a good boxing around the ears. Start up another thread on this subject and we'll go toe to toe.

 

I know in the world of Wall Street, all that matters is money. But I studied Economics, and what matters is utility, and utility is a function that has many components, one of which is money. Some other components are happiness, leisure time, or whatever else it is that gives you pleasure.

Simply put, the higher taxes I might be paying under Obama does not outweigh the unhappiness of seeing Palin/McCain ticket win. So actually, I acted in complete self-interest by voting for Obama. In other words, I purchased some happiness: seeing America looked upon more favorably around the world, knowing a retard like Palin won't be a heart-beat away from presidency, etc. It just happens that I also think this is overall better for our country.

If you want to call that "product of liberal elite media" or whatever that's your choice.

 

I've always felt that too much good talent from our best universities was funneling into finance just for the paycheck. The risk-adjusted marginal product of several finance-related professions was clearly inflated in the last few years and it's a very good thing that equilibrium will be restored.

Simply put, the market will decide that the marginal value of a additional price discovery through trading or the small commissions flow trading nets are not worth the the risk involved. Overinvestment in finance, both from a capital and labour perspective, would have doomed this economy in the long-run. The reckoning just came sooner.

Sorry to say it guys, but if banks need implicit subsidies via bankruptcy protection, bailouts, liquidity injections etc. then they should be regulated as such. The long-term multiples of any bank who choses to forgo the Federal safety net while partaking in traditional investment banking activities are going to be extremely depressed. In fact, looking to the future I can't see how such an institution would be able to raise capital at all.

There has been a significant re-pricing of not only assets, but also the marginal product of various functions in finance. For example, the skills of the Hedge Fund asset class are simply not what they purported to be. The 2 and 20 which was already under pressure when we gave them the benefit of the doubt will be simply give way in the new world where their returns have been proven to be highly correlated to the market.

Higher taxes and regulation are simply necessary to restore long-term fiscal balance. It's either that or you flood the world in your debt, pushing supply to the limit and, with it, long-term interest rates. With China rapidly entering a (relative) funk in the near future, their appetite for subsidizing consumption across the Pacific will be greatly diminished.

Higher taxes are not an option, they are a necessity. The idea that a Republican president would not have presided over a tax increases is laughable.

Some people on this site need to sober up and wake up to the new world. This goes out especially to a lot of college kids prowling the forums: think about salaries in highly regulated industries and extrapolate finance's future from there.

 
curiousmonkey:
I've always felt that too much good talent from our best universities was funneling into finance just for the paycheck. The risk-adjusted marginal product of several finance-related professions was clearly inflated in the last few years and it's a very good thing that equilibrium will be restored.

Simply put, the market will decide that the marginal value of a additional price discovery through trading or the small commissions flow trading nets are not worth the the risk involved. Overinvestment in finance, both from a capital and labour perspective, would have doomed this economy in the long-run. The reckoning just came sooner.

Sorry to say it guys, but if banks need implicit subsidies via bankruptcy protection, bailouts, liquidity injections etc. then they should be regulated as such. The long-term multiples of any bank who choses to forgo the Federal safety net while partaking in traditional investment banking activities are going to be extremely depressed. In fact, looking to the future I can't see how such an institution would be able to raise capital at all.

There has been a significant re-pricing of not only assets, but also the marginal product of various functions in finance. For example, the skills of the Hedge Fund asset class are simply not what they purported to be. The 2 and 20 which was already under pressure when we gave them the benefit of the doubt will be simply give way in the new world where their returns have been proven to be highly correlated to the market.

Higher taxes and regulation are simply necessary to restore long-term fiscal balance. It's either that or you flood the world in your debt, pushing supply to the limit and, with it, long-term interest rates. With China rapidly entering a (relative) funk in the near future, their appetite for subsidizing consumption across the Pacific will be greatly diminished.

Higher taxes are not an option, they are a necessity. The idea that a Republican president would not have presided over a tax increases is laughable.

Some people on this site need to sober up and wake up to the new world. This goes out especially to a lot of college kids prowling the forums: think about salaries in highly regulated industries and extrapolate finance's future from there.

Curiousmonkey, despite your bad attitude, I do agree with the views that you have stated. More of our best talent should be going into fields such as public policy, biotechnology, alternative energy, aerospace engineering, etc.

Incentive structures in finance are obviously very flawed and need to be changed to prevent a repeat of what has happened. The pendulum has started to swing, and will take us to a far edge that nobody on this board wants to see. That being said, I believe that it is for the best. Sure, the next few years are going to suck - if my job remains intact, I am going to be working for a paltry bonus and little recognition.

Yet if all of this helps our economy in the long run, wouldn't it be worth it? Wouldn't you rather forgo part of your bonus in your twenties, when you have far less to lose than later on in your life? The pendulum will eventually swing the other way - that elusive sweet spot will be there for us later on, when we are commanding salaries that will actually make the most out of it. The opportunity will be there. Think about it.

 
curiousmonkey:
I've always felt that too much good talent from our best universities was funneling into finance just for the paycheck. The risk-adjusted marginal product of several finance-related professions was clearly inflated in the last few years and it's a very good thing that equilibrium will be restored.

Simply put, the market will decide that the marginal value of a additional price discovery through trading or the small commissions flow trading nets are not worth the the risk involved. Overinvestment in finance, both from a capital and labour perspective, would have doomed this economy in the long-run. The reckoning just came sooner.

Sorry to say it guys, but if banks need implicit subsidies via bankruptcy protection, bailouts, liquidity injections etc. then they should be regulated as such. The long-term multiples of any bank who choses to forgo the Federal safety net while partaking in traditional investment banking activities are going to be extremely depressed. In fact, looking to the future I can't see how such an institution would be able to raise capital at all.

There has been a significant re-pricing of not only assets, but also the marginal product of various functions in finance. For example, the skills of the Hedge Fund asset class are simply not what they purported to be. The 2 and 20 which was already under pressure when we gave them the benefit of the doubt will be simply give way in the new world where their returns have been proven to be highly correlated to the market.

Higher taxes and regulation are simply necessary to restore long-term fiscal balance. It's either that or you flood the world in your debt, pushing supply to the limit and, with it, long-term interest rates. With China rapidly entering a (relative) funk in the near future, their appetite for subsidizing consumption across the Pacific will be greatly diminished.

Higher taxes are not an option, they are a necessity. The idea that a Republican president would not have presided over a tax increases is laughable.

Some people on this site need to sober up and wake up to the new world. This goes out especially to a lot of college kids prowling the forums: think about salaries in highly regulated industries and extrapolate finance's future from there.

...is OVAH!

This was real talk like never before seen.

 

Est sit accusamus deleniti doloribus. Sed amet et excepturi in voluptatem. Molestiae voluptatibus autem provident ut nostrum ab deleniti autem. Cupiditate minima sint pariatur illo omnis. Ut voluptatem distinctio eos beatae facilis eum. Ducimus culpa eligendi blanditiis ad debitis itaque consequatur.

Minima quo eligendi optio voluptatem non. Repudiandae debitis minima delectus officiis libero voluptate minus. Enim qui et quia ipsam. Rerum aut blanditiis maiores et ad aut. Doloremque atque doloremque cum temporibus explicabo natus praesentium. Asperiores et reprehenderit labore dolores.

Qui tenetur nihil est dolor sapiente consequatur. In odit eveniet ad libero. Non reiciendis qui deleniti libero error quo nobis.

 

Distinctio mollitia fuga quasi totam expedita blanditiis. Sint id eos eum officia aut modi quae. Earum tempore iusto delectus voluptatum voluptas animi ut. Nihil odit omnis ea necessitatibus. Eligendi dignissimos enim eaque labore alias aut. Error consectetur vel cumque eligendi dolorem veniam voluptas non. Ut deleniti quae voluptas reprehenderit quia.

"Oh the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion" - Frank Slaughtery 25th Hour.

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
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
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...”