BO roles that are still core to the company?

My parents have such gloried BO roles and they both take turns getting shit on by traders and IB guys. They make a lot of money in good times (200k+ salary) but they are still treated like lower class by idiot FO first years who make less than they do. Such is the food chain sir.

You say you "really like BO" and then follow with "there must be different BO roles, right?"

Seems like you know nothing about BO at all.

Attitude towards BO: Bad Pay: Little to nothing.

BO is not core to the company. If it were, it wouldn't be BO. Back office work is not defined by function, but by their role within the company. Programming in Google would be FO and Finance BO. Innovating new trading software at a trading firm that depend on them to make investment will also be FO.

Non-core doesn't mean unnecessary, otherwise BO wouldn't exist. Core is what your company is known for. I'm sorry but GS is NOT an IT company. Google can't do without finance but it's not a finance company.

yiiiiiiikes, to each their own i suppose

yiiiiiiikes, to each their own i suppose

The type of programming that you're describing is not a back office function. Back Office refers to the support staff that, while necessary, do not drive revenue in the way IB, S&T, and ECM/DCM do.

The negativity spread about BO jobs on this forum is ridiculous. Of course BO is not as high-paying or as prestigious as FO jobs. But compared to most other jobs in America, it's a damn fine career. BO can make up to ~250K or so after promotions. 250K is a very nice living, and must be in the top 3% or higher of earners.

I know most of the kids on WSO go to or went to target schools and are very intelligent. Thus, a role in BO isn't what they are looking for. It would be weird for them to bust their ass their entire lives, spend a shitload on education and take the same job that almost any non target kid could network into if they knew the right people.

Tech, Ops, Compliance,whatever...these jobs aren't the most exciting in the world. Then again, neither is being an auditor, an engineer, or some lawyers. BO allows you to make a good living, probably live in an upper-middle class town, and have a good W/L balance. You'll never be a baller like traders or I-Bankers, but the money is nothing to sneeze at.

Think about a career in advertising. Kids start out making 35-40K and work their way up for years and years for a shot to be a Creative Director. Do these guys make trader money? Absolutely not. Average salary is 200-300K. Funny that you can make that with much less effort in BO. Sure you get shit on by traders but fuck 'em. Unless you're a pussy and can't handle it, it's not too much to bear.

I'm not saying it's worth it to move across the country and go out of your way to be in BO. It's not. But if it's local and your best option, why not? It's always possible (1 out of 100 maybe) to make a move to FO down the road.

Life could be a lot worse than BO.

This thread is so frustrating. How did it turn into another discussion on prestige/importance of BO jobs? Can't you guys see the OP doesn't even have the right idea of what BO is?

" I was just wondering, there must be different BO roles right? Of course you're going to have data inputters, IT support roles, etc. but what about the people who are doing the actual programming, management, and innovation for new trading software and facilitating buys etc. within the co.?"

The people doing the trading programming and innovation are not what you call BO. Rather than help him understand, which is the point of answering a thread, other BO workers start defending their jobs. craigmcdermott is the only one that actually gave a relevant answer.

Nefarious - I'm sorry you couldn't get into GS IBD and had to setting for IT, but don't direct your anger at me. I never said anything negative about BO - just defined to the OP what constitutes core business and what is support roles. The line you should really be offended by is: "Of course you're going to have data inputters, IT support roles, etc."

This is just like trying to have a successful offense in the NFL without an offensive line people are saying that BO is easily replaced and basically completely unimportant that makes no sense. But in reality that wasn't even the question of the OP as stated by CharmWithSubstance. BO roles are generally known as non revenue generating roles... generally..

OP: Are you asking about whether the programming jobs are FO or BO?

Most of these guys on WSO aren't techies so they don't really know.

At least in trading, there's FO coders. These guys directly work with traders to translate trading strategies on paper into trading strategies in code, and they help generate revenue. They might also work with quants too, with R&D for new strategies and developments. These FO coders will be on the same team as the FO traders/quants; there's no "wall" or subordination, people are equals here. Don't know what FO is like for coders in I-banking, since all I know about I-banking is that they make powerpoints and fuck around on excel and word lol. I apologize for my ignorance on that subject.

There's BO coders, these guys design and build the in-house applications that the FO people and Operations/compliance people use. They also build software that automates what operations people do, etc. The key for telling whether a coding job is FO or BO is whether or not the coders there view the FO as "users" and "customers/clients" (the same paradigm a tech/software company would use) or whether they view the FO folks as teammates.

There's IT/Tech support, these guys are like the database admins and sys admins and hardware specialists. And maybe there will be some handymen that fix people's computers haha. These guys are cool too. Non-techie people might not respect them, but for us techies, these guys are GODS. They basically control your fate, and are badasses with so much nerd cred. Unfortunately their compensation doesn't really match their power and authority and knowledge, it's more a job for love than a job for money.

scarf1001:

I really like BO, but I've been hearing a lot of negativity about it. I was just wondering, there must be different BO roles right? Of course you're going to have data inputters, IT support roles, etc. but what about the people who are doing the actual programming, management, and innovation for new trading software and facilitating buys etc. within the co.?

Do they exist? What're FO people's attitude towards them and how much do they make?

Thanks for any comments/info.

The catch is that there is always a political battle going on. IT wants to control analytics, but analytics wants the CIO out of its way. Depending on how competent, politically shrewd, and gutsy your managers are, you either get close to a front-office role or it's total back-office IT.

I have always seen financial firms as essentially tech companies with traders and bankers, but obviously I'm not on the BOD or a C-level executive. Perhaps one day a technologist will become the CEO of a major investment bank and run things that way.

Investment Banking is the dying industry of the current era- kind of like American cars were in the '70s. It's overpriced, a poor product, and folks are waking up to it.

Hate to say it, but a lot of folks in the back and middle office will probably make a lot more money over their careers than a lot of folks in the front office. I think analytics, risk management, compliance, and research will all do very well over the next 30 years relative to trading or IBD. This is coming from someone who works in trading.

In any case, the line between FO and BO has gotten pretty darned blurry over the past few years.

Even if you said "trading" it wouldn't be correct. But investment banking is the backbone of our capitalist business model and I'm not just talking M&A. Lets just close all commercial banks and credit card companies too while we're at it.

Not really. Everything in trading is getting automated, we now have decision engines rather than traders in many cases, spreads are narrowing across the board, and volume is down.

So we should close the markets since there will be no more IPO's without Ibanks? and of course lets just make every company in the U.S. save money so they can pay 100% for all their expenses rather than providing capital.

Regardless, Americans have lost faith in the market and the industry is dying right now. I'd give it another 5-10 more years before TSHTF for bankers and most traders.

Then we'll take all the money we're inefficiently holding onto and pay BACK OFFICE 300%!!!! THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME! Oho wait, what jobs will the back office do without all the front office? I guess we'll just support prop companies that comprise only of back office who don't support anyone. They will just walk in circles all day and circle jerk each other on going to crappy state schools like Illinois while we pay them millions.

By the way, research is front office you idiot. I expensed over 2k in research reports this month alone. If you were ever capable enough to do Ibanking you would know that.

Research is probably another place where folks will make out very nicely. It's not actually financial decision making- and that's what will keep it safe after consumers realize they can make decisions on their own and computers take over the remainder of the B/D business.

I'm going to my 2nd year. But thanks to all the back office state schoolers chiming in.

As for Illinois, response is totally irrelevant and doesn't address anything I've said. I didn't expect much out of a state schooler in the back office though.