Financial reform bill will destroy big banks

If this financial bill passes in its current form, the bulge bracket banks are basically f*cked. The Volcker rule would prevent banks from engaging in prop trading or investing in hedge funds and PE firms. JP Morgan is already planning to sell Highbridge. And Goldman Sachs will also be decimated.

For the traders at bulge bracket banks, you guys should start considering new careers. The trading desks will be obliterated if this passes.

 
Edmundo Braverman:
You're right. There were no investment banks before November 12, 1999.

Bonuses for traders at banks EXPLODED after 1999. If this bill passes, compensation for traders will go down drastically. Of course banks will still exist, but the era of big bonuses is over.

 

While I do not support the bill I think the key to remember is there was a Wall Street way before people were making big bucks. Whenever I hear people talking about things ending I always think they are overreacting. Lets not forget how much money the big banks gave this current administration.

 

Maybe with no more monolithic giant banks, the Fed will stop this "too big to fail" bullshit.

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-
 
Downtown:
I agree. In the future we should never have to bailout a company because it's a systemic risk to the economy. Companies need to be able to go bankrupt - it's a good incentive for management, and investors deserve the freedom to choose what companies they invest in, which doesn't happen when the gov't uses taxpayer money to bailout a company.

+1. I couldn't agree more. No one company going down should bring the entire economy down with it. Plus when companies are allowed to fail, it creates more work for bankruptcy lawyers (I plan to be one-conflict of interest disclaimer). It's rumored that the legal tab for Lehman's Ch. 7 is over $1 billion and it's already been paid out.

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-
 

^^^^ Isn't that the whole problem? The Fed should've stepped in as these banks were becoming so massive. Obviously none of us can speak our minds too much on this subject but it seems that it's too little too late. (That's like waiting until your kid looks like a Walrus to control his diet, instead of stepping in as he was getting so huge).

 
moneyneversleeps2:
^^^^ Isn't that the whole problem? The Fed should've stepped in as these banks were becoming so massive. Obviously none of us can speak our minds too much on this subject but it seems that it's too little too late. (That's like waiting until your kid looks like a Walrus to control his diet, instead of stepping in as he was getting so huge).

"There's nothing wrong with being a large mammal." - Jim Morrison

 

correct me if i am misinformed, just trying to get more informed.

financial reform bill = separating risky activities (prop trading, principal investing, etc etc) from ibank/commercial banking activities. a little simplistic, but thats basically what i am concluding.

this sounds like great financial reform. and maybe the big banks would be worth more in parts.

--- man made the money, money never made the man
 

As far as traders go, I am under the impression that only prop traders will be impacted by this if it passes (and very few of the banks traders are prop traders). I don't see how flow traders would be impacted by this at all pay-wise. (I know that many flow traders hope to eventually work on the prop desk, but even if that is no longer an option they could still go work for the buy-side). Hardly "destroying" bulge brackets in my opinion.

 
one point twenty-one jiggawatts:
As far as traders go, I am under the impression that only prop traders will be impacted by this if it passes (and very few of the banks traders are prop traders). I don't see how flow traders would be impacted by this at all pay-wise. (I know that many flow traders hope to eventually work on the prop desk, but even if that is no longer an option they could still go work for the buy-side). Hardly "destroying" bulge brackets in my opinion.
which banks have prop trading ? i know GS, DB and credit sussie have. i am not sure about the others
 
ychu066:
one point twenty-one jiggawatts:
As far as traders go, I am under the impression that only prop traders will be impacted by this if it passes (and very few of the banks traders are prop traders). I don't see how flow traders would be impacted by this at all pay-wise. (I know that many flow traders hope to eventually work on the prop desk, but even if that is no longer an option they could still go work for the buy-side). Hardly "destroying" bulge brackets in my opinion.
which banks have prop trading ? i know GS, DB and credit sussie have. i am not sure about the others
All banks have prop desks
 

To the point that it's all over for traders.....

HF and Prop shops will still exist, and I would imagine other smaller buy-side firms will be created, purely proprietary trading either public/privately owned.

What this is doing is preventing GS from owning a HF or trading prop while it is advising the general public how it should be making investments.

This WILL effect BBs but it WILL NOT effect trading as an industry...what we'll see is a ton of off shot funds/proprietary firms whose principal and seed is from BBs.

When you think about it, it makes more sense this way. It separates conflict of interest and doesn't actually destroy anything....

You have to understand that Wall Street is smart and has given more money to this administration than any other sector has. This is just a REDISTRIBUTION, not a complete annihilation of trading as a career.

Does anyone else in the industry agree with this? This is how I understand it, and I think it's good.

Big Banks will provide markets and liquidity for HF and small "trading firms" and prop shops that trade to make money. Simultaneously those banks will continue to dominate research, PWM, institutional asset management, and Private Equity/I Banking/Corporate and personal finance/M&A.

It will make the Banks CLIENT orientated and the talent will be redistributed, in fact, I think this will also raise the profile of Prop Shops and put them under the gun, forcing them to be a little bit more accommodating to full time employees across the board, as the prop guys coming from JPM/ML etc will force a more corporate culture on the firms.

Does anyone else agree with me? Also, how will this effect Euro Banks like Barclays/UBS/CS?

 
m.c.trader:
This WILL effect BBs but it WILL NOT effect trading as an industry...what we'll see is a ton of off shot funds/proprietary firms whose principal and seed is from BBs.

When you think about it, it makes more sense this way. It separates conflict of interest and doesn't actually destroy anything....

You have to understand that Wall Street is smart and has given more money to this administration than any other sector has. This is just a REDISTRIBUTION, not a complete annihilation of trading as a career.

Does anyone else in the industry agree with this? This is how I understand it, and I think it's good.

Big Banks will provide markets and liquidity for HF and small "trading firms" and prop shops that trade to make money. Simultaneously those banks will continue to dominate research, PWM, institutional asset management, and Private Equity/I Banking/Corporate and personal finance/M&A.

It will make the Banks CLIENT orientated and the talent will be redistributed, in fact, I think this will also raise the profile of Prop Shops and put them under the gun, forcing them to be a little bit more accommodating to full time employees across the board, as the prop guys coming from JPM/ML etc will force a more corporate culture on the firms.

Does anyone else agree with me? Also, how will this effect Euro Banks like Barclays/UBS/CS?

I could've not put it any better. As always, there'll always be counter productive bad apples in the complete reform proposal, but in all, this will simply do what m.c. trader just broke down (from my understanding).

All the huss and the fuss, I think is unnecessary and fueling the flame.

From what I understand, The banks will not be able to not only own hf, pe, and prop desks, they won't be allowed to invest their capital. So a bank would not be allowed to call up Citadel and ask to invest some cash. That would be illegal as well. So am I right in saying that an assload of capital is being taken out of the industry, as none of these banks can be involved with hf and pe now?

 

The majority of what banks do in terms of sales and trading is called FLOW trading. They provide liquidity in the market, and execute for the clients. They do not (usually) hold positions to make profits.

The bill will limit only proprietary trading--- i.e. taking positions with the firm's capital to make money.

There aren't that many prop traders... but they do make disproportionately large amounts of money. On that point., does anyone know if prop trading profits are used as compensation for the trading team only? I.e. do vanilla IBD corpfin bankers enjoy higher bonuses if prop traders make a killing?

 
ibhopeful532:
The majority of what banks do in terms of sales and trading is called FLOW trading. They provide liquidity in the market, and execute for the clients. They do not (usually) hold positions to make profits.

This is incorrect. All flow desks take proprietary positions, whether it be directional bets or leaving legs of a derivative unhedged, it is still risking the firms capital. As far as I am aware, the legislation will pretty much only impact the "Internal Hedge Fund" model aka Proprietary Desk, not preventing firms from taking prop positions... that would be impossible.

Jack: They’re all former investment bankers who were laid off from that economic crisis that Nancy Pelosi caused. They have zero real world skills, but God they work hard. -30 Rock
 
Best Response

This article http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd48b836-4cce-11df-9977-00144feab49a.html says "As the financial reform effort enters its final stages, there are a number of proposals that could be changed, including a derivatives trading regime and the "Volcker rule", named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, which would ban deposit-taking banks from proprietary trading." So would banks who don't take deposits still be able to do prop trading? How would this bill, as it stands, hurt college students hoping to get into trading? Would it affect all types of trading?

 
jrt336:
So it sounds like a lot of traders would be hired by smaller firms and BBs would be less powerful. Would it actually be easier to get into and would the salary stay the same?

What kind of question is this? Honestly, how would anyone know "how easy will be to get in" or "whether the salary would stay the same" when nobody even knows the nature of the change that hasn't even come close to occurring yet?

 
youngblood:
jrt336:
So it sounds like a lot of traders would be hired by smaller firms and BBs would be less powerful. Would it actually be easier to get into and would the salary stay the same?

What kind of question is this? Honestly, how would anyone know "how easy will be to get in" or "whether the salary would stay the same" when nobody even knows the nature of the change that hasn't even come close to occurring yet?

I'm just looking for speculation. Obviously no one could give a completely accurate prediction since the bill hasn't even been signed into law.

 

What kind of question is this? Honestly, how would anyone know "how easy will be to get in" or "whether the salary would stay the same" when nobody even knows the nature of the change that hasn't even come close to occurring yet?

He just didn't word the question right as ofcourse it would be difficult to have exact details as such.

However, anyone with a bit of intuition and knowledge on the industry could probably provide some info on a likely scenario that would play out.

 
BigSwap:
Also consider sections of the legislation designed to move customized OTC derivatives products onto an exchange - this is a mistake of the highest order.

I heard snippets of that on CNBC today. Why is it such a huge mistake? Is it because it opens up derivatives for the common man to trade?

 
Brian Fantana:
BigSwap:
Also consider sections of the legislation designed to move customized OTC derivatives products onto an exchange - this is a mistake of the highest order.

I heard snippets of that on CNBC today. Why is it such a huge mistake? Is it because it opens up derivatives for the common man to trade?

Because liquidity will be drier than a 90 year old woman's... you get the picture.

The point of OTC is that it is entirely customized... ie you come to a bank with certain risks and you get a solution that fits that. Putting all of that customization on exchanges is quite impossible, I don't even know how they'd do it.

Jack: They’re all former investment bankers who were laid off from that economic crisis that Nancy Pelosi caused. They have zero real world skills, but God they work hard. -30 Rock
 

Aren't they just moving all OTC derivatives through a clearing house?

Also, it doesn't restrict Banks from running hedge funds and pe shops, they just can't invest their own capital. Is that right? Please correct me.

If the volcker rule is as drastic as the people above indicate, than goldman sachs can basically split itself up like standard oil in 1911

 
Soldier1:
Aren't they just moving all OTC derivatives through a clearing house?

Also, it doesn't restrict Banks from running hedge funds and pe shops, they just can't invest their own capital. Is that right? Please correct me.

If the volcker rule is as drastic as the people above indicate, than goldman sachs can basically split itself up like standard oil in 1911

I have not read the EXACT language of the Volcker rule, so you may be right on this. But with the populist rage and political pressure, the socialists in congress and the white house (democrats and Obama) will pass a very anti-business bill. I think one year from now, goldman sachs will be broken into various pieces. GSAM, their internal hedge fund, will become its own entity, and goldman sachs will mainly consist of just banking, research, IM, client services, operations, IT, prime brokerage.

 

Despite the uproar I can't help but thinking that proprietary trading belongs in prop shops and investment banks should focus on client-oriented work. As far as I'm concerned financial institutions should be able to act as a principal (be it prop trading, PE or HF), perform investment banking services for clients (inc mkt making) or take deposits and make home loans etc, not all three. Regardless of whether it had an impact on the financial crisis they are fundamentally at odds with each other.

 

hmmm...couple things.

derivatives need to be standardized in some form or the other. as it is right now, its entirely too big of a market not to have some governing rules and principles other than from players directly involved. clearly we have seen what happens when us wall street capitalists are left to our own devices. we push everything to the limit in search of profits = massive amounts of risk. it is the nature of the beast.

this is clearly a very reasonable reformation. we are just witnessing a classic case of power does not concede without a fight. of course wall street will not just roll over and accept the fed/govts proposals as is. and they shouldnt either, but some of this whole destruction/socialism/ rhetoric as a defense is just complete bullsht and politics.

btw, i think the president is proposing some sort of financial cap on institutions. this split of prop/hf trading has only been suggested??...though i can foresee it being a byproduct of these types of proposals.

the real question that has more teeth in my opinion is what the heck does this have to do with reforming the direct mortgage market players at the center of this crisis that nearly bought the house down? what proposals address those issues and stop them from happening again? where are the republicans on this? the white house is getting away with a doozy of a paint brush.

some say all these discussions/proposals are moot considering that wall street is characteristically miles ahead of regulators and will find loop holes to jump through any legislation that gets passed. and i agree. trust me in another decade well have some other sort of regulation/banking institution failure to ponder. this doesn’t mean everyone should just sht on their hands and watch the pot.

one more thing. goldman and the SEC. I laugh at any democrat that doesn’t think this thing reeks of politics given the timing of the announcement and the potential laws we are discussing today. however, don’t feel bad for goldman. it was a well known secret that they ripped many a clients face off on a daily basis knowing well that they were taking the opposite side in size. sure, you can say, all parties are big boys (everyone bank did it – so much for transparency and client interests!), but goldman was the only bank that seemed to do this consistently without impunity. maybe that will slow down now.

 
wintonheights:
however, don’t feel bad for goldman. it was a well known secret that they ripped many a clients face off on a daily basis knowing well that they were taking the opposite side in size. sure, you can say, all parties are big boys (everyone bank did it – so much for transparency and client interests!), but goldman was the only bank that seemed to do this consistently without impunity. maybe that will slow down now.

This sounds a lot like Liars Poker; and my instructors tell that book is just fiction...

 

Funny how they conveniently skip over Fannie and Freddie. They get all of the best and brightest economists at work on optimizing derivative regulations so they ignore the more root source of artificial government-enabled demand.

 

Eos similique nobis qui corrupti commodi. Sed laborum consequatur sit officiis quo quo autem. Qui velit omnis labore. Rem quasi cumque dolorem perferendis ducimus.

Ut quis aut dolor pariatur. Molestias officiis quos aut quis. Et repellat libero eos eaque. Voluptatem temporibus aut blanditiis et facere expedita est.

 

Expedita illo aut nemo. Enim ut dolorum sunt reprehenderit ea. Aut eum magnam eaque quod aut quasi.

Sit modi autem ut laboriosam omnis sit. Aspernatur amet vero officiis omnis mollitia incidunt doloribus. Sit vel porro quos aut.

Ut est quibusdam doloribus. Et eum et voluptatem quis.

Jack: They’re all former investment bankers who were laid off from that economic crisis that Nancy Pelosi caused. They have zero real world skills, but God they work hard. -30 Rock
 

Dicta autem nihil dolorem saepe error. Id repellat magnam nisi nihil a accusantium. Doloribus repudiandae veniam eum quos atque. Est corporis esse omnis dolor. Et quam enim facere minus. Ut unde earum voluptatum blanditiis est.

Animi excepturi et accusamus voluptas. Suscipit repellendus deserunt autem facere qui. Delectus quis at officia modi.

Repudiandae corrupti eum totam consectetur recusandae quibusdam corrupti. Aliquid at qui cupiditate sunt. Architecto ut dolorem qui vel voluptas.

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