Most Helpful

I don't claim that this is some comprehensive meta-analysis of all of the published content of these users, because it isn't. I have looked at all of their posts; it's just that they all have orders of magnitude more in comments that would make it too onerous for me to evaluate absolutely all of it.

Drumpfy: Agrees with the standard Joe Biden agenda and extensive COVID-19 restrictions. Drumpfy's discussions on political economy are actually more limited in scope than some of the other users because of the extensive focus on COVID-19 as a single issue. To understand Drumpfy, we must rate Joe Biden's political agenda. Joe Biden has been a staunch neoliberal for most of his career in the Senate, but his presidency has arguably been different, with an increased focus on taxation and extensive government spending programs, but not so extensive as FDR. The effective tax rates under a Biden administration will likely be rather similar to mid-20th century presidents like JFK or LBJ if implemented (effective tax rates are different from top bracket tax rates, and I trust you understand the difference). Joe Biden is currently straddling the line between neoliberalism and entry-level social democracy, so I would rate Drumpfy as at the left-end of neoliberalism with an increased focus on COVID-protocols. That's the best description here. Best analogue: New Joe Biden

IncomingIBDReject: IncomingIBDReject belongs to the right of Drumpfy because of criticism of increased government spending and social welfare programs. IncomingIBDReject calls for increased taxation of individuals and corporations, which places them to the left of FinanceABC. They call for increased taxes and rebates to lower-income individuals and families. For this reason, I place IncomingIBDReject at the middle to left end of fiscal conservatism. Best analogue: Bill Clinton during presidency

FinanceABC: FinanceABC definitely belongs to the right of Drumpfy because of calls for the repeal of the capital gains tax and the repeal of the inheritance/estate tax. FinanceABC would also likely be comfortable with other forms of tax reduction on individuals and corporations, as well as decreased spending on social welfare programs. FinanceABC supports a somewhat higher minimum wage than many Republicans would, but in some cases, I found that the minimum wage levels that were supported wouldn't even be economically binding (the market rate was higher), in which case the point is moot. I rate FinanceABC a standard to right fiscal conservative with libertarian social views on typical identity issues such as race. Best analogue: Mitt Romney

Neink: In certain social ways, Neink is to the right of FinanceABC, but is actually more stridently critical of large corporations in a populist way than FinanceABC would ever be. Neink frequently uses "Big-Tech-like arguments" to contend that large multinational corporations are wresting control from the government and from the people, which places Neink in the corporation-skeptical, socially conservative and social authoritarian orbit of a Tucker Carlson. Neink has praised Tucker Carlson at various junctures, so I don't think this is unwarranted. For this reason, Neink can actually say things that are less pro-business than a FinanceABC or IncomingIBDReject while also focusing more on authoritarian conservative issues that are more personal in nature. For that reason Neink is a Tucker Carlson style authoritarian right-winger. I'm not all that fond of the term "paleoconservative," but I think there's some common ground here between Neink and the Pat Buchanans, Tuckers, and William Buckleys of the world. Best analogue: Tucker Carlson

Vænnen: Vænnen speaks very narrowly about political economy, and when they do, it often strays into calling people Jews or rabbi for no ostensible reason or coyly dismissing the historicity of the Holocaust. Frequent use of "based," which is about as specific as arguments (if you can call them that) get. Vænnen is a disingenuous troll at best and a white-supremacist anti-Semite at worst. Analogue: youthful American neo-Nazis on online forums

T30Graduate: I'll take a Fitch and say NR.

 
kellycriterion

I don't claim that this is some comprehensive meta-analysis of all of the published content of these users, because it isn't. I have looked at all of their posts; it's just that they all have orders of magnitude more in comments that would make it too onerous for me to evaluate absolutely all of it.

Drumpfy: Agrees with the standard Joe Biden agenda and extensive COVID-19 restrictions. Drumpfy's discussions on political economy are actually more limited in scope than some of the other users because of the extensive focus on COVID-19 as a single issue. To understand Drumpfy, we must rate Joe Biden's political agenda. Joe Biden has been a staunch neoliberal for most of his career in the Senate, but his presidency has arguably been different, with an increased focus on taxation and extensive government spending programs, but not so extensive as FDR. The effective tax rates under a Biden administration will likely be rather similar to mid-20th century presidents like JFK or LBJ if implemented (effective tax rates are different from top bracket tax rates, and I trust you understand the difference). Joe Biden is currently straddling the line between neoliberalism and entry-level social democracy, so I would rate Drumpfy as at the left-end of neoliberalism with an increased focus on COVID-protocols. That's the best description here. Best analogue: New Joe Biden

IncomingIBDReject: IncomingIBDReject belongs to the right of Drumpfy because of criticism of increased government spending and social welfare programs. IncomingIBDReject calls for increased taxation of individuals and corporations, which places them to the left of FinanceABC. They call for increased taxes and rebates to lower-income individuals and families. For this reason, I place IncomingIBDReject at the middle to left end of fiscal conservatism. Best analogue: Bill Clinton during presidency

FinanceABC: FinanceABC definitely belongs to the right of Drumpfy because of calls for the repeal of the capital gains tax and the repeal of the inheritance/estate tax. FinanceABC would also likely be comfortable with other forms of tax reduction on individuals and corporations, as well as decreased spending on social welfare programs. FinanceABC supports a somewhat higher minimum wage than many Republicans would, but in some cases, I found that the minimum wage levels that were supported wouldn't even be economically binding (the market rate was higher), in which case the point is moot. I rate FinanceABC a standard to right fiscal conservative with libertarian social views on typical identity issues such as race. Best analogue: Mitt Romney

Neink: In certain social ways, Neink is to the right of FinanceABC, but is actually more stridently critical of large corporations in a populist way than FinanceABC would ever be. Neink frequently uses "Big-Tech-like arguments" to contend that large multinational corporations are wresting control from the government and from the people, which places Neink in the corporation-skeptical, socially conservative and social authoritarian orbit of a Tucker Carlson. Neink has praised Tucker Carlson at various junctures, so I don't think this is unwarranted. For this reason, Neink can actually say things that are less pro-business than a FinanceABC or IncomingIBDReject while also focusing more on authoritarian conservative issues that are more personal in nature. For that reason Neink is a Tucker Carlson style authoritarian right-winger. I'm not all that fond of the term "paleoconservative," but I think there's some common ground here between Neink and the Pat Buchanans, Tuckers, and William Buckleys of the world. Best analogue: Tucker Carlson

T30Graduate: I'll take a Fitch and say NR.

I have never been compared to a republican on this site. I am sure there are others who might disagree. You are right.  On fiscal issues, I tend be conservative while on social issues, I am very liberal, along with all of the other millions of people who live in the northeast (republican and democrat).  On this site, we tend to get labeled based on social views, though.  

 

You've astutely detected one of the key issues with my analogue system: American politicians tend to overwhelmingly vote party line, which makes more nuanced comparisons more difficult. I could probably make a better analogue if you gave me some examples of social policies where you and Romney would differ (abortion, drugs, etc.). I could say Joe Manchin, but he's arguably more anti-abortion than Romney would be, for example. Throwing you in with any Democrat would bring a slew of problems with your avowed positions on taxes, which makes my job very difficult. Joe and Romney would be my leading picks right now. Cheers

 

There would be a lot more commenters who are recognized for their views if the anon feature were to be turned off.  Tbh, it is a little weird to be interacting with people who are anon.  I know that people like this feature, but the risk of being doxed is so low. If you speak as if you you are communicating to people in real world, nothing is going to happen to you.  Idk, I prefer to interact with people who use their username because at least I know a little about them. 

 

Of course, this was previously litigated in the thread devoted to this very conversation, but my opinion is that anon is useful for the main industry forums, but not particularly well suited for the Off-Topic. I virtually always comment and post under my username. I don't try to hide behind anything. 

I definitely have much better rapport with people when they include usernames. That's how you build a community over time and build trust and real discussions. Anons rarely reply to me, and I find that username users tend to put out better thought arguments. You can do any potshot or offensive comment you want under an anon. I'm sure there are anons here who would have a cohesive system of political thoughts that could be categorized if they came out of the dark.

 
kellycriterion

Of course, this was previously litigated in the thread devoted to this very conversation, but my opinion is that anon is useful for the main industry forums, but not particularly well suited for the Off-Topic. I virtually always comment and post under my username. I don't try to hide behind anything. 

I definitely have much better rapport with people when they include usernames. That's how you build a community over time and build trust and real discussions. Anons rarely reply to me, and I find that username users tend to put out better thought arguments. You can do any potshot or offensive comment you want under an anon. I'm sure there are anons here who would have a cohesive system of political thoughts that could be categorized if they came out of the dark.

Idk what goes on in the industry forums so I really can't comment either way.  Some anons do reply to me here to take pot shots but I do not respond to them.  When you respond to them, you are giving them exactly what they want, which is attention.   

 

How about Vænnen?  That guy doesn't post as often but he denies the Holocaust and has called me a rabbi multiple times

 
IncomingIBDreject

Curious why I'm to the right of neink. Would have expected to be right of financeabc but left of neink.

Yeah, I agree.  You are more of a moderate conservative than him.

 

The only thing that matters here is that I am popular. I'm not going to read a single word of the rest.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.
 

Fuga in ducimus eos fugit expedita ipsum non. Nemo qui nisi consectetur libero dolore quia eaque. Architecto minima quidem cumque debitis doloribus aperiam laboriosam. Itaque et aperiam quia nesciunt tempora. Consequatur aspernatur ut adipisci et occaecati consectetur dolor velit. Rerum quam cum quidem natus.

Architecto voluptas voluptatem quis quos suscipit necessitatibus. Sed sapiente sit et aut vel facilis sit. Velit aliquam perspiciatis omnis earum repudiandae.

Deleniti quam quaerat ullam sed quis. Voluptate ut sunt sequi ea odio.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn

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
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
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...”