faithshares, lol. but no shit it really exists

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I tend to think of myself as a one-man wolfpack Buyside strongside
 

Actually both GS and MS contribute signficantly to society. Like many people, you grossly underestimate the amount of good for society that is done by purely for-profit business. Infact, I dare so no government official, charity or anything/anyone has ever done as much good for humanity as the free-markets and the goods and services business creates and provides through them. If you want to contribute to society, the best way to do it is through free enterprise - cut the lefty hippie shit and get to work.

Whilst not directly on topic, you should read T.J. Rodgers's famous letter from 1996 and his debate with Friedman and that guy from Whole Foods.

"The May 13, 1996 issue of Fortune magazine analyzed the "ethical mutual funds" which invest with a social-issues agenda, and currently control $639 billion in investments. Those funds produced an 18.2% return in the last 12 months, while the S&P 500 returned 27.2%. The investors in those funds thus lost 9% of $639 billion, or $57.5 billion in one year, because they invested on a social-issues basis. Furthermore, their loss was not simply someone else's gain; the money literally vanished from our economy, making every American poorer. That's a lot of houses, food, and college educations that were lost to the "higher good" of various causes. What absurd logic would contend that Americans should be harmed by "good ethics?"

"I am proud of what the semiconductor industry does--relentlessly cutting the cost of a transistor from $3 in 1960 to three-millionths of a dollar today. Mackey would be keeping his business records with hordes of accountants on paper ledgers if our industry didn't exist. He would have to charge his poorest customers more for their food, pay his valued employees less, and cut his philanthropy programs if the semiconductor industry had not focused so relentlessly on increasing its profits, cutting his costs in the process."

http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34986 http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/01/rethinking-the-social-responsi

 
[Comment removed by mod team]
 

I was in a small microfinance provider and believe you me there is nothing socially conscious about it it. True, you are lending money to the poor to startup their business or make ends meet, but the fees and the rates you charge completely outweigh any goodwill you may have had.

Don't knock working at GS/MS dude, the entire banking/hedge fund/PE industry has probably donated more money to charity than any other group in the past years and what are they to society? The enemy. It's an irony that the largest foundations or charities that made a difference were started by people who were despised as cutthroat or coldhearted, John D. Rockefeller for example.

Anyway to answer you're question, why don't you just apply to some non-profit orgs? Top MBA's love that sort of background if you change you're mind along the road.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis, you can't trust people Jeremy
 

JPM has a socially responsible IB group. I have the link on my laptop. Only 4 people, but it is something.

I agree with the above comments. If you want to do something socially good either volunteer and work at a non profit or make a lot of cash and donate some of it.

 
Anthony .:
JPM has a socially responsible IB group. I have the link on my laptop. Only 4 people, but it is something.

I agree with the above comments. If you want to do something socially good either volunteer and work at a non profit or make a lot of cash and donate some of it.

I like Anthony's suggestions here. I have always felt everyone should give back to some extent and that they should focus their efforts towards their personal strengths/gifts/likes...much like careers. Not everyone can be a Wall Street tycoon, because me need garbage men...just the same, not everyone should be out disabling landmines, and truth be told, it would be ignorant if that was the standard.

People with the educational training and intellectual fortitude should be sitting in a basement somewhere figuring out the cure to cancer/Alzheimer/AIDS/whatever...not building houses on a Saturday morning for Habitat for Humanity (just randomly picked, not trying to hate). I have always felt (for whatever that is worth) that I have been blessed more than the average person, so I should give more back. Although I do give back through time, I ultimately think I can be more effective by giving back through dollars. I personally feel I have the ability to obtain a decent amount of money and make an impact on society. I also intend on giving back along the way as I have the chance.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 
Best Response

I don't have any specific suggestions, but do have offer a general thought.

I was talking with someone several weeks back about some of the most influential business people (or people, period) in modern history. And the topic came to Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune in the steel industry around the turn of the century. Anyway, so this person is telling me about how Andrew Carnegie lived in Pittsburgh (I think) and saw first hand what his mills were doing to the people. He was so sick by the strife and hardship and general misery inflicted on the workers in his steel mills that he moved out of Pittsburgh.

So a third person listening to our conversation says "if he was so troubled, why didn't he change the way he did business?" And the answer is, if he did change the way he did business to shorten the work week and reduce dangerous working conditions, and offer extended lunch breaks, and shorten shifts and offer day care centers etc... he would cease to be competitive and he would be run out of business. Because that was the world he lived in. He could behave differently inside that world, but that world would remain the same and he would likely fail. Or he could play by the rules prescribed by that world, dominate it and change the rules to address the things he felt strongly about. Which is what he did. The most valuable thing he had to offer the world was steel, not social welfare. So he continued providing the world the most valuable thing he had to offer, and used it to accumulate the means to address the causes which he felt strongly about.

So the moral of the story is, success is the ultimate tool to accomplish anything. You can work in an orphanage, or read to blind kids or defuse land mines... but those actually changing the world are the people who have put themselves in a position to dominate it and re-write the rules.

 
Marcus_Halberstram:
I don't have any specific suggestions, but do have offer a general thought.

I was talking with someone several weeks back about some of the most influential business people (or people, period) in modern history. And the topic came to Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune in the steel industry around the turn of the century. Anyway, so this person is telling me about how Andrew Carnegie lived in Pittsburgh (I think) and saw first hand what his mills were doing to the people. He was so sick by the strife and hardship and general misery inflicted on the workers in his steel mills that he moved out of Pittsburgh.

So a third person listening to our conversation says "if he was so troubled, why didn't he change the way he did business?" And the answer is, if he did change the way he did business to shorten the work week and reduce dangerous working conditions, and offer extended lunch breaks, and shorten shifts and offer day care centers etc... he would cease to be competitive and he would be run out of business. Because that was the world he lived in. He could behave differently inside that world, but that world would remain the same and he would likely fail. Or he could play by the rules prescribed by that world, dominate it and change the rules to address the things he felt strongly about. Which is what he did. The most valuable thing he had to offer the world was steel, not social welfare. So he continued providing the world the most valuable thing he had to offer, and used it to accumulate the means to address the causes which he felt strongly about.

So the moral of the story is, success is the ultimate tool to accomplish anything. You can work in an orphanage, or read to blind kids or defuse land mines... but those actually changing the world are the people who have put themselves in a position to dominate it and re-write the rules.

Excellent post and I agree with you completely, but lets be real here: I'm not Andrew Carnegie. I'm just a tool that couldn't get into an ivy league/target school (not even Cornell...FML), and even at my non-target, I'm nowhere near the smartest or anything that special. The chances of me re-writing history by becoming an absolute baller in my field would be slim to none. Trust me, I've definitely contemplated just working for an investment bank and sacrificing my social life and whatnot so that I can have enough capital/influence to start a charity/support a group I feel strongly about, but if getting something as "simple" (relatively speaking) as a BB investment banking/MBB job is such a challenge, the chance of me becoming a world leader in X field would be even more impossible.

This is why I need to explore other avenues and perhaps, especially since me becoming a multi-millionaire are basically nil. I totally wouldn't mind working for a non-profit and working my way up there so that I can oversee things or I've even considered starting a more socially conscious private equity business model, and even working for the gov (although working for the gov probably has a lot of red tape to clear before I can do anything socially conscious). However, this is why I'm looking for other avenues despite pursuing banking still.

 

+1 to Marcus for bring up Andrew Carnegie (my favorite). He basically created Pittsburgh (I mean he built it up). Made tons of money and gave it away before he died. You would have trouble not finding a library, school building or other public institution not named after him.

 

I dunno. As someone who grew up pretty religious, there's not a whole lot of values in investment banking and capital markets besides money. And yes, ultimately, banks create a lot of social good by getting money where it needs to go in the economy and ultimately making it less expensive for us to have a healthier environment and fund health care, but it's several steps removed.

If you want to do something good for the world, maybe a good place to work in finance is at a credit union.

So a third person listening to our conversation says "if he was so troubled, why didn't he change the way he did business?" And the answer is, if he did change the way he did business to shorten the work week and reduce dangerous working conditions, and offer extended lunch breaks, and shorten shifts and offer day care centers etc... he would cease to be competitive and he would be run out of business. Because that was the world he lived in. He could behave differently inside that world, but that world would remain the same and he would likely fail. Or he could play by the rules prescribed by that world, dominate it and change the rules to address the things he felt strongly about. Which is what he did. The most valuable thing he had to offer the world was steel, not social welfare. So he continued providing the world the most valuable thing he had to offer, and used it to accumulate the means to address the causes which he felt strongly about.
I've thought about that for a long time. But an old friend said to me that at the end of the day, the notion of a gray area in life is a total sham. And when you have a choice to do what's right vs. do what's best, idealism and pragmatism, it's often really a choice between right and wrong. I'm not sure I buy into it (and I certainly don't follow it), but he raises an interesting point- you can rationalize a lot of stuff by talking about the greater good, but deontology might offer a more objective standard.
 

I'm not sure where your based but I always liked what these guys do and their approach might be to your liking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_Foundation not to mention the SICK network you might have if you work there.

As for looking at non-profits to volunteer/work for, make sure you do something you believe in. (though I don't see you having that sort of problem) I made the mistake of doing one which I didn't really care for and man did I hate Saturday mornings.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis, you can't trust people Jeremy
 

@ the OP: AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

@ the title: AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

@ poster above me: AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Haha, no, I'm out of uni, so it's just out of curiosity, notably because I guess the crowd here is quite, let's say, 'diverse'. I got my opinion on this one..and actually I got asked these kind of questions at some interviews..

 

Short answer, no. No one "owes" society anything. If you want to give money to a charity, great, but no one ever has an obligation to do so. I am also against the notion of companies donating $ to charities that its employees and shareholders may not approve of. I don't wanna go into the mechanics of it again, but if those profits are passed on to the employees/shareholders, increased income = increased donations. I don't need my company giving to a Mormon charity or something. Yes, places like GS often give $ to african water projects, ITNs, etc. But, I'd rather it be private rather than corporate donations.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 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

April 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

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (87) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $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
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.8
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...”