The End of S&T?

I was just reading the thread "Alternatives to Banking" on the front page, and Bernanke (the WSO user not Fed Chairman) argued that Sales and Trading is a better alternative to M&A in terms of avoiding some of the declines we have seen in banking in general. Do you guys think S&T is here to stay at anywhere near the pre-crash levels? Has technology mostly already taken its' toll on the industry?

 

I don't see why computers can't take over way more of the whole S&T side of things. Sure there will always be a need for traders and whatnot on the buy-side, for HFs, etc, but why will they be needed in large numbers for the trading work done at banks once computers are a bit smarter?

Investment banking seems much less likely to be really hit by changes in the economy. In bad times, M&A still goes on since things are cheap, and in good times it booms since firms have money to spend. Plus, banking has a much bigger relationship component to it. Computers can't wine and dine clients or go out and win deals.

 
Best Response
asiamoney:
I don't see why computers can't take over way more of the whole S&T side of things. Sure there will always be a need for traders and whatnot on the buy-side, for HFs, etc, but why will they be needed in large numbers for the trading work done at banks once computers are a bit smarter?

Investment banking seems much less likely to be really hit by changes in the economy. In bad times, M&A still goes on since things are cheap, and in good times it booms since firms have money to spend. Plus, banking has a much bigger relationship component to it. Computers can't wine and dine clients or go out and win deals.

Because the more illiquid products are not possible to be done via computers (where legal shit plays a big role etc)

What most people dont understand is that trading at a bank is not execution, its risk management, and humans are necessary to manage that risk.

 
derivstrading:
asiamoney:
I don't see why computers can't take over way more of the whole S&T side of things. Sure there will always be a need for traders and whatnot on the buy-side, for HFs, etc, but why will they be needed in large numbers for the trading work done at banks once computers are a bit smarter?

Investment banking seems much less likely to be really hit by changes in the economy. In bad times, M&A still goes on since things are cheap, and in good times it booms since firms have money to spend. Plus, banking has a much bigger relationship component to it. Computers can't wine and dine clients or go out and win deals.

Because the more illiquid products are not possible to be done via computers (where legal shit plays a big role etc)

What most people dont understand is that trading at a bank is not execution, its risk management, and humans are necessary to manage that risk.

strong this.

Everyone assumes you can easily buy/sell products. That is not true, and once they become more liquid new products are created because that is where a ton of money is made (spreads)

I banana back
 

Many traders exist too not purely for proprietary strategies or market making, but to help clients. If you want to place a specific type of type that is hedged a certain way to exposure in a certain area, how would you do it? I can see the need for things like this as well.

I don't think computers will ever replace trading in the physical markets when it comes to transport / shipping / storage / refining / etc / etc, but will surely grow in terms of helping them.

 
Tupac:
Many traders exist too not purely for proprietary strategies or market making, but to help clients. If you want to place a specific type of type that is hedged a certain way to exposure in a certain area, how would you do it? I can see the need for things like this as well.

I don't think computers will ever replace trading in the physical markets when it comes to transport / shipping / storage / refining / etc / etc, but will surely grow in terms of helping them.

I think S&T will see headcount reductions just like any other industry (IBD included) that encounters disruptive technology. Vanilla products can, and will likely be largely automated. Aren't a majority of trades in liquid products already from HFT machines?

I think we could see a convergence of structuring and traditional trading in the next 20 years. If you have to learn the workings behind complex, illiquid instruments, why not design them as well?

The only commodity I could see changing substantially with technology is power- I don't know much about the space, but it seems like smart grid tech could reduce the need for power traders significantly.

Macro <span class=keyword_link><a href=/resources/skills/trading-investing/arbitrage target=_blank>Arbitrage</a></span>:
Unlikely- most, if not all FX pure prop desks got shut down. Paul Volker deserves to be taken outside and bludgeoned to death.

Agreed. We need some sort of financial reform, but the Volker Rule is not it. Wall Street was not blown up by prop trading, and probably never will be. Everybody is acutely aware of the risks in prop trading, and will manage them accordingly.

It is the stuff that is thought to be so safe (a CDS of a AAA rated MBS? free money, right?) that has the potential to do real damage. The Volcker rule does nothing to solve the reliance on rating agencies, nor does it begin to address "too big to fail".

 

I've read somewhere on here that because FX forwards and swaps traders see very little flow, they mostly take prop positions in almost everything besides commodities. Maybe that's where they'll stick the bank prop traders going forward. Although I'm not entirely sure how that setup can be justified under Volcker...

 
Macro Arbitrage:
Unlikely- most, if not all FX pure prop desks got shut down. Paul Volker deserves to be taken outside and bludgeoned to death.

Not pure prop...I'm talking about the FX forwards market makers mostly doing prop because the product that they're officially supposed to quote for clients doesn't see much flow. I think someone like Revsly posted it.

 

Eveniet nihil architecto explicabo magni. Ut nulla aliquam numquam rerum eaque possimus repellat. Ratione dolor autem dolorem assumenda molestiae tenetur facilis. Sapiente ut sunt consequuntur ratione.

IVY for Life

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...”