Trading really dying?

S&T is not going to die, banks will just need to be more lean with their offerings. For example, many banks have exited commodities S&T and others have shrinked their fixed income business. If you join a summer analyst program you want to be aware of which desks are strongest at the bank you're at.

Its going to be the case of what happens with regulation. 5 years ago I didnt think regulation would have such an impact on sell side trading, I was in the camp similar of what you are thinking, "the banks always find a way". And im sure they will, but for now S&T is a sort of dying biz. I mean you can still make more money than almost any other field given experience level, but its a completely different animal. Tons of businesses are being shut down because they cost too much in terms of capital, sell side flow desks are taking almost no inventory risk and makin their living purely on the bid/offer spread. I mean its still a business, but the best way to sum it up is that the probability of getting that huge upside has decreased, and the probability of the bank turning around and shutting down your desk has increased.

Thanks guys! I really appreciate the addition to this conversation.

For a little more background, I have received an offer in S&T from a BB. Last year, I was really excited about sell-side trading: the markets, the pace, and the money (of course). I ultimately received an offer from my first choice and I was very exciting. It ranks 1st on the street (don't want too much detail). But, now, I am worried I am going into a field that is dying and may have few exit ops. Not saying I wanted to exit, but if it is a dying industry, would be nice to to apply my skillset elsewhere. It makes me want to switch to IB, but there a very few openings now.

With that said, Anonymoose , is there really a good probability of that happening? As a young college student, I simply want to go somewhere where my future is bright (call me optimistic)

Im going to echo/expand on millhouse's points. Its still great as a first job because a) it does carry prestige both in terms of trading and the BB name on the CV. Getting a job in FO at a top BB gives future employers/schools a solid reference b) you will learn how to deal under pressure, think analytically and rationally. This is sometimes not talked about, but you will also learn how to put things in perspective. You will learn that business/money is just a game, and it allows for you to not be that stressed about day to day things. This can work agaisnt you as you find a lot of issues in other jobs mundane. If something isnt going to have a huge immediate PNl effect you sort of discount it in your brain. C) it still pays great for a first job, and should allow you to build up a buffer of savings so that in your mid to alte 20's you can take more risks if that is what you are inclined to do. Now some people adjust to the salary and you have tons of guys living paycheck to paycheck, and yes the pay isnt amazing (a lot of kids have delusions about junior pay tbh), and you wont be driving a ferrari after 3 years, but if you are somewhat frugal you can at least set aside a buffer so if a risky opportunity comes along you can try it. After 5 years any FO junior should have at least a 100k saved up in the bank at a minimum (and ofc with upside). I doubt there are many jobs that allow you to achieve that straight out of undergrad. Remember, at 26 you are still very young, and if you have a cash buffer you can take some risks if they come along and feel right. d) lets be honest finance in general has always been there and probably always will be, but just like anything its fluid and you need to adapt. But finance pay will tend to be higher than most other industries. The best way to put it, if you are an oyster fisherman you will probably eat a lot of oysters...

Same here. I am constantly concern about this as I will be joining BB S&T for FT. To the experienced traders in the group, what are the other alternatives to trading if we are interested in markets? I know HF is an option but sell-side S&T is a pipeline to HF right? From where I see, there are no other options if I want to be involved in the markets, thus BB S&T. Maybe you guys can enlighten me on this.

One exit opp is wealth management in some capacity.

Manufacturing as a % of US GDP has barely changed since the 1980s. Manufacturing as a % of US employment has dropped by more than half.

You say that the industry will find a way - sure, but a way to what? The industry will find a way to protect its profitability; an in environment of declining revenue, the only way to protect your profits is to cut costs even further. Technological advances enable and accelerate the shift from numerous S&T jobs to machines.

Milhouse Van Houten wilder01 Thanks for the encouragement. It's good to hear I am not the only one with this concern. I was a little dismayed as I picked S&T over an IBD offer and, to be honest, it would be upsetting to exit to IBD after MBA if I originally had an offer. I would love to hear some more information on S&T to HF as ZenEcon asked.

derivstrading Thank you so much for your extensive response. It is very good to hear encouraging words. As Milhouse said, yes it is very worrying as a young college student going into a career. Although my worries are definitely still there, it's good to hear all the pros and how privileged I am to have this position.

I worked on a MM equity trading desk for a year. The 2 senior sales guys agreed it is a dying business. Back in 2007-2008 one of the senior guys told me he was making 50% more than he is now. Back then all banks used to give a commission % of the book of business each sales guy had.

They did away with that and his pay suffered immensely and hasn't climbed back since.

I thought I wanted to do institutional equity sales because I love the stock market.

The reality is, when I got inside and saw the business it wasn't what I thought it was. I thought it was going to be more idea based calling PM's and giving them pitches. Come to find out, at least at the desk I was on, most PM's didn't care about their stock ideas and the sales guys rarely if ever (2 of them never did the whole time I was there and 1 of them only a couple times) called a PM telling him with strong conviction to buy, sell or short something.

All they did was summarize the analysts research and give them the analysts' opinions over the phone.

Our business got paid mainly on corporate access and access to the analysts. Basically, the sales guys chaperoned the management teams / analysts and brought them around to meet with the buy side. And our research provided some value to PM's as well, but the whole time I was there I could count on 1 hand how many times a sales guy called a PM and tried to get him excited about an idea.

Also, all the traders did at the desk I was on was execute orders for the buy side. The whole time I was there neither trader ever called a PM and tried to get him to pull the trigger on something. They were paid just for execution only. And commissions on that are extremely small - between .02 - .04 a share. They had a great gig because they left at 1-2PM PST every day, but equity S&T to me from firsthand experience of sitting on a trading desk for a year with 3 sales guys and 2 traders, is not the place to be.

I got my licenses, moved on and am a structured products analyst at a bigger bank.

I don't know what it's like at BB's maybe a bit different, definitely wasn't what I thought it was...

Also, as I read this thread, I think some people in here are confused about what a sell-side equity trader does. Where I was, all they did was execute trades for the buy-side. They are paid for execution only and take no position in the market or make any decisions based off what they think the market will do. Much different than trading your personal account or prop trading. This is from my first hand experience, spending about 15-16 months on two different equity trading desks...

I think most of the people on this post have had experience in sell side trading whether it's FT or SA. While I agree @BEAST MODE TRADER with what you are saying about the role being mainly execution, I believe it is still possible to take a position view. So I am inclined to say that in FICC, idea generation and taking the position is still there. It may be hard to show it directly through your PnL per se, but I know traders who still take small positions based on their market outlook.

If sell-side trading is no longer a training ground for those of us are interested in going to the buyside later on, where is?

I agreed with GoodBread. The desk I am on has inventory and takes views. They buy cheap in order to predict customer demand or short rich assuming they can buy it back later. Although Volcker has largely affected the volume/timeline of this kind of activity, I think it still exists.

Also, to clarify I'm in FICC.

Honestly. I'm pretty unknowledgeable or I wouldn't be posting here, right?

I thought sell-side trading fed to buyside. If not, I guess research?

Um, everyone knows equity sales sucks and to stay away from it, this is not a revelation. There are plenty of other products. Also, BeastMode, I think you answered the problem by pointing out that now if you love the stock market, do ER.

Even in cash equities, you can put on risk positions. I've spoken to/shadowed a lot of people in S&T and the environment and pay is a lot different now compared to pre-crisis. I would not recommend any of the areas in cash equities (sales, sales trading or trading) except research (because you actually get transferable skills. However, I tend to think that within the bank, research is not treated as well as S&T in terms of pay etc.). I also think IG and HY credit is difficult because of the capital constraints. Regulation is definitely hitting hard.

Tbh I think you should try and sit in an area that your bank is strong in. From what I've heard, this will be better for your tenure and future opportunities. I mean most trading desks can exit to the buy-side, albeit in different roles (e.g. Distressed to credit funds, convertibles to convertible arbitrage, macro products to macro funds etc.), and being at a bank that is top in a certain product will position you well.

I'm quite interested in the replies in this thread because this is the exact dilemma I have - IBD or S&T. I see what derivstrader is saying about S&T being a good job but for me, the question is whether IBD might be better.

Dontbugme have you thought about AM at all?

Out of curiosity, what do you actually like doing (micro vs macro, pace, type of work) and how set are you on trading?

Dece Definitely thought about AM. Seems like a great place to be. I definitely do not want to go to wealth. But Asset Management would be cool

I do love the fast pace, the culture, and the environment. Additionally, my desk using both fundamentals and micro which is why I chose it.

With that said, I am young. I am open minded. However, a lot of opportunities are closed for Full-time. So it's less about me being set on trading, but more like, I am now here. If that makes sense.

As some people have mentioned already, this topic is overblown time and time again... From what I've seen, the two biggest impediments right now are (over) regulation and a lack of volatility.

Let me start off by saying, I think there is some confusion about what a sell-side trader is. A sell-side trader is a market-maker and will always be taking risk. When you trade with a client, you immediately take the opposite side of the trade. Regardless of what I trade, I'm always obligated to make a market. If I get my bid gets hit time and time again, I'm suddenly long whatever I'm trading. What you decide to do with the position is where your ability as a trader comes in. If you don't want the position, you hedge it immediately. If you like your position, then you might decide not to hedge it. Of course, there's all of that space between. What has changed in this scenario is that traders might not be allowed to take as much risk as before. However, it's basically impossible to distinguish a "hedge" and a "position" which is why you're seeing some many delays with trading regulation.

There are also "sell-side traders" who are not market-makers who are simply agency traders. That's where you simply are executing a trade for a client at the best possible price and get paid for doing just that - that's not what we're talking about.

Some regulation makes sense as it has made many of the larger banks become more efficient with their capital. Businesses that don't make sense from a ROE point of view are gone and that's how it should be. There's no doubt that many of the banks before the crisis were unnecessarily bloated and large. However, some regulation has actually had the opposite effect from what was intended. There have been several pieces on FT recently about how regulation has actually negatively affected the market. One example is that because dealers are less willing to hold inventory, some bond markets run the risk of becoming illiquid. Another example is that banks are unwilling to enter into lending agreements (repo) with emerging market corporations which has only stressed emerging markets even more. What I think we will see is that some regulation will eventually be eased in the future. When? I don't know, but we're already seeing some of the downsides of regulation. It probably won't be until the mainstream media turns to something new to focus on (maybe tech?)...

Outside of regulation, I think the lack of volatility is a bigger issue. Hopefully, this changes soon... Since 2008 (7 years now), rates have not moved (0) and the equity market has largely gone in one direction (up). It's pretty hard to make money when there's little reason for your clients to trade frequently especially real money accounts. Of course it's not this simple, but I really think that once we see some more volatility things will pick up. This is especially vital for FICC. As an example, I know of equity trading desks on the sell-side that made upwards of $50mm on "Black Monday" in August.

As for the common argument of technology driving S&T out of business... Here's some food for thought. HFT saw its peak during the crisis. You can say that the market has been over-saturated and you're seeing consolidation in the industry. HFT volumes have actually been declining year after year at a steady pace since 2009 in the equity market which is one of the few markets that is liquid enough to support it. You've seen multiple dark pools close down; exchanges like IEX are picking up steam. I'd do go even far as to say, equity markets have largely seen the peak of technology at least for the foreseeable future. Many banks have already significantly cut down their cash equity trading businesses to a handful traders that in my opinion will always be needed.

As for other markets, it does makes sense for them to become more electronic. For example, there's little reason why corporate bonds should still be traded on the phone. Should they be traded on the screen more? Sure. But will computers suddenly start trading corporate bonds anytime soon? Probably not, might never see it. There's not enough liquidity to begin with, and with the added regulation, technology replacing humans is even more unlikely.

As some people have mentioned already, this topic is overblown time and time again... From what I've seen, the two biggest impediments right now are (over) regulation and a lack of volatility.

Let me start off by saying, I think there is some confusion about what a sell-side trader is. A sell-side trader is a market-maker and will always be taking risk. When you trade with a client, you immediately take the opposite side of the trade. Regardless of what I trade, I'm always obligated to make a market. If I get my bid gets hit time and time again, I'm suddenly long whatever I'm trading. What you decide to do with the position is where your ability as a trader comes in. If you don't want the position, you hedge it immediately. If you like your position, then you might decide not to hedge it. Of course, there's all of that space between. What has changed in this scenario is that traders might not be allowed to take as much risk as before. However, it's basically impossible to distinguish a "hedge" and a "position" which is why you're seeing some many delays with trading regulation.

There are also "sell-side traders" who are not market-makers who are simply agency traders. That's where you simply are executing a trade for a client at the best possible price and get paid for doing just that - that's not what we're talking about.

Some regulation makes sense as it has made many of the larger banks become more efficient with their capital. Businesses that don't make sense from a ROE point of view are gone and that's how it should be. There's no doubt that many of the banks before the crisis were unnecessarily bloated and large. However, some regulation has actually had the opposite effect from what was intended. There have been several pieces on FT recently about how regulation has actually negatively affected the market. One example is that because dealers are less willing to hold inventory, some bond markets run the risk of becoming illiquid. Another example is that banks are unwilling to enter into lending agreements (repo) with emerging market corporations which has only stressed emerging markets even more. What I think we will see is that some regulation will eventually be eased in the future. When? I don't know, but we're already seeing some of the downsides of regulation. It probably won't be until the mainstream media turns to something new to focus on (maybe tech?)...

Outside of regulation, I think the lack of volatility is a bigger issue. Hopefully, this changes soon... Since 2008 (7 years now), rates have not moved (0) and the equity market has largely gone in one direction (up). It's pretty hard to make money when there's little reason for your clients to trade frequently especially real money accounts. Of course it's not this simple, but I really think that once we see some more volatility things will pick up. This is especially vital for FICC. As an example, I know of equity trading desks on the sell-side that made upwards of $50mm on "Black Monday" in August.

As for the common argument of technology driving S&T out of business... Here's some food for thought. HFT saw its peak during the crisis. You can say that the market has been over-saturated and you're seeing consolidation in the industry. HFT volumes have actually been declining year after year at a steady pace since 2009 in the equity market which is one of the few markets that is liquid enough to support it. You've seen multiple dark pools close down; exchanges like IEX are picking up steam. I'd do go even far as to say, equity markets have largely seen the peak of technology at least for the foreseeable future. Many banks have already significantly cut down their cash equity trading businesses to a handful traders that in my opinion will always be needed.

As for other markets, it does makes sense for them to become more electronic. For example, there's little reason why corporate bonds should still be traded on the phone. Should they be traded on the screen more? Sure. But will computers suddenly start trading corporate bonds anytime soon? Probably not, might never see it. There's not enough liquidity to begin with, and with the added regulation, technology replacing humans is even more unlikely.

Personally I don't see myself growing a career in finance (especially bank). Today you really need to have a pretty clear idea of what path your career is going to take . Everyone wants to do finance because everyone is pretty clear-cut that you can make tons of money. The labour market is oversupplied with students which doesn't match the few FO/MO jobs available : if you did not attend the right school, have the right connections and don't have a passion for what you are doing (when I say passion I mean daily market research and news lurking plussome virtual/real personal account trading) it's not worth it because you will either not make it or get stuck in a boring computer job for the rest of your life due to the lack of exit ops for BO (or even MO) jobs. I don't have an ivy league/target school pedigree but if I were I would gladly opt for other industries such as management consulting or tech.

Isn't there some wiggle room for banks in treasuries and other gov't securities like municipal bonds, etc? Seeing as how there's a lot of volume in that market and it's done through the phone instead of the screen, is there more edge in those markets + ability to take risk at a bank?

A lot of misinformation in this thread, just to clear things up:

-Sellside trading desk still have inventory risk to manage, its not just execution (maybe on pure cash desks thats the case) but with anything derivatives based there will be inventory. However, inventory levels kept are much much smaller and dealers just dont take the same amount of risk, and naturally that hurts the amount of money you make. Sell side desks are suffering.

-Sellside sales: as the guy mentioned above in the MM probably applies to BBs as well. Sales really isnt about talking ideas with PMs, lets be honest. The best sales guys do bring a lot of value via ideas, but there are only very few of those.

-Buyside training ground: tbh sellside trading isn't a great training ground for buyside unless you mean an execution role. For an investing role for sellside trading its either a) you get in at a very junior level or b) you go to a shop to do the same product, i.e. global macro/structured credit etc etc. For the majority of buyside roles you are better off doing corporate finance/PE in terms of fundamental investing.

.

I just wanted to say thank you all for the well-written responses. This has truly been an enlightening post and I feel a lot more confident going into FICC trading now.

A quick question for Anonymoose , when you say top BB, people often refer to GS/MS/JPM as these are the general "Banking" rankings. However, when you say top 3, do you mean by product (Ie MS FI vs MS Equities)? Or by S&T shop. As I believe those rankings would be largely different (JPM/GS/BAML/Citi). Would MBA program look at what division as well I imagine?

As for some interim conclusions, it seems to me, from these posts, that FICC trading has definitely declined. However, with rising rates and (hopefully) different/less regulation, better days for sell-side trading may come. Again, I want to thank everyone for commenting and adding their insight and I hope more continue to do so.

What is the rationale that regulation will loosen up again (in the near-mid term horizon i.e. not multiple decades)? I don't know if I buy that (who knows really) and I could make the argument that if you find a seat in equities you will be safer over the next 5 years than FICC in that you would see less of an impact from any potential further growth in capital requirements. BB equity sales/trading has been painted too negatively in this thread from what I've seen. I do agree that it is somewhat limited in exit ops though I have seen people move into ER from the trading floor here and there.

S&T is getting disrupted by regulation and technology. Within a decade, at least equities will be completely electronic. Margins are wafer thin. As for regulation, derivatives and commodities have been hit hard; I think every bank except for Goldman, understandably, have downsized or completely scrapped their commodity desks

Disjoint, where are you going next? Is it hard to get admitted into a good MBA from trading as it is publicized here?

Also, I dont reallly understand why kids are debating between IBD and S&T. They are completely different careers, the only similarity is that its in the same industry and the same company name is on the door. If you are worried that S&T has bad exit opps then S&T is probably not for you, especially if you are thinking about whether you could get back into IBD. The natural exit opp for someone in S&T is much more entrepreneurial. Most traders I know that have transitioned to other careers look to go down the entrepreneur route because there is a lot of similarities. I odnt think i have ever seen someone try and go from trading to IBD.

Personally, I dont understand how anyone would do IBD.

Well I don't see a problem with considering both IBD and S&T - I mean a lot of the areas within S&T are very different from each other too. I think a lot of people can be suited for both S&T and IBD and so it is worthwhile trying to figure out which one is preferable.

What is trading flow equity derivatives like? I spoke to a flow derivs trader and he said he only did call and put options and variance swaps - does the learning start to flatten out pretty quickly? What keeps it interesting?

its not dying, its dead. the zombie apocalypse is here

Below page 19 - 23 might be helpful in understanding the S&T world. Also some insights into IBD in the previous pages:

http://d1z8aenxk3z1kj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/1621453…

lots of great ideas in here, yet I would be wary of missing the trees for the forest.

we all know these trends are fundamentally unknowable. most certainly the FICC securities business is moving in the same direction as equities—more technology, more efficiency, so on—and that regulation has hurt the prop business but who is to know where it is headed.

two decades ago most people couldn't have predicted the sweeping changes that disrupted the equities business, but they also couldn't have predicted that the hedge fund industry would grow enormously, providing a new source of jobs and trading flows to the street.

you can never pick these trends, and more importantly what you care about most of all is the choices you are making in getting your career started today. some considerations:

1. far beyond these secular changes the FICC markets will be most impacted by the cyclical. Forget the ten year trends, the question is when this next bubble bursts, what will be the job and regulatory impacts? Again, this is unknowable, so I would focus little on either of these trends.

2. this isn't about the business, it is about your career. What do you want to do? What gives you the right start? you're not thinking about the next 30 years of your life, but getting your career started in the right way. pick a job that maximizes your optionality, that equips you with great skills and relationships, and is a launching pad for the next phase of your career.

3, what are you comparing it to? a FICC S&T job is nothing like a job in IB or a job working for Google. It's not a question of whether S&T is dying or not, but what do you want to every day do? Who do you want to be surrounded by? What types of things do you want to work on? Focus less on the big sweeping changes and more on what career is right for you.

4. you could assert WS as a whole is dying business, as the career is arguably less lucrative than it used to be. But it's still an incredible place to get your career started. And I would encourage you to see this question more in a 2-3 year timeframe.

Note that a lot of what college kids call "exit opps", in reality is an organic process that develops over time via the skills and network you develop. Trust me, people move across roles, products, industries all the time. A lot of IB recruiting mentality puts students in these boxes that you think you need to fit into. Leave your mind open. The best way to progress a career is not via fixed steps, but by always being on the lookout for opportunities and taking advantage of the right ones when they come along and feel right. Sometimes you might have to take a couple stpes back to make 10 stpes forward, sometimes you will need to learn new skills on the fly, its all part of it, the great unknown.

It's just that recruiters and hiring managers in finance want someone that fits an exact mold unless I go back to entry level and take steps back. If it weren't the case, people wouldn't go back to MBA school or worry about target universities. The competition is tough for every desirable opening in finance. What are the most natural paths from sell-side FX trading that values and utilizes this background?

derivstrading is truly bang on pretty much. I will give a perspective on commodities side of things.

Commodities is very likely one of the hardest hit areas based on new regulation, there is massive scrunity on major firms now when dealing with certain customers. As well financing costs have gone stupid high on all exchanges and will continue to do so, exchange will never ever take on systemic risk. When I started in this business in 2008, no one understood working capital, no one understood backoffice costs etc...Now I feel like every week I am in some discussion around of the above cause margins have come way off and regulation and other costs are higher. While its a bit shocking that no one really cared about the "true cost of doing business" before when margins were high the issue with commodities is you need to have a physical presence and that costs capital more so than equities and bonds.

Now that it is 7 years past 2008, I think the amount of open seats on all trade floors have shrunk and will continue to shrink. Back when I was coming out of school I interviewed for equity research/banking/trading etc...Firms were willing to overhire juniors and let them just find their way, I do not think that is the case these days, the pool of junior hires is a lot less and anyone with 2-5 years experience has a super difficult time transitioning so there is massive talent congestion in firms.

The good news to all of this would be, if truly into this area and ride it out. Due to less hires and tougher environment these days, compensation is still half decent and still performance based. So yes it has got a lot harder and yes it will get harder but if you really really want into this world and are fit for it, still high reward career.

Disclaimer: College student.

After speaking with a lot of people in the industry, it seems we are in the pinnacle of regulation. Now, there is definitely a chance regulation continues depending on the result of the presidential election. But more than likely, things will loosen up.

As for going to trading now, yes it is much harder than it used to be. But the information that I am receiving is that as things loosen up, there will be over-hiring once again and it will be a big business again. Especially if you start in a time of rising rates, it might be cool to trade in this new environment.

Lastly, buyside is always an option. If your desk is more execution based (probably more in equities), there are buyside execution opportunities. If your desk is set up differently (ABS, CMBS, Credit, structured credit) you may be able to go as the PM for an asset manager or hedgefund.

P.S. I don't actually know what I am talking about myself. I am simply taking information that I have heard from various people and synthesizing it into this post. So, feel free to correct me anyone.

I don't usually post but this topic sounded interesting so I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in there.

I've worked in trading for about 10 years making markets in ETFs (trading etfs, adrs, global equities, futures, fx, and fixed income, and reversal/conversions) at one of the better prop trading firms. Since 2008, every year it got harder and harder to made money with the exception of 2008 and 2011 where volatility was very high but we had to make more and more investments into getting faster market data feeds and our developers became more expensive. When I joined the desk, a lot of our hedging was not automated, only our quoting was. By 2014 most things were fully automated and our P&L was it's worst ever. I think this was a result of a few things. Competition is forever increasing, volatility has been pretty low over the last 3 years; volumes keep going down because more and more people do not trade on lit exchanges anymore; asset managers have learned to use dark pools to not tip their hand and more and more flow is being internalized by banks and the knight/citadels of the world. Asset managers have hired good traders internally and in turn, they have realized the best places to execute are the knights/citadels/cantors of the world and the only reason I can think of why an asset manager would execute through a place like Goldman is because of the access and other services Goldman provide for those extra commissions you are paying them. Equities are in general becoming more and more a technology game and there's going to be a massive consolidation in the prop trading industry where if you are not in one of the very big prop firms with good tech, it'll become harder and harder to survive.

In the fixed income world, Marketaxess is going to make salesman and traders become less relevant. For those who don't know how the bond market has historically worked, it has traditionally been voice and dealer to dealer and there are different marking services like Markit and IDC that mark the bonds rather than a last traded print in the equities world. Before you needed all those sales people because it was dealer to dealer and a trader's value (this probably only applies to market making) is really the ability to know where a bond really should be trading and being able to find the bonds and get them at a good level. MarketAxess is changing that by trying to become the next fixed income exchange. They don't quite have live quotes yet; it's still RFQ but it's pretty close. You can also read jamie dimon's and larry fink's comments about banks not being able to provide as much liquidity and holding less inventory as well so why do you need fixed income market makers at banks?

That being said, the general amount of money to be made out there but it's just ending up in fewer and fewer hands - aka HFT so imo, if you are not involved with the HFT space of trading, i think it'll be difficult and you'll be joining a shrinking industry rather than a growing one. That being said, HFT may be a good place to go but it is already super competitive and starting to get saturated. There's a lot of firms the majority of people here have never heard of that are right there with Virtu making a lot of money with 10-20 people. Also remember, Getco which was one of the better HFT not too long ago; now they make 0 money.

Investments banks will always have trading desks but I believe more and more banks will focus on being client focused for most of their traders and a few banks will invest into high frequency groups. Banks want to say they cover the major asset classes if a client calls and asks for a market and if you can help a bank build a desk they didn't have before, you'll still get paid relatively well.

nice thread, really it will be helpful to everyone. there are nice discussion.