Interesting article on Business Insider about how firms are starting to take loyalty seriously and hire from within: http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-hiring…
Any truth to this from anyone's viewpoint? BBs moving back to traditional routes of moving people from BO and MO roles to FO.
They talk about GS and their move to get rid of the 2 year analyst program and how Dodd-Frank has created the need for huge compliance departments.
Interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.
| +152 | How to stop feeling like shit for not making it in IB? | 57 | 47m | |
| +115 | If Tik Tok is forced to sell, what banks do you think would be involved in the deal? | 58 | 24m | |
| +80 | Updated LA Banking Scene (2024) | 57 | 20m | |
| +38 | Ranking banks that went under | 20 | 8h | |
| +34 | Burnt Out M&A ASO | 18 | 3h | |
| +32 | A strategy for SA applicants late to the game like myself | 15 | 12h | |
| +29 | Relevance of A-Levels for U.K. London recruiting | 21 | 19h | |
| +26 | Series 79 Help / Tips to Pass The First Attempt | 11 | 2d | |
| +26 | Intern Ettiquette | 4 | 16h | |
| +23 | What are hours like at BBs in London? | 47 | 14h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Why would banks be more likely to move people from MO and BO to FO? Why would they hurt their back office performance by bringing their best players into the FO?
I agree with everyone so far, that it seems quite far fetched. Are they looking to fill FO roles with BO roles? No. Are they having more lateral hires than in the past? Too early to tell, but as of now no.
and I wouldn't say 90% of people, most don't even know the difference. I would say more like 20-30%, but obviously both are just random guess-timations so whatever.
Do you mean 90% of business back office people like ops and perhaps legal and risk? I know people working in IT at Goldman and GE who majored in engineering from college and love their jobs, job security and hours.
I honestly don't see this happening. I understand the angle that the author is taking, but this doesn't seem to be realistic. I have to see concrete evidence to actually confirm this.
It isn't a very well written or well-researched article. They miss the point on Goldman's Analyst program restructuring, "those who complete it will no longer get a hefty bonus?" That isn't what's going on, and you can ask around at any bank on the street. They aren't bringing Ops people up to be bankers in any significant capacity. There may be random one-off scenarios where this happens to people who are actually qualified, but it certainly isn't a trend.
"Holy shit these analysts from undergrad programs are way too expensive and we are losing our shirt on paying them a market bonus... better take people from Operations who have no experience in finance and pay more money to train them only to pay them the same bonus we would pay anyway" - Said no bank ever.
LMAO, this was great.
This article is just absolutely terrible.
Not far-fetched; more than a few firms are on strict headcount lockdown meaning that internal BO will stand a much better chance than external lateral for junior spots.
Not really. They just have the same number of people do more work. If they are on a freeze that means they don't want to spend money on headcount, filling those spots with back office personnel wouldn't fix that problem. Besides, when banks want to fill spots outside of the formal recruiting process it's free. They don't court people at the junior level. What happens is Analysts and Associates get tasked with sourcing a short list. You then interview and you are typically interviewing experienced / lateral hires in the same city, so it's no cost.
The alternative, and what is happening now is they are simply waiting for deal activity and fees to pick up and they will return to hiring more qualified candidates. There will not be a trend of promoting back office people to front office roles because the cost to train them (except in one off scenarios) is simply too high and it defeats the point of laying off the completely competent person who was just doing that job.
You're wrong, I've seen this first-hand at two BBs.
Just look at all the people who agree with you here... oh wait...
Rufio is 100% right.
When things get bad, you take laterals from a worse bank. Credit Suisse takes laterals from UBS and jefferies, jefferies starts taking laterals from duff & phelps, etc.
There is very rarely back office to front office transitions no matter what anyone says. If you work at an investment bank you should already know this. Those that make it are the rare lucky few.
Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together? Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really... Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances? Mary: Not good. Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred? Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million. [pause] Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... YEAH!
Samsonite... he was way off...
That's because most people here are sophomores in college. It's not like I haven't worked at two BBs...
Three analysts left our group (before they were done their two years) over the past year, and in all three cases we were only able to hire internally. Two of the three we hired to fill the spots came from MO/BO. I would've LOVED to be able to consider someone in FO at even a shitty boutique.
You're not understanding my point about headcount. Banks are trying to reduce headcount actively these days -- you have the Internet and WSJ.com/Dealbreaker/Bloomerg, right? When an analyst leaves, they are not replaced with an external hire that leaves headcount unchanged; they are replaced with an internal hire to leave headcount -1.
I'm not a college sophomore and neither is SirTrades, and yet we both disagree with you.
Hmm this sounds suspiciously like a one off scenario...
Thanks for explaining headcount to me, albeit it incorrectly. I guess the recruiting teams I sit on have been doing it wrong this whole time. You realize that you provided one isolated anecdote that supported your view right? I lost half of my group and they didn't replace anyone, neither of these anecdotes signal a trend however.
Also, I have a gold fish...
I'm enjoying this dispute in my thread. Nice to see rufiolove laying the smackdown. Did your MD teach you that dirty talk?
Just playing ;)
Just trying to correct misinformation. It's not productive for kids reading these forums to think that accepting a back office offer is a viable way to make a transition into IB when it isn't and won't be in the future.
Voluptas incidunt praesentium eos eum magnam numquam. Iusto ut velit ut cupiditate cum culpa. Numquam id excepturi eaque facilis quae qui qui doloremque. Maiores quibusdam et veniam ut. Consequuntur beatae praesentium et nisi reiciendis qui.
Omnis omnis cupiditate debitis atque necessitatibus consequatur. Repellat magni enim quia a autem et repudiandae aut. Praesentium vitae quo expedita accusantium velit architecto amet. Provident sequi odio placeat non natus sit eos nisi.
Molestias est minima commodi eveniet quidem expedita ea. Aspernatur soluta voluptas praesentium dolores ipsam. Dolor tempore doloremque reprehenderit dolorem ipsam error maxime. Aut sint inventore quod tempora blanditiis asperiores. Reprehenderit praesentium est facilis enim facere.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quod qui veniam sint doloribus maxime fugiat ratione voluptatum. Et dolore consequatur velit ut. Reprehenderit et praesentium autem saepe laboriosam voluptas. Voluptate eveniet ab itaque architecto nesciunt voluptas animi dolor. Praesentium accusamus neque tempore voluptate beatae perspiciatis magni.
Voluptas similique possimus quae nihil ipsum ut. Qui voluptatem laudantium nostrum sit. Facere hic optio et voluptatum laborum nihil sunt.
Ut pariatur et et reprehenderit architecto qui dolor. Quia totam cumque sint sint ut. Vero doloremque culpa quidem ut. Ea odio iusto labore voluptas consequuntur magnam consequuntur quasi.