quag_mire

do quant jobs in trading, quant research, derivatives pricing etc pay more than an i banking position? most of the graduates from mathematical finance programs seem to have worked somewhere along the lines of quantitative research analyst, trading, asset pricing, or even risk management, as aworldapart points out....arent these positions well paid too?

Sheed30

maybe that person wants to pursue a career as an actuary which is basically a sort of risk management.

nauru

Risk management isn't back office noobs. It's middle office and certain areas of risk management are very very well paid (ie market risk).

Trading and derivatives pricing (structuring) both pay slightly better on average than IBD, and at top levels pay waaaay better than IBD. They also work far fewer hours (no weekends, work market hours +4 or so). IBD sounds horrible to be honest. But I may be a bit biased.

quag_mire

If quants earn more money than those in IBD, the downside is that becoming a quant is pretty hard relative to becoming a general financial analyst...most quants have some pretty quantitative major, such as math, statistics, and graduate degrees in financial engineering etc....all those majors are much more difficult than a business major...the upside is that quants are generally less vulnerable to recessions than general analysts, i.e. not as many quants are laid off as are IBD people....so it's a tradeoff

zoolander

i know bulge brackets are hard as hell to get into

are boutiques just as hard

nauru

I wasn't referring to just quants. Traders in general (quant and non-quant) and structurers in general (quant and non-quant) are paid slightly better than IBD people in general. You don't need a super quantitative degree to do either of these. An economics major will suffice... and I think a business major from a very good school would probably be fine too if you can show you've got analytical skills at the level of a solid econ major.

So: equal educational requirements, slightly higher pay, better hours, equal or better exit opps to hedge funds... IBD doesn't really have that much going for it in light of the alternatives. Unless of course, you love private equity (lower pay than hedge funds though).



For all the noobs out there, the actual title for all these jobs is analyst, regardless of what you are actually doing. Traders, structurers, IBD monkeys, are all officially known as analysts.

Spiders05

lax, don't doubt that there's an associate (and for that matter a general partner in a 9 figure fund) on this board...it's entertaining watching you post as though you know everything about the industry after a summer.

Spiders05

zoo, I work for a boutique that did more deals per year in our industry than most of the BB's. When the position I filled came available, I was one of 80 applicants and 25 were interviewed. I think if you looked at the BBs the ratio for applicants to positions would be approximately the same. One might argue that the quality of applicants may be lesser at botiques, so if you're one of the better applicants, it certainly would be easier, but in straight numbers game, it's more or less even.

CesareBorgia

Lazard/Greenhill/Evercore are harder to get than most BB IBD analyst FT positions.

nauru

This is true. But then these three are special cases. The vast majority of boutiques attract far fewer applications for each opening available than BBs do.

aworldapart

Lazard is not a boutique. They will ding you immediately if you call them one.

nodnard

Lazard definitely fits the definition of a boutique, as they only offer one service (Well, two now, with LAM): Advisory. They are not a full-service investment bank, thus, they are a boutique.

Do you work at Lazard? Don't go around pretending you know **** and saying "They will ding you immediately if you call them [a boutique]."

aworldapart

Why don't you interview with them and call them a "boutique" and see what happens?

lol @ you thinking that LAZ only does advisory work. You're a joke kid.

aworldapart

Actually, let me break it down to you some more, nodnard, because you seem to lack basic understanding of the investment banking field.

A 'boutique' in the truest sense of the word refers to a pure advisory house with no trading operations or asset management functions. It does no principal investing work; a 'boutique' only does M&A and Restructuring advisory.

You admitted yourself that LAM is indeed a big revenue-generating service that LAZ offers. Hence, not a pure advisory house. Thus, not a boutique.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/bu...TcIkFpVo2cUF6Q

Furthermore, they have offices in over 15 countries, making them too large to be labeled a boutique. They're certainly not a bulge-bracket, but not a boutique either.

nodnard

I'm glad I didn't go to Chicago and meet anti-social ******bags like you.

Don't tell me I lack a basic understanding of banking. Go to ibankingoasis.com (instead of the massive banking circle-jerk here) and ask one of the many real bankers there whether or not Lazard is a "boutique." Under your ridiculous definition (which basically makes "boutique" and "crappy" synonymous, save for Allen & Co. and Centerview), Gleacher, PWP, MoCo, Evercore and Greenhill aren't boutiques either.

I just love hearing some sophomore/junior saying something like: "They will ding you immediately." Good stuff -- do you have a job anywhere this summer?