<p>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. </p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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].”</p>
<p>Actually, let me break it down to you some more, nodnard, because you seem to lack basic understanding of the investment banking field.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I’m glad I didn’t go to Chicago and meet anti-social douchebags like you.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>nauru, are you working BB FT in London? Or did you spend a summer there? I am hoping to land a gig out there for next summer. I hear London’s incredible.</p>