Intro to Investment Banking

How is Manchester compared to Bristol and Bath, even to Longborough and Durham?

Hi everyone, I am currently studying Geography at the University of Exeter, would it be possible to pursue a career in Finance?

it is considering they don't give out many places

Leeds requires AAA for Bsc economics but why isn't it considered as a semi-target for IB?


Posted from TSR Mobile

It's just the way it is. Banks have preferred unis and semi-preferred unis.

It doesn't work on the basis of 'you need AAA to get into this uni and so therefore it is a target'.

You can get into UCL on a course that requires AAB or get into Leeds with a course that requires A*AA, you'd still stand a better chance from UCL.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah, that's true. Am I right in thinking Leeds is considered a semi target though? I'm only presuming this by it's league table standing.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Not sure where to ask a trivial question like this, but here goes. Having looked through a lot of IB forums (TSR, WSO) it seems a lot of people (maybe even most) posting in these forums seem to think money is the "only" reason one would venture into this industry. I'm not sure I agree with this, but I've found myself wondering why -- if it's really that well paid -- IB NEVER features on any "top ten best paid jobs" lists. The typical candidates on those sorts of lists will be anaesthesiologist, CEO, orthodontist, etc. Why the omission of IB?

Probably because the average candidate in IB does not last long enough to earn the big bucks; or because IB has so many divisions it is difficult to generalise; or because they do not include bonuses; or because the researcher for that article has no idea what they're doing and does not understand IB.

Often in those articles they generalise so it will be 'Banking & Finance' which brings the average crashing down as it includes everyone rather than just specifically the IB side.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Okay, really insightful reply so thanks for that. Out of curiosity, what is your personal take on the whole "no one enters IB except for money" opinion? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the money in medicine parallels that made by bankers -- so why are doctors considered humanitarians, yet bankers as "in it for the bucks"?

Well, I'm no expert on medicine but I'm sure a career banker would earn more than a career doctor partly because bankers start at 21/22 and not 25. Depends if you leave the industry after a few years though and how successful you are.

I don't think I need to explain why doctors are considered humanitarians but bankers are considered "banksters" for the following reasons:

1. The financial crisis
2. People only hear of huge bonuses and how it is 150% of your base salary and think I never earn that "that's so unfair"
3. No one actually understands what bankers do and those that think they understand often don't understand at all (especially with regard to the hours)
4. Most people can't understand why anyone would find finance interesting
5. The perception is that bankers "don't deserve" the money or that they have somehow "robbed" others to get where they are even though the global economy would collapse without well-functioning capital markets

In short, the work of a doctor is easily understandable; the value added is very tangible, you can see it. The work of a banker, while just as important, is not easily understandable, the value added is very hard to see (not tangible at all) and the media use bankers as an easy target thus most people do not like them.

Your stereotypical banker will be something like this: "A smart, mysterious, well-dressed guy with a hot wife, a few kids, owns a few mansions, private jets, loads of sports cars, works in a skyscraper in a job that no one understands (including his wife) and takes home millions every year". (Often this guy will have been to Eton, has meetings with the Prime Minister and has had the best up-bringing imaginable.)

In reality a banker will be something like this "A normal guy (sometimes very fat and bald) who tries to be well-dressed with an average wife (who probably hates him), a couple of kids (he never sees), an above average nice house, working in a skyscraper and takes home six figures" (Likely was from a private school but quite honestly, could have come from any background.)

Everyone always goes with stereotype one because that's how bankers are generally portrayed in the media, despite the fact it is literally maybe a handful who are like that. People in the real world see that and feel sick because "hey, they don't work any harder than me, why should they get all that" even though in reality, this isn't the case at all.

It is also true that bankers work way more hours than any other industry I am yet to come across. I don't know any other job where it is considered "reasonable" to only work only 100 hours a week. Again, this distorts perceptions because people believe bankers work normal jobs, don't work insane hours and spend the rest of the time boozing in strip clubs - reality is very much more dull than that for most, especially in early years.

People also generalise bankers, so even though investment banking can be split down into hundreds of different roles (an awful lot of those with which had nothing to do with the financial crisis), people blame them altogether anyway for all their problems. People have a very simplistic view of investment banking. Ask someone what investment bankers do and you'll get an answer like "Yeah, they take other people's money and put it in stocks and **** innit". That's the level of understanding we're dealing with here. For example, in the financial crisis, it was actually securitisation where all the problems occurred (and although this was relatively big at the time, it's a very small division in the grand scheme of things), but yet all bankers take the blame for the minority. It's also worth pointing out credit rating agencies, sales people (at retail banks), regulators and the government (who are probably all way more-deserving of blame) have managed to manipulate it so all blame is placed on bankers. The word is toxic.

Do people enter for the "big bucks"?

Yes is the short answer to that one.

Does everyone enter for the "big bucks"?

No, but I am confident it does play a role in their decision.

A lot of people enter for the money or feel they have to do it to impress friends/family then find out they hate it and leave. Others enter knowing they actually like business/finance and find parts of it very interesting - for these guys, working with high profile clients on large deals and learning loads about the business world is their primary motivation and money comes second after this but still plays an equally important role (after all, everyone wants the most money, right?). In general, I imagine the environment you work in very much distorts your perception and even if you weren't very money-driven going into the industry, your view on money will certainly be distorted coming out of it. But, it depends on your background and how much you let it consume/corrupt you.

In short, the gap between "stereotypical perception" and "reality" from the public towards bankers is so large that people often criticise them for things they have no understanding of and for being people they are not.

Well, I'm no expert on medicine but I'm sure a career banker would earn more than a career doctor partly because bankers start at 21/22 and not 25. Depends if you leave the industry after a few years though and how successful you are.

I don't think I need to explain why doctors are considered humanitarians but bankers are considered "banksters" for the following reasons:

1. The financial crisis
2. People only hear of huge bonuses and how it is 150% of your base salary and think I never earn that "that's so unfair"
3. No one actually understands what bankers do and those that think they understand often don't understand at all (especially with regard to the hours)
4. Most people can't understand why anyone would find finance interesting
5. The perception is that bankers "don't deserve" the money or that they have somehow "robbed" others to get where they are even though the global economy would collapse without well-functioning capital markets

In short, the work of a doctor is easily understandable; the value added is very tangible, you can see it. The work of a banker, while just as important, is not easily understandable, the value added is very hard to see (not tangible at all) and the media use bankers as an easy target thus most people do not like them.

Your stereotypical banker will be something like this: "A smart, mysterious, well-dressed guy with a hot wife, a few kids, owns a few mansions, private jets, loads of sports cars, works in a skyscraper in a job that no one understands (including his wife) and takes home millions every year". (Often this guy will have been to Eton, has meetings with the Prime Minister and has had the best up-bringing imaginable.)

In reality a banker will be something like this "A normal guy (sometimes very fat and bald) who tries to be well-dressed with an average wife (who probably hates him), a couple of kids (he never sees), an above average nice house, working in a skyscraper and takes home six figures" (Likely was from a private school but quite honestly, could have come from any background.)

Everyone always goes with stereotype one because that's how bankers are generally portrayed in the media, despite the fact it is literally maybe a handful who are like that. People in the real world see that and feel sick because "hey, they don't work any harder than me, why should they get all that" even though in reality, this isn't the case at all.

It is also true that bankers work way more hours than any other industry I am yet to come across. I don't know any other job where it is considered "reasonable" to only work only 100 hours a week. Again, this distorts perceptions because people believe bankers work normal jobs, don't work insane hours and spend the rest of the time boozing in strip clubs - reality is very much more dull than that for most, especially in early years.

People also generalise bankers, so even though investment banking can be split down into hundreds of different roles (an awful lot of those with which had nothing to do with the financial crisis), people blame them altogether anyway for all their problems. People have a very simplistic view of investment banking. Ask someone what investment bankers do and you'll get an answer like "Yeah, they take other people's money and put it in stocks and **** innit". That's the level of understanding we're dealing with here. For example, in the financial crisis, it was actually securitisation where all the problems occurred (and although this was relatively big at the time, it's a very small division in the grand scheme of things), but yet all bankers take the blame for the minority. It's also worth pointing out credit rating agencies, sales people (at retail banks), regulators and the government (who are probably all way more-deserving of blame) have managed to manipulate it so all blame is placed on bankers. The word is toxic.

Do people enter for the "big bucks"?

Yes is the short answer to that one.

Does everyone enter for the "big bucks"?

No, but I am confident it does play a role in their decision.

A lot of people enter for the money or feel they have to do it to impress friends/family then find out they hate it and leave. Others enter knowing they actually like business/finance and find parts of it very interesting - for these guys, working with high profile clients on large deals and learning loads about the business world is their primary motivation and money comes second after this but still plays an equally important role (after all, everyone wants the most money, right?). In general, I imagine the environment you work in very much distorts your perception and even if you weren't very money-driven going into the industry, your view on money will certainly be distorted coming out of it. But, it depends on your background and how much you let it consume/corrupt you.

In short, the gap between "stereotypical perception" and "reality" from the public towards bankers is so large that people often criticise them for things they have no understanding of and for being people they are not.

I was wondering is there an advantage to knowing 2 languages in this industry, such as Russian and English?

If there is then what jobs could bilingual people undertake?

And would employers prefer applicants that are fluent in both languages from lesser universities than graduates from the targets that are not bilingual?

Hi Guys,

Ive been looking at uni degrees and courses, do you think investment banks will like 'Economics and Spanish' degree and will it be less valued compared to a pure 'Economics' degree?