Does it matter where you get your undergraduate degree?

Stockbroking =/= high finance. It is a field for those who are born with a strong liver and a gift for the gab - think Essex barrow boys.

Out of curiosity, what are the views of those reading this of the value or prestige of receiving a First or a strong 2:1 undergraduate degree from The University of Manchester or Nottingham, or Durham or UCL? I would personally say of those four choices Nottingham is overall the least reputable one, by a fraction under Manchester. Obviously Nottingham is a great university. Would getting a strong degree from Manchester or Nottingham be incomparable to the (yes, fairly incorrect) Lancaster or Cambridge Bachelor's > Cambridge Master's analogy made by someone earlier? I mean to say is a great grade from a university like Manchester or Nottingham pretty prestigious, and would possibly put you in a good place for postgraduate study at Oxbridge?

Thanks. Now I know you don't work in the field. Essex barrows boys only appear on TV/films.

Stockbroking is an umbrella term covering a vast number of disciplines in Finance. I can say I work in stockbroking - am I a quant, a trader in options, futures or derivatives, a day trader, or do CFDs. Finance also an umbrella term covering accountancy and so on. Stockbroking is a financial discipline. It is regulated by the FCA. Its workers must be qualified to work by taking FCA approved exams (which is very expensive by the way).

Just as Information Technology covers a vast number of disciplines in Computing/Mathematics. I can call myself a Techie -- which could mean I fix computers or I'm a systems analyst, a programmer, a mathematician or hacker, a physicist, chemist, engineer.... the list goes on.

Interesting, so you are redefining the word stockbroker to include all roles that do NOT involve stockbroking? Nice. And even further you've gone on to explain to me how your incorrect interpretation of the industry is the right way to look at things.

Let's get some rudimentary definitions out of the way:
"A stockbroker, also called a Registered Representative, investment advisor or simply, broker, is a professional individual who executes buy and sell orders for stocks and other securities through a stock market, or over the counter, for a fee or commission. Stockbrokers are usually associated with a brokerage firm and handle transactions for retail and institutional customers."

A quant:
"A person who analyses a situation or event, especially a financial market, by means of complex mathematical and statistical modelling."

A trader:
"A trader is person or entity, in finance, who buys and sells financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives, in the capacity of agent, hedger, arbitrageur, or speculator."

Now, tell me, what does a Quantitative Analyst working on a pricing model for a new strategy in a quant hedge fund have to do with Barry at an IDB (e.g. BGC, ICAP) calling up his buddy Steve (the trader) at GS to help execute a large block trade so that he can shave off some commission off of Steve and probably meet up with Steve later for a boozy one in Mayfair? Nothing.

Try again.

No. You try again.

The context in which I used the terms are correct. Please explain what context it is, and how the various roles given relate to it.

Also, explain the above cut & paste job in your own words.

BTW I used to live in Mayfair, and have NEVER met any of the characters you're talking about.

Uh huh. You said stockbroking covers all financial services jobs, when in actuality it is ONE job and not an umbrella term in any sense of the word. It takes a very different skillset to be a broker at ICAP than it does to work on one of the trading desks at an investment bank or to be a quant within a hedge fund.

I don't really care if you've seen them, it was an illustration.

The "cut and paste job" is something that you should understand before trying to retort incorrectly.

You've made up a load of stuff that is unrepresentative of the profession you claim to know about. Explain:

" Stockbroking =/= high finance. It is a field for those who are born with a strong liver and a gift for the gab - think Essex barrow boy".

I've asked you to explain the cut and paste job in your own words because I know you can't. You haven't disappointed me with your narky response.

Oh you can tell me what you know about Mayfair, since you clearly know SO MUCH about it....

I think you are throwing a load of stuff to make yourself look clever. You just don't like being pulled up on the porkies you've been telling.

Test to follow:

I'd like you to answer some questions based on the exam for someone to be a Registered Representative.

Out of curiosity, what are the views of those reading this of the value or prestige of receiving a First or a strong 2:1 undergraduate degree from The University of Manchester or Nottingham, or Durham or UCL? I would personally say of those four choices Nottingham is overall the least reputable one, by a fraction under Manchester. Obviously Nottingham is a great university. Would getting a strong degree from Manchester or Nottingham be incomparable to the (yes, fairly incorrect) Lancaster or Cambridge Bachelor's > Cambridge Master's analogy made by someone earlier? I mean to say is a great grade from a university like Manchester or Nottingham pretty prestigious, and would possibly put you in a good place for postgraduate study at Oxbridge?

I think you need to reread the posts replying to your posts. The reactions of the posters and your posts to them leads me to draw the same conclusion.

I'm afraid you haven't done that (considering all the information). You've picked up the negs -- that is jumping to conclusions.

It is not irrelevant. The model must fit the reality. Hypothetical situations does not prove anything by itself. It has to be tested first. You merely asserted an opinion as fact. You've given no supporting evidence from real life (e.g. how hiring is actually done), and you expect your opinion to be considered over another poster who works in recruiting staff?

Your argument is not logical, it is an opinion. I have agreed it is a factor based on what I know happens in real life, but you haven't proved it. Calling something logical does not make it logical.

If you make an assertion, it is up to you to prove it is correct. In my world (science) this is called 'peer review'.

Jneil has hired people. Therefore he knows more than you about hiring people. He declined to comment because you clearly don't get it, so the busy man isn't going waste his time. After all, he's got a lot of hiring to do.

You've rubbished people's views repeatedly. The reactions of the other posters makes this clear. You have not looked any of the arguments presented at all. There's no counter arguments with any evidence, examples, situations in any of your posts.

I've noticed you used words like logical, empirical, critique..but your posts show that you don't know what they mean.

Have you ever written a dissertation or thesis?

I really CBA arguing with someone who thinks they know what they're arguing about when they don't.

Out of curiosity, have you actually spoken to any brokers before?

Posted from TSR Mobile

You've made up a load of stuff that is unrepresentative of the profession you claim to know about. Explain:

" Stockbroking =/= high finance. It is a field for those who are born with a strong liver and a gift for the gab - think Essex barrow boy".

I've asked you to explain the cut and paste job in your own words because I know you can't. You haven't disappointed me with your narky response.

Oh you can tell me what you know about Mayfair, since you clearly know SO MUCH about it....

I think you are throwing a load of stuff to make yourself look clever. You just don't like being pulled up on the porkies you've been telling.

Test to follow:

I'd like you to answer some questions based on the exam for someone to be a Registered Representative.

I have stated that I think the model fits reality, I gave empirical evidence (there was a ranking of successful applicants into Cambridge PG courses ranked by university and an article detailing how Oxbridge students earn £7k more per year than RG).

You need to read beyond the headlines:
e.g. Oxbridge graduates 'earn double £200,000 Russell Group premium'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11918904/Oxbridge-graduates-earn-double-200000-Russell-Group-premium.html



When you arrive in the real word after graduation you will realise all this is true.

I did read beyond the headline, and of course there are multiple factors involved. All I've said since the beginning is that university does have some influence when applying for a job, you have even agreed, so I don't understand why we're still arguing? I don't even think university is the most important thing, but to dismiss it completely is a bit foolish imo, especially when getting a first from Cambridge etc is much harder than at other unis due to the intensity of the workload.

Also, same goes to you in terms of none of my posts were intended to be condescending so, if they were, then I apologise.

Stockbroking =/= high finance. It is a field for those who are born with a strong liver and a gift for the gab - think Essex barrow boys.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's really an unfair stereotype. Stockbrokers at firms like ICAP come from top unis and they are professionals like people in high finance. I know a few of them and they are sociable people but not the 'Wolf of Wall Street' type over-indulging, crazy cocaine addicts. There are a few that are like that, but there also people in high finance who fit that stereotype so it's not right to just limit it to stockbrokers.

That's really an unfair stereotype. Stockbrokers at firms like ICAP come from top unis and they are professionals like people in high finance. I know a few of them and they are sociable people but not the 'Wolf of Wall Street' type over-indulging, crazy cocaine addicts. There are a few that are like that, but there also people in high finance who fit that stereotype so it's not right to just limit it to stockbrokers.

That's really an unfair stereotype. Stockbrokers at firms like ICAP come from top unis and they are professionals like people in high finance. I know a few of them and they are sociable people but not the 'Wolf of Wall Street' type over-indulging, crazy cocaine addicts. There are a few that are like that, but there also people in high finance who fit that stereotype so it's not right to just limit it to stockbrokers.

Did I mention wolf of wall street? Or cocaine? Or overindulgence? All I said is that stockbrokers have to be good at talking to their clients and socialising for business purposes.

Being a broker is not really high finance at all if I'm honest, the culture and type of work don't overlap - bar a cash equity sales desk. Doesn't mean you can't make money nor does it mean being a broker is bad, it's just a different lifestyle.

Ofc with everything there are exceptions.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Brokers are glorified salesmen.

Actually there is a huge cocaine problem in the City:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2013/may/30/seth-freedman-ex-trader

Hi, thanks for your reply, I understand your point. But surely brokers are in high finance since it's a job based on the financial markets and is high pay, high risk, performance based? Surely it's as high finance as sales and trading?