Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wisefire)
    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?
    It depends.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    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.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    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 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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wisefire)
    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?
    Personally I would rank them: UCL, Durham, Manchester, Nottingham. Graduating with a 2:1 or first from UCL would put you in better standing than the other 3 and the difference between Durham and Nottingham is probably minimal tbh. It also depends on your field, some "less reputable" universities not be as prestigious in general as others, but have a very good reputation in certain courses. As I said though, only UCL would give you a better standing compared to the other 3, due to its position as a top 5 university. As has been said in the topic, though, your university won't dictate your post-graduate life. If you show up with a first and impress the interviewing board then it won't hold you back.

    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    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'm not going to reread posts, if I have come across as condescending then this was not intentional. It can happen when presenting an argument online due to the lack of tone of voice, facial cues etc. So sorry about that.

    The fact is, though, that the model does fit reality, or at least you haven't proven that it doesn't. 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). It is now up to you to try and disprove that theory, or accept it. You have given me literally zero evidence that this is not the case and have simply said instead that my model doesn't prove anything. The thing is with science (which you bring up despite seemingly having little experience in) is that if a model is suggested and evidence is put forward (see: The Theory of Evolution) people have to try and disprove it. In science, you literally cannot prove that anything is certain. All you can do is try to disprove it and, if you can't, then you accept it as true until such a time that it can be disproven. I've suggested a model and you haven't disproved it at all, so why would i stop believing it?

    The rest of your post is nonsense as well tbh, considering I'm the only person who has put evidence forward (both you and Jneil have showed zero evidence). I've examined your arguments carefully, but they are all presented as "my opinion is this..." and that's it. That's not an argument. My argument was presented as logical propositions (P1, P2) and I therefore came to a conclusion (C1). That is how logical propositions are written and in order to disprove that logic you must prove that either P1 and/or P2 are wrong or that the propositions do not logically lead to the concusion. Feel free to do so, because up until this point all anybody in the thread has done has argued without evidence or their logical reasoning or just came to insult people.

    You also said "your argument is not logical, it is an opinion". Well, we share the same opinion and I literally presented it as a series of logical statements and conclusions (P1, etc) so I fail to see your point. Also, logic and opinions are not mutually exclusive. We derive our opinions from our logical understanding of the subject.

    You then asked if I've ever written a thesis and yes, I have, in a STEM field and I got an 80, so thanks!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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
    Also, welcome to my world .
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    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.
    Shut up, your just chatting complete rubbish.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by tomtjl)
    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...p-premium.html

    However, Pam Tatlow, chief executive of the university think-tank, million+, warned against the findings, saying that lifetime earnings are "affected by a range of factors, not least social background". "It's important to assess candidates on their ability to demonstrate the behaviours needed to do the job well and progress."

    Richard Irwin, PwC "It is wrong to cherry pick a very small group of universities with a low number of undergraduates and compare the lifetime earnings of their students.

    "[These students] overwhelmingly enter university and then the labour market with great advantages in terms of family income and networks, with those of the majority of graduates. However, the report does lay to rest the myth that equality of opportunity and effort results in equality of outcome in 21st century Britain."

    Richard Irwin, head of student recruitment at PwC, said: "Given the historical dominance of Oxbridge and Russell Group universities in the top professions the difference the report highlights is not surprising.

    "The important point is to ensure it changes - something we're seeing in our own firm where now only around 10 per cent of our intake is from Oxbridge and over 30 per cent is from outside the Russell Group.

    He added: "It's important to assess candidates on their ability to demonstrate the behaviours needed to do the job well and progress, rather using the university they attended or the degree they studied as a proxy for this."
    When you arrive in the real word after graduation you will realise all this is true.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    You need to read beyond the headlines:
    e.g. Oxbridge graduates 'earn double £200,000 Russell Group premium'
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...p-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.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by tomtjl)
    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.
    Accepted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by shanktheopps)
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shanktheopps)
    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.
    Brokers are glorified salesmen.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shanktheopps)
    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.
    Actually there is a huge cocaine problem in the City:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...dman-ex-trader
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yaboi)
    Brokers are glorified salesmen.
    Yes, I guess.


    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Actually there is a huge cocaine problem in the City:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...dman-ex-trader
    Yeah but it's not just brokers, it's traders, salespeople and iBankers as well. And it's a tiny, tiny proportion of them.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by shanktheopps)
    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?
    I think you're really stretching the definition here. high finance refers to front office roles within investment banks, private equity firms, asset managers, hedge funds/prop houses and venture capital firms

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,756

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. SAE Institute
    Animation, Audio, Film, Games, Music, Business, Web Further education
    Thu, 16 Aug '18
  2. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
  3. University of Bolton
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 17 Aug '18
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.