Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

To everyone aiming to get into finance or banking watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Padwas)
    wow is accounting that bad
    Accounting is awesome! And don't forget it! :five:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    Money makes the world go round.

    Finance is the reason that the scientist is able to buy research equipment and carry out studies, it is the reason the school is able to stay open, it is the reason that hosptials have the equipment and staff. I doubt that people go into finance for this reason but to say it contributes nothing is stupid becasue without it you would have none of these "worthwhile" jobs that you mentioned.


    I work for age uk and we do some great work helping older people and we make a difference but remove the 4 person (5 if you count the odd day or two where i lol around in there) finance team then we simply wouldn't be able to carry out any activities because the rents wouldnt get paid on the day care centres, the leases wouldn't get paid on the minibuses, the staff wouldn't get paid we wouldn't know whether the shops were making money for the charity or costing more than they were bringing in.
    Much love to your post :yy:

    Off topic but... what's the procedure for becoming a volunteer for age uk?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazy92)
    Firstly, I have read through all the comments posted above. You evidently have an extreme view against the finance industry as a whole and it is clear that you have exceptionally limited knowledge, technical or general on the finance industry. Therefore I am somewhat reluctant to even reply.

    I would ask you to think fully about the comments you have made regarding finance and the recession. I know you think you are clever, so I would expect more from someone like you than to believe everything you read/hear in the news. How many times in history has one group of people (usually rich) been singled out as the sole causation of a crisis/problem?

    Do you really think the entire recession was down to the finance industry? If you do, you are either uneducated/an idiot or easily led with a poor ability to perform critical analysis. I'm not saying that they didn't play a part, but to blame everything on bankers is just fantasy.

    Anyway, back to your original point. I am a STEM grad from one of the two unis you mentioned and I am going into FO finance (job secured already).

    I have experience of both engineering work and finance work, and I can tell you that the work in finance is multiple times more rewarding academically and intellectually. You have a huge amount of responsibility from the get go, it's an amazing experience. The money is nice, but trust me, no one is going to drag their ass to work for 12+ hours a day for 20-30 years just for extra money. It just does not happen. Also, you don't get rich and retire at 30, that's mostly fabricated although it is possible.

    What I am trying to get across is that I think your original point of the brain drain to the finance industry is an important topic that should be debated, you devalue your position and argument massively by having an exceptionally poor understanding of the industry and an extremely one sided view.
    Second this - couldn't have put it any better.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Finance is important...NHS have accountants...what a genius idea let finance sector and banks run themselves? Also the higher the risk and responsibility of your job the higher your salary (most likely) so the pay is justified.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You seen wolf of wall street bro?

    Semi-srs
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    In the world economy, the financial sector enables everything else to exist. Healthcare and education whilst laudable, do not produce any wealth. On the contrary, they take from the economy in huge, wasteful chunks.
    Hah!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dpb23)
    IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME IN CIVIL LAW!!!

    CRIMINAL matters are prosecuted by the state, CIVIL offences can be rightfully settled by any means agreeable to both parties. This is good - otherwise you could go to prison for not paying a TV license. Out-of-court settlements mean the victim has agreed to the outcome; what is wrong with that?

    I repeat, corporations ARE subordinate to the law; otherwise there would BE NO out-of-court settlements because there'd be no incentive to settle - given no prospect of a sentence by a magistrate etc!!!
    Yes but that's the trouble, people think, oh, there's no law against X, so therefore it's fair and equitable, but it's not, corporations may be subordinate to the law but they can throw money around and get off most things in a way an individual or small business cannot. Therefore they are at a grossly unfair advantage - not because of law, but because of money.

    It's not the people who make, or even apply, the laws who hold power, though they may be said to be "in power". Power is a soft commodity, as anyone from an office worker to a politician will tell you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Why? If you're looking to go into this sector, I'm assuming you're very intelligent. You probably have a huge amount of academic potential. So why are you planning to waste it all in an industry that produces absolutely nothing?

    Sure, you'll probably get very rich. But when you look back at your life, won't you feel an immense sense of dissatisfaction? You could have immortalised yourself by becoming a scientist and contributed nuggets of information to the collective human knowledge that will benefit humanity forever. You could have transformed the lives of young people by becoming a teacher, lighting the sparks of young minds and sharing your love of a subject. You could have become a humanitarian, spending your life creating solutions to problems that could rescue thousands of people from dire destitution and elevating their living standards to something remotely comparable of the standards you enjoy.

    I understand the temptation of a huge salary but I also want to achieve something with my life. I know a few people personally who want to go into finance (or other typical money making jobs) and most of them simply refuse to think about the above. They're so obsessed with making money that they are literally unable to think about the bigger picture. Another argument I hear is "As soon as I get rich, I'll get lots of money". This is a ridiculous argument because it's firstly not true (it's very easy to say you'll give away money you don't yet have) and secondly if you really cared about doing good, you would do the good yourself rather than getting other people to do the dirty work for you. I honestly cannot understand how people who want to go into finance do not feel that they are throwing their lives away simply in order to get a slightly more expensive house or a slightly more luxury car, but I would be interested in hearing your views. Is it simply a case of ignorance is bliss; that you can find self-contentment by only thinking about the comfortable truths? Or do you actually believe that you are achieving something real?
    I studied Maths at Cambridge; I've worked in the City for 2.5 years now.

    First, your view of academia is hopelessly idealistic. Most academic research, particularly in mathematics, has little tangible benefit to humanity - and certainly not for development/poverty issues which is what you seem to be most concerned about.

    Second, many people are simply not good enough to be academics - or if they are, they will have to settle for being fairly mediocre, hardly 'immortalising' themselves. Only a tiny proportion of people have a realistic chance of being a top-flight academic, and those people often stay in academia anyway. Given the option of being a mediocre academic or a mediocre financier, clearly the latter is much more enticing to a wide subset of well-qualified graduates.

    Third, for some people, finance is actually just more enjoyable and interesting than academia/teaching/humanitarian work. Personally I don't find my work as mentally taxing as my degree, but it does throw up its own set of challenges; as far as paid employment goes, I can't really see myself enjoying any other office job.

    Fourth, the membrane between finance and academia is pretty porous. Many people I know decide research is not for them after doing PhDs or postdocs; conversely, I know many who have opted to leave finance and go back for further studies. Finance is not a black hole from wherein people never re-emerge.

    Fifth, you have a preconceived value judgement of finance as worthless; it's clear you don't think people who work in that industry contribute as much to society as teachers/scientists/aid workers. Do you have any actual data or objective arguments to support this assertion? One metric to measure the value society places upon a profession is average pay: under this criterion, bankers are clearly more valuable than all the aforementioned. You may not agree with this metric, but it is at least an objective measurement of 'worth'; feelgood handwaving about 'aid workers making a difference' is not.

    Finally, my personal take on this: what I crave most in life is freedom and independence to do what I please. This necessitates a certain amount of money; I don't require an enormous sum, but I do need more than I could earn any time soon pursuing academia. In banking, the potential exists to reach my target far more quickly. Incidentally, quite a few people I know did precisely that back in the boom years - they earned a good amount by working hard for 5-10 years, then left to pursue their other life goals unfettered by monetary problems. How can you begrudge people for arranging their lives so that they get to do what really pleases them when they are smart and skilled enough to attain it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Why? If you're looking to go into this sector, I'm assuming you're very intelligent. You probably have a huge amount of academic potential. So why are you planning to waste it all in an industry that produces absolutely nothing?
    What a ludicrous comment. The finance industry produces something very valuable; it produces a service that provides for the efficient allocation of credit and risk.

    This means that when you need to buy a house, you can get a mortgage. It means that when you want to insure your car, there's an insurer (sometimes even a syndicate of insurers from all over the globe) who provide the security to issue your policy. This means that your pension fund can invest money in profitable ventures in the UK and overseas.

    It seems that you do not understand finance at all. Having said that, the kinds of people who want to go into finance before they've even started university are usually the kinds of people who struggle to get in. Hint; doing business at UEL will not get you into Goldman Sachs. Do modern languages at Cambridge instead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    X
    Entirely agree with your comment. The OP's assertion that finance is worthless is obviously based on ignorance and prejudice. As I said above;

    The finance industry produces something very valuable; it produces a service that provides for the efficient allocation of credit and risk.

    This means that when you need to buy a house, you can get a mortgage. It means that when you want to insure your car, there's an insurer (sometimes even a syndicate of insurers from all over the globe) who provide the security to issue your policy. This means that your pension fund can invest money in profitable ventures in the UK and overseas.


    Those with antipathy against the finance industry often forget how large a proportion of its work is geared towards supporting financial services used by the majority of the population.

    Don't get me wrong, I am a committed socialist (Fabian, rather than Marxist) and I believe there are problems in the industry. But it's also undeniable that it produces considerable value, both from the perspective of access to credit and insurance for ordinary people, and the export value it produces for the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    In the world economy, the financial sector enables everything else to exist. Healthcare and education whilst laudable, do not produce any wealth. On the contrary, they take from the economy in huge, wasteful chunks.
    That is a laughable assertion.

    Not only do both industries generate respectable export value for the UK, both activities are inherently wealth producing. If you see the health of the population as something of value, then you will understand the inherent worth of healthcare. Healthcare allows society to create multiples of the wealth it would otherwise be able to if we still had a life expectancy of 45 and had regular bubonic plague outbreaks.

    And if you don't believe universities produce wealth, then it's almost beyond an argument. We may as well shut down all the research that comes out of Cambridge, and resulting biotechnology spin-offs. It doesn't "produce any wealth", after all? And who needs an educated population? Someone with a primary school education is clearly just as able to produce wealth as an Oxford PhD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    No, they really don't. If you take a look at the legal cases involving corporations, you will quickly see just how much money they spend in "settling matters out of court" as well as a huge list of serious court cases that we never hear about because of PR.
    Err, that is a good thing, is it not?

    If I slip-and-trip in a McDonalds and break my back because of their negligence, my lawyers write to them and they immediately agree to settle and pay £2 million, how is that a bad thing?

    Would it be better for McDonalds to refuse to pay, litigate it endlessly through the courts and through appeals, until I could no longer afford to pay my legal fees and accept a settlement one-tenth of what the injury was worth, or do lose but only after five years and much angst? Is that moral? Is that wise?

    By the way, this "huge list of serious court cases that we never hear about because of PR" are actually a huge list of cases that you don't know about because you can't be arsed to read them or educate yourself so that you could understand them. Most civil cases are uninteresting to the general public because even cases between big litigants like DLA Piper v BDO generally consists of dozens of pages of this;

    Section 28(2) is in the same terms as s.29(3) relating to judicial review. Since DLA Piper contend, in the alternative, that it is entitled to challenge the judge's order by way of judicial review it is necessary to resolve the question whether a costs order made against a third party solicitor on the rejection of a witness summons is a decision of the Crown Court relating to trial on indictment. The starting point must be the decision of the divisional court in Ex-parte Rees and Others (The Times, 7 May 1986 ). The Divisional Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant judicial review of a witness summons issued by the Crown Court under s.2(1) of the 1965 Act. That decision was followed in R (H) v Crown Court at Wood Green [2007] 1 WLR 1670 . Even absent those authorities it is clear to me that a witness summons, whether for a witness or for documents, affects the conduct of a trial on indictment, one of the “helpful pointers” to which Lord Bridge referred in Re Smalley [1985] AC 622 (643G-H and 644A). Orders in relation to the production of documents or evidence from a witness go to the very heart of a trial on indictment and it requires no stretch of the imagination to envisage the interference with the smooth management of such a trial if witness summonses could be challenged by way of judicial review.
    Not everything is a conspiracy. That way lies madness
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Entirely agree with your comment. The OP's assertion that finance is worthless is obviously based on ignorance and prejudice. As I said above;

    The finance industry produces something very valuable; it produces a service that provides for the efficient allocation of credit and risk.

    This means that when you need to buy a house, you can get a mortgage. It means that when you want to insure your car, there's an insurer (sometimes even a syndicate of insurers from all over the globe) who provide the security to issue your policy. This means that your pension fund can invest money in profitable ventures in the UK and overseas.


    Those with antipathy against the finance industry often forget how large a proportion of its work is geared towards supporting financial services used by the majority of the population.

    Don't get me wrong, I am a committed socialist (Fabian, rather than Marxist) and I believe there are problems in the industry. But it's also undeniable that it produces considerable value, both from the perspective of access to credit and insurance for ordinary people, and the export value it produces for the UK.
    Indeed, though I should point out that the services you mention are tied to retail banking moreso than investment banking, which is what the OP is likely directed at.

    Investment banking breaks down into two main categories. One is M&A and related branches: these provide financial advisory to companies and in that regard are no more despicable or worthless than any other advisory services e.g. legal.

    The other category is trading and capital markets related; at base, these are entirely about the dispersal of risk from those who have too much to handle to those who are willing to stomach it on their behalf. I can think of nothing more humanitarian and socialist than evangelically spreading risk from the few to the many!

    (just kidding . . . maybe )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    Indeed, though I should point out that the services you mention are tied to retail banking moreso than investment banking, which is what the OP is likely directed at.

    Investment banking breaks down into two main categories. One is M&A and related branches: these provide financial advisory to companies and in that regard are no more despicable or worthless than any other advisory services e.g. legal.
    Investment banking and M&A are tiny when stacked up next to retail and commercial banking (as in depost-taking and lending), bond markets, insurance markets, derivative markets, commodities etc. And it is those categories that really ensure that you are able to put petrol into your car, or insure the car, or borrow money to buy the car, etc.

    Hence my contention that much criticism of the finance industry is misguided; most people tend to think of it as investment banking, hedge funds and M&A, which are all perfectly legitimate ventures, but really fiddling at the edges compared to the huge systemic financial power and size of the other categories I mentioned.

    The other category is trading and capital markets related; at base, these are entirely about the dispersal of risk from those who have too much to handle to those who are willing to stomach it on their behalf. I can think of nothing more humanitarian and socialist than evangelically spreading risk from the few to the many!

    (just kidding . . . maybe )
    Indeed, spreading risk from the few to the many is precisely what the Bank of England does every day with its implicit guarantee of that it will bailout the financial industry, along with the actual bailing out that has occurred in recent years. And that risk is eminently bankable; think of it as a gift from the people of the UK to the finance industry.

    When a socialist is being kind to the finance industry generally, it's probably better to graciously accept the compliment, given the history of the last 7 years
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bored_at_1AM)
    This is not true. The British East India Company was perhaps the most powerful company in history. It single-handedly conquered vast parts of the world, while America was still a primitive backwater. The British government reigned in this company, as could virtually every government in the world if a company gets out of hand. This happens all the time. Haliburton was given a lot of attention by conspiracy theorists a few years ago, but the president changed and now the firm is a shadow of its former self in terms of influence. Under Bush it was companies that got the bad reputation for violating civil liberties, but now it is government agencies.

    The biggest threat to humanity and freedom does not come from corporations, the rich or capitalists. It comes from governments.
    Yes. That's because only Gov. can act under color of law.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ipoop)
    Much love to your post :yy:

    Off topic but... what's the procedure for becoming a volunteer for age uk?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    it'll probably be dfferent for each individual Age UK (each branch is it's own individual charity). For mine you just ring up and ask for an application form then once you've handed that in you have a quick interview and we check your references etc.

    I'm not sure of the exact procedure as i'm a paid member of staff so it's probably different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ipoop)
    Accounting is awesome! And don't forget it! :five:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    why ????
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    Indeed, though I should point out that the services you mention are tied to retail banking moreso than investment banking, which is what the OP is likely directed at.

    Investment banking breaks down into two main categories. One is M&A and related branches: these provide financial advisory to companies and in that regard are no more despicable or worthless than any other advisory services e.g. legal.

    The other category is trading and capital markets related; at base, these are entirely about the dispersal of risk from those who have too much to handle to those who are willing to stomach it on their behalf. I can think of nothing more humanitarian and socialist than evangelically spreading risk from the few to the many!

    (just kidding . . . maybe )
    This is really quite off topic, but I am interested in your response.

    Do you really consider traders and those who work on the markets side to be investment bankers? Even if they do work for an investment bank?

    Just interested to hear your opinion and what your colleagues would generally say.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazy92)
    This is really quite off topic, but I am interested in your response.

    Do you really consider traders and those who work on the markets side to be investment bankers? Even if they do work for an investment bank?

    Just interested to hear your opinion and what your colleagues would generally say.
    It's just a matter of nomenclature. To a layperson, I would say I work in an investment bank as a trader, but sometimes it's just easier to say I'm an 'investment banker'. To someone who knows a bit about finance, I would simply say I'm a trader.

    I may be missing something, but is it really that interesting whether traders are classified as investment bankers or not?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Banking can be a good springboard into other careers. When I started looking for work, I was initially going for accounting firms, but was turned away due to lack of experience.

    I found a position at a bank, was able to work my way up to a department I wanted to be in, and now have a gleaming CV which is getting me interviews at my top choices.

    Finance careers are a means to an end, whatever that may be for the individual. I wouldn't knock the industry due to recent controversy, remember, there have been numerous political scandals, but no major changes to government in recent times.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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.