pacmandefense Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i used to work in MO product control. It think the > avp (forgot they had that position because to me > it’s merely another associate position) was making > 85k in NYC and the VPs were making 120k. i was > making about 61 as 3rd year analyst. it’s > outrageous that a BO MD makes 500k. I thought they > were capped at 300k or something Why would there be a cap on a BO MD?
Because banks reserve their bonus pool for IB and traders.
And because BO people don’t make any money for the firm. none at all. Everyone in BO is just a big required financial drain on the company.
Green grape doesn’t make money for the firm either working in ER so what’s your point.
^ totally wrong. Research itself does make money. Plus a lot of the sales guys get their pitches from the research teams. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
greengrape Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And because BO people don’t make any money for the > firm. none at all. Everyone in BO is just a big > required financial drain on the company. This is absolutely incorrect, incredibly naive.
kohsamed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > greengrape Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And because BO people don’t make any money for > the > > firm. none at all. Everyone in BO is just a big > > required financial drain on the company. > > > This is absolutely incorrect, incredibly naive. it is incorrect - bo/mo/tech are meant to be more efficient than an outside firm, less costly and therefore saving money. they also are there to manage risks that could lead to huge fines, loss of charter, etc. its incredible how ignorant fo people can be sometimes.
kohsamed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > greengrape Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And because BO people don’t make any money for > the > > firm. none at all. Everyone in BO is just a big > > required financial drain on the company. > > > This is absolutely incorrect, incredibly naive. Yeah, such a blanket statement is far from the truth depending on the field. Maybe in ER or M&A the MO is there just for general compliance crap, but in the lending / credit business, the MO is there to represent the bank, whereas the FO is there to represent the client. Meaning that the analytical part is done by the MO.
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it is incorrect - bo/mo/tech are meant to be more > efficient than an outside firm, less costly and > therefore saving money. they also are there to > manage risks that could lead to huge fines, loss > of charter, etc. its incredible how ignorant fo > people can be sometimes. They’re meant to be, but they’re not. They are mostly ridiculously terrible. Most bo/mo groups, if run as an independent business, would be out of business within a month.
Seriously whats with the bitter arguments! First of all who on earth would complain about a 120k paypacket! Secondly the most important thing is that you enjopy what you are doing, in that you dont have to drag yourself out of bed every morning to go to work. If you dont enjoy what you are doing then by all means try to get transfered or get another job, unless of course you are one of these guys who is only looking for the money and watchs Wall Street everynight, then to be honest I feel sorry for you…now thats bitter
pedpenny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seriously whats with the bitter arguments! > > First of all who on earth would complain about a > 120k paypacket! Wow, how callow are you? > Secondly the most important thing is that you > enjopy what you are doing, in that you dont have > to drag yourself out of bed every morning to go to > work. If you dont enjoy what you are doing then by > all means try to get transfered or get another > job, unless of course you are one of these guys > who is only looking for the money and watchs Wall > Street everynight, then to be honest I feel sorry > for you…now thats bitter What rainbow do you live on?? While you’re entitled to your preferences, thinking you know how others should live their lives/make their tradeoffs is pretty naive/simplistic.
I don’t have anything productive to add to this discussion, but I just want to let people know how angry I am.
iteracom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ totally wrong. Research itself does make money. > > Plus a lot of the sales guys get their pitches > from the research teams. Yep, sales totally drives SS research. This is why SS research is awful (no offense to people in SS research), why you can’t move your price target “too much” because of sales optics. It’s great watching a SS estimate slowly creep up over a very long time frame, so clearly because it is driven by sales. I honestly feel like sales would do better if they didn’t think they knew what us guys on the buyside wanted to hear all the time and actually listened to our process. BO is overhead, so is CFO. What’s your point?
To be clear Justin, Im not telling people how to live there lives, I couldnt care what you do or where you do, or why you are doing it… you follow kid. And I realy dont want to get into a ‘forum argument’, because we are achieving nothing. You are entitled to your opinion as am I, and that is my opinion, and I sincerly apoligise if I come across as callow. God Bless… Just taking the s**t at this stage
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They’re meant to be, but they’re not. They are > mostly ridiculously terrible. Most bo/mo groups, > if run as an independent business, would be out of > business within a month. they are on a cost-basis, what else matters?
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > They’re meant to be, but they’re not. They are > mostly ridiculously terrible. Most bo/mo groups, > if run as an independent business, would be out of > business within a month. What a load of absolute rubbish. Efficient operations are a huge factor in the success of the big franchises…From my experience, on the whole, they are run extremely well. The are significant numbers are profitable traders in a bank that are ONLY profitable because of the quality of the franchise that they sit under, for which operations play their part. And many back-office operations are run as independent business, and do very well. Only been on here a short while but it seems there are very people who know what they are talking about.
kohsamed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a load of absolute rubbish. Efficient > operations are a huge factor in the success of the > big franchises…From my experience, on the whole, > they are run extremely well. The are significant > numbers are profitable traders in a bank that are > ONLY profitable because of the quality of the > franchise that they sit under, for which > operations play their part. Agreed that a franchise can definitely turn a mediocre trader profitable. Operations/technology are a small part of this however; much more important is access to customers and the flow.
BO is important, but often the personnel are easily replaced. That’s why they’re not seen as contributing to the firm’s success. You need admin assistants and they allow me to be more efficient, but just like most BO someone else can step into their job and perform nearly as well. FO is about making decisions and influencing the direction of the business. Sometimes that means dealing with clients, sometimes it means making the portfolio allocation decisions are buying and selling particular securities. The less replaceable you are, and the more influence you have to the firms success, the more likely you are to fit into the FO category. I consider ER either FO or MO depending on the influence of the analyst. If you’re in research just producing internal reports and having someone else make the big decisions, then MO. If you’re in ER and moving the markets or being leveraged to produce IB or S&T then definitely FO.
Danny Boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BO is important, but often the personnel are > easily replaced. That’s why they’re not seen as > contributing to the firm’s success. You need > admin assistants and they allow me to be more > efficient, but just like most BO someone else can > step into their job and perform nearly as well. > > FO is about making decisions and influencing the > direction of the business. Sometimes that means > dealing with clients, sometimes it means making > the portfolio allocation decisions are buying and > selling particular securities. The less > replaceable you are, and the more influence you > have to the firms success, the more likely you are > to fit into the FO category. > > I consider ER either FO or MO depending on the > influence of the analyst. If you’re in research > just producing internal reports and having someone > else make the big decisions, then MO. If you’re > in ER and moving the markets or being leveraged to > produce IB or S&T then definitely FO. For the most part I agree with this assessment. But the CFO is back office even though his/her decisions certainly impact the direction of the company.
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For the most part I agree with this assessment. > But the CFO is back office even though his/her > decisions certainly impact the direction of the > company. I’ve never considered a CFO back office. The executive suite is often a different classification entirely.