sid3699 are you INR and on H1-B?
storko Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > topher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I’m curious to know people’s thoughts on the > > maximum age you can be before you get your > first > > good finance job (presumably some front office > > role). Realistically speaking, I would think a > 50 > > year old construction worker has virtually zero > > chance of “breaking in” to the industry. So > there > > must be some sort of maximum age. > > > > If by the time you are 30 you still have not > > entered a trading/PM/research role regardless > of > > past and future credentials, I would think your > > window is pretty much closing very rapidly. I > once > > interviewed at a HF where the head guy got in > to > > finance after 40 after a successful medical > > career. But this is very rare. > > > > I’m 26 now. I’m just attempting to sort out my > > options. I may try to start a business within > the > > next 5 years instead of pursuing finance. What > do > > other people think? > > I thought you were already in the industry I am at a finance company, but in a more administrative role. I want to transition to IM in PM or research. My original post referenced “your first good finance job.”
BiPolarBoyBoston Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sid3699 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BiPolarBoyBoston Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > care to share any insight into breaking in? > > > Getting in through personal connections are > > > outliers imo. > > > > > > I got my break by posting my resume on LEH’s > > website; It took three months to get the > > interview. My other research interviews also > came > > by posting my resume on company websites. > > > > Headhunters were useless; infact they > discouraged > > me from applying to equity research jobs by > saying > > that I cannot get in given my academic and > > professional background. > > > > From start to finish it took me about five > months > > to get the research job. > > wow you applied and got interview through the job > websites. congrats. where are you at in your > career right now if you don’t mind me asking? Same role. Time to move on now – bored, have had enough of giving advice to buy-siders (I think am ready to work for a PM) and honestly I want more money than what I am making now. Will test the buy-side soon.
humm thought sell-side pays more then buy-side. are you a charterholder?
^no
I guess its true, you do make all the money at fidelity.
With a top-tier MBA there’s no reason you can’t enter up to an age in the mid-30’s. There are a few peeps where I work that are between 30-32 who are 1st and 2nd year Associates (directly out of bschool). For most, anything older than 33 would probably be a big hurdle for traditional post-MBA jobs (IB, consulting). However, as others have mentioned, for smaller funds, if you bring value to the table it doesn’t really matter how old you are. They want to make money. If you can prove that you’ll make them money you can get hired.
BiPolarBoyBoston Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > humm thought sell-side pays more then buy-side. > are you a charterholder? Yes. It depends. As a general statement, and based on my interactions with buy-side folks, buy-side people make more than sell side people.
I’m not sure that you can say whether buy side or sell side jobs pay more. There are 10 thousands of job variations on either side.
Nothwithstanding what has been said already, on the i-banking side my observation is that they typically want someone right out of MBA late 20’s early 30’s. On the research side it seems to be a mized bag. Most BB firms in Canada don’t typically recruit directly out of grad schools or they do so on a one off basis. From what I’ve seen most research associates have a few years experience in their respective industries and the result is associates in their mid to late 30’s. Of course there is the odd associate that is hired out of undergrad with a degree in history or english, which is totally f&$#ked up.
in my opinion, you can never be too old for finance. because finance is about creating or discovering things of value or lack thereof if you spend 50 years in an industry (in an operating role), you have so much market knowledge that if you were to spend the last 5 years of your life applying this industry experience in a financial role, it might be the most lucrative and exciting years of your life. so again in my opinion, you can never be too old for finance.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m not sure that you can say whether buy side or > sell side jobs pay more. There are 10 thousands of > job variations on either side. Depends what you consider “buy side”, I find the CFAI (for better or worse) tends to subtly brainwash candidates into thinking that the buy side is essentially heaven. A place where you can run a DCF, look at a cash conversion cycle, buy a stock, and when you get your cut of the fees, buy a yacht. If the buy side includes hedge funds and private equity, then yes, the buy side may pay more per employee than the sell side. But contrast some Canadian/American portfolio manager with $1.5Bn in AUM to a VP at a Canadian bank-owned dealer or a BB Industry IB VP, the comparison isn’t even close. The PM will be lucky to make over $670k, the VP will most likely be clearing $2MM+. Not to mention pay scale on the sell side tends to deteriorate less than going to a smaller buy-side shop where pay could be sub 40k for an analyst. You could also debate that there’s a fundamental reason why many sell side guys can go to the buy side pretty easily, but few buy side guys can go to the sell side. Anecdotal evidence: most of my friends on the buy side (in front office roles) are jockeying for IBD analyst positions. Either at pension funds, investment managers, etc. the unfortunate reality is that you will NOT do as much hands on financial modeling (M&A, div recap, IPO, etc) as sell side analysts. Most of the modeling is done by the PM/upper level mgmt and most analysts simply conduct quarterly DD on investments. I would also argue the sell side has a much faster and more lucrative career path compared to the buy side (you’re not a 34 year old senior investment analyst with some 50 year old PM that ain’t going anywhere) due to burnout and people leaving to do other things (like the buyside lol). The fact the sell side has fewer positions/higher startup costs could also be a reason. Are you too old for finance? Hell no. GS once had an analyst that was 35, just be prepared to work hard and you can do it.
If a PM had a 1.5B dollar book, he would be making more than a million easy
storko Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a PM had a 1.5B dollar book, he would be making > more than a million easy Assuming you’re talking about the Head PM/CIO, then definitely. But I just see the hierarchy for buy side much like a F500 company. Steep pyramid. Under that CIO are several MDs, under that MD are several SVPs, under those SVPs are several VPs…etc. Given that many people who founded the firm are probably still there as a PM, it makes the possibility for significant advancement far remote than the sell side (no one can dispute that point). I should have clarified that this person would be a BB VP equivalent. My main contention is that its much harder to really make bank in a “traditional” buy side role compared to the sell side. A lot of buy side firms also boast the work life balance they have and how they can take vacations when they want. I remember hearing that at every info session back in college. I’m not trying to say that the sell side is “better” or anything, it’s just in the context of compensation, it usually is.
BiPolarBoyBoston Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > care to share any insight into breaking in? > Getting in through personal connections are > outliers imo. Through persistence and networking. I didn’t know anyone in research at the time.
philip.platt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > in my opinion, you can never be too old for > finance. Your opinion and HR’s opinion are two completely different things. Although yours might be more reasonable, HR’s always wins.
SMIRK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > philip.platt Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > in my opinion, you can never be too old for > > finance. > > Your opinion and HR’s opinion are two completely > different things. Although yours might be more > reasonable, HR’s always wins. Ahhh, you work in HR. Makes sense now. Ding the HR chicks & ding the candidates. Nice work if you can get it. Mind you, is it finance?
Thanks hobbes928 and sid3699, I guess I am in a similar boat to where you guys were. I am a qualified accountant with 6 years industry experience (I am now 30). I am from New Zealand (now living in London) and didn’t follow a traditional path to gain my accounting qualification - gained while working as a pricing analyst at a large fund manager. Since then I have worked in various back/middle office roles i.e. product control, investment accounting, structure finance etc always with a view to try to break into equity research. I have been woefully unsuccessful in this venture - not because I don’t have the requisite ability to perform in such a role, but because my CV doesn’t tick all the boxes. If the CFA charter adds any value it is that I can probably get better accounting jobs but that seems to be about it. Don’t get me started on recruiters. They will bend over backwards to get me an accounting role but as soon as I mention anything more analytical I wont hear from them again. My intention is to keep trying, networking, finish the CFA program but if anyone has any tips on getting from A to B I would really appreciate it.