vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It really depends on what part of finance you go into and where. As others mention, investment banking can be a grinder.  When I was working for a large global financial institution in consumer lending, average for most people was probably 45 - 50 hours / week. But my last year there I spent about 65 hours / week but it was largely due to my position and regulatory compliance pressures.  Now I consult for financial institutions. I'm gone from my family 3 - 5 nights a week but love both the work and my firm. When I'm home, I'm home and get to focus on my family. In the past, I would be so tired from the week that I wouldn't want to do much on the weekends. Now I spend my weekends devoted 100% to my family and friends. My wife and I are sure that the total number of quality hours I spend with my kids per week has actually increased now.  Also, there has been some mention here about going outside the US - from my limited experience, financial firms within Europe are far more interested in employee experience than domestic ones.
&gt;The Russell 3000 measure of US stock prices was up by 16.93% in 2010, but CEO pay went up by 27.19% overall.  this is telling since generally stocks follow earnings(not always but generally). This shows the skewing of ceo compensation with productivity increases.  You know the median worker at these corps didnt see a 36% increase, probably not more than a 8% increase if that. And thats not counting the really low level people., who still havent seen their jobs come back despite corps breaking records on earnings and giving ceos raises after having their markets and banks bailed out by the us tax payer.   Corps need to ask not what the country can do for them, but what they can do for the country, To borrow a quote.
Become genuinely passionate about the subject and the knowledge/experience will guide you.   If you're really desperate to get a position in finance ASAP, i would recommend a financials sales path. Sales is usually the most avoided path, as well as one of the most important skill sets to have. Most people don't even know that the top investment banking positions are sales, lol.....
No, there is no such list, as the other answers mention it is practically impossible to compile one.  However you can see the institutional investors of a public company.  MSN Money has this information available in a fair amount of details.  For example see the Institutional Investors of GOOG
This was absolutely true for me. I'm retired now. Until my last company I always got about 5% raise. When I skipped jobs the raise was usually enormous. I went:   19K 25K 30K 35K 50K 75K 85k 75K (last job sucked and this one was stupid simple at first) New company gave me steady raises to $125K and I got to do awesome work and was in complete control.   There is no way I would have gone from 19K to 125K at the same firm.
Sorry man, for most finance jobs you are to old for an entry level positions. Firms would much rather give it to a guy fresh out of college (and there are plenty of them) then a 27 year old with no relevant experience.  That being said, there are some areas in finance that are less strict about this, so if you are willing to start at the bottom with a bunch of 22 year olds you have a chance.
How hard would it be to work in either wealth management or investment banking with a master's in accounting and a CPA? My program allows for a double major in finance but at the moment the finance major is full so I won't be able to do it. I already have internship experience in both Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley and FP&amp;A at a major corporation if that's relevant at all.
"my problem with your argument is its base falseness: ""During the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, Goldman was able to profit from the collapse in subprime mortgage bonds in the summer of 2007 by short-selling subprime mortgage-backed securities. Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, are credited with bearing responsibility for the firm's large profits during America's sub-prime mortgage crisis. The pair, members of Goldman's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by ""betting"" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities.""  that is wikipedia, but they seem to know what is going on better than you do so..."
"GSElevator is part fraud, part satirist and has never worked at Goldman. None of the ""quotes"" used in his article were ever said by anyone. His pieces are sometimes good for a laugh but if you're taking this article as actual advice you clearly do not work in the industry.   I stopped paying attention as soon as he recommended analysts wear $700 shoes ..."
So am I to understand that giving AAA ratings to financial instruments backed by toxic mortgages had nothing to do with this problem?  That selling mortgages with one hand and betting on those mortgages to fail with other is a reasonable business practice?    No doubt the push to give more poor people government backed loans exacerbated the problem, but making that claim that that was the only problem seems about as valid as claiming that Goldman Sachs was responsible for everything.
"Should be titled, ""Facebook IPO: Could Mark Zuckerberg _Be Worth_ $24 Billion?""  They are reportedly looking to float only 10% of shares, at $10 billion, valuing the company at $100 billion. That doesn't mean Zuckerberg gets a paycheck of $24B on that day.   While I think it's crazy that all these companies are getting such high valuations, I really want to see Facebook's financials. I also wonder how much worse Facebook will get with unnecessary shit when their goal is to meet their next quarter earnings."
Always the same bank.   Started in a technology/IT related role on the trading floor.  It was a long time ago.  That part was luck.  I didn't actually look to work on a trading floor specifically.  I was interviewed, they hired me.  After that, it was a lot of hard work and I basically changed industries while staying on the same floor.
"I don't think there's anything wrong with it ethically but there are more fulfilling careers that are sometimes more financially rewarding. Also, there are a lot of people looking to get into that game so of course not everyone is going to make as much money as at first.  How is quant trading not siphoning funds? They typically don't trade based on value of fundamentals and don't contribute anything to society other than taxes and liquidity in the markets. How does that make me as bad as a ""bankster""(I'm assuming you're talking about the top executives who privatize profits and socialize losses)? I would have thought banksters love quants. You're not making much sense, buddy.  You're awfully cranky for a Saturday. Where's your advice for OP?"
Is this a joke?  Equity research and investment banking jobs have historically been handed out to top Ivy grads who know nothing about finance and learn it on the job.  It's changing now because of the competiveness but that statement is just ridiculous.
Ouch. In that case, I'm surprised the company is big enough to support a true treasury team. I would guess that it would be more of a cash management role with less opportunity for investing cash or dipping much into bond markets.
It doesn't change anything whatsoever about the underlying company.  I had a discussion like this during a case study in my Financial Statement Analysis class. It was a discussion about revenue recognition from the sales of iPhones, and whether it would be better for Apple if the regulation was changed to allow immediate recognition rather than deferring the income.  My argument is that it didn't matter one bit, because nothing is changing about how the company is actually run. Cash flow in and out of the company doesn't change. Maybe the accountants will have to work slightly shorter hours or something, but that's negligible.   The Accounting majors largely disagreed with me, while the Finance majors largely agreed.
"ER it might have some bearing on, depending on where you're looking to work. M&amp;A, no, not really.   EDIT: Just caught the ""level 1"" bit. No, probably not. Level 1 is a relatively general look at finance overall (lots of information, but not necessarily very deep)."
Ah, I am coming from the fund side of things.  The PMs do make some serious coin, but below that, once you factor in commissions, it is just silly.  I actually worked on the compensation model for a certain fund company and I couldn't believe the disparity.  I suppose it depends on how the titles are distributed, perhaps it is a Canadian thing.  The traders title at the other two companies where I worked were entry levelish.  Although they did make about the same as the research analysts if they performed as to plan.
This may not be related to the US stock exchanges but in the Australian stock exchange (ASX) many of the largest shareholders of companies are bank nominee companies. i.e. JP Morgan Nominees Limited or HSBC Custody Nominees and they own large stakes in many business's.   Who's behind these investments exacly? Could it be literally anyone and if so why do they hide behind these nominee companies? Do all banks have some kind of wealth management/funds management business?
No argument there. Neither matters, though a minor in business/finance can round out an engineering/math/hard science degree for getting into banking.  &gt;And if we are going to talk about wasting ones time, I think majoring in finance is a good place to start....  Uh, for finance jobs? That makes no sense. The careers are basically the highest paid in the US on average without requiring a specialized skillset.
"They do not. M&amp;A execution is housed within industry coverage groups; there's no separate group that executes. They have a group called ""M&amp;A"" that advises on tax structuring, anti-raid, and other assorted issues (e.g. MASA) but they don't run the model and they're not really executing. Most of the people there are ex-lawyers or experienced bankers.  Trust me on this, if you tell someone at GS you're interested in working in the M&amp;A group, you're not getting an offer."
As a Financial Engineer myself, I recommend this too. It allows you to pursue finance without dropping your technical skills. I still frequently program and resort to MATLAB at my current role at an investment bank. I started off as a computer engineer (hardware) and grabbed a CFA1 before getting a Quant Finance degree.  Programs to consider (not an exhaustive list):  * University of Michigan: Financial Engineering * Carnegie Mellon: Computational Finance * NYU: Mathematical Finance (I think) * U of Toronto: Mathematical Finance * Berkeley: Financial Engineering * Columbia: Financial Engineering  Some universities call it Quantitative Finance as well.  If I remember correctly, NYU and Berkely programs are very Math intensive and generally pretty tough to get into. Pretty much all your colleagues in these Quant Finance programs will be undergrad engineers with a small minority of hard sciences (like physics or math).
"You got some answers that essentially inform you that CEOs that have £200k written on their paysheet may in fact get much more. I'll take the opposite point of view and talk about people who (according to whatever definition) have a £200k/year income. How can they afford it Guess no 1: not all of them can (in the sense that it is quite possible to end up with negative net worth at £200k/year income - particularly if you immediately want to show off with brand new luxury cars, luxury holidays and a large house in a very representative region). Guess no 2: not all of the £200k/year CEOs are equally visible. There is a trade-off between going for wealth, large house, and luxury car. I deliberately ordered the three points according to increased display of ""wealth"". However, display of wealth usually comes at a cost (in a very monetary sense). And there are ways to get much display without having much wealth (see below: lease the car, also the mortgage on the house usually isn't displayed on the outside). You also need to take into account how long they are already building up wealth. I guess the typical CEO with £200k/year you're asking about did not just finish school and enter his work life in this position. It would be very interesting to see how income, accumulating wealth (and possibly ""displayed wealth"") correlate. My guess is that the correlation between income and accumulated wealth isn't that high, and the correlation between displayed and actual wealth is probably even lower. they possess luxury cars, large house and huge savings Are you sure these are the same managers? E.g. the ones with the huge savings are and the ones with the luxury cars? I'm asking particularly about the luxury cars, because such cars loose value very quickly and/or are often not owned by the driver but rather by the bank or leasing company. Which on the other hand offers the more savings-oriented CEO who is not that much interested in having a brand new luxury car the possibility to go for a one-year-old and save the rest. Knowing that, your CEO should be able to buy a one-year-old Mercedes SL 350 / year.
I think a lot of highly educated people fall victim to keeping up with the joneses. Not everyone that is in their same position comes from the same background. For example, a co-worker with an MBA from Vanderbilt may have no student loan debt because his lawyer/doctor parents paid for it, while another co-worker with an MBA from University of Phoenix may be getting crushed with loan repayments.  However, assuming that they both make the same salary, one will look to the other to set an example of what houses/cars/other things people in this salary range buy. Salary and social pressures sometimes outweigh financially sound decisions.
Hi I have a question about net worth value of rich people on those forbes lists. For example most of those rich people have high net worth because they are shareholders. Do they take into account that if they want to sell all their assets then actually they would receive much less in cash (as the stock price would drastically drop) or is it just the nominal net worth (i.e. the value of all their at the current price)
"The answer depends on this: If you had to hire someone to do what you are doing in the S-corp, what would you pay them?  If you are doing semi-unskilled work part-time, then $20k might be reasonable.  If you are a professional working full time, it's too low.  Don't forget that, in addition to ""billable"" work, you are also doing office tasks, such as invoicing and bookkeeping, that the IRS will also want to see you getting paid for. There was an important court ruling on this subject recently: Watson v. Commissioner.  Watson owned an S-Corp where he was the sole employee.  The S-Corp itself was a 25% owner in a very successful accounting firm that Watson worked through.  All of the revenue that Watson generated at the accounting firm was paid to the S-Corp, which then paid Watson through salary and distributions.  Watson was paying himself $24k a year in salary and taking over $175k a year in distributions.  For comparison, even first-year accountants at the firm were making more than $24k a year in salary.  The IRS determined that this salary amount was too low.  To determine an appropriate amount for Watson's salary, the IRS did a study of the salaries of peers in firms of the same size as the firm Watson was working with, taking into account that owners of firms earn a higher salary than non-owners.  The number that the IRS arrived at was $93k.  Watson was allowed to take the rest ($80k+ each year) as distributions. Again, this number was based on a study of the salaries of peers.  It was far short of the $200k+ that the S-Corp was pulling in from the accounting firm.  Clearly, Watson was paying himself far too low of a salary.  But even at this extreme example, where Watson's S-Corp was directly getting all of its revenue from one accounting firm in which Watson was an owner, the IRS still did not conclude that all of the revenue should have been salary and subject to payroll taxes. You should ask an accountant or attorney for advice.  They can help you determine an appropriate amount for your salary.  Don't be afraid of an audit, but make sure that you can defend your choices if you do get audited. If your choices are based on professional advice, that will help your case.  See these articles for more information:"
"My guess is that with the firm going down the tubes, the money was appropriated and quickly moved offshore to pay the bonuses.  It seems to always be about paying the all important bonuses with these people.  I think it's possible that something very bad happens if the bonuses aren't paid. I don't know what the Wall Street equivalent of ""knee capping"" is but it's probably like ""shunning in social settings"" or something."
"Thanks, but I'm concerned I don't have enough math/programming to do serious quant work. I could learn it for sure, but it'd take some time. So wherever I'd work for would have to be patient with me as I learn. Edit: by ""consulting firms"", are you talking about, e.g., McKinsey and BCG? I think I must be mistaken - could you offer 1 or 2 examples of such firms?"
&gt; According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles.  What are the names of those principles and where can I read more about them and how they apply to huge tech companies?  I'd like more than your word on something as huge as you are claiming. That all my stocks are holding way too much cash and are run by finance morons.
Hey. Currently in treasury. It's good in some ways and bad in others. Every role has it's pluses and minuses.  Some basic thoughts are that you get to see a lot of the company. You get a cursory view of what everyone is doing, all the time, but you don't really ever get in depth views of any one area. It's a role that makes it easy to jump around industries because every large company has a treasury department, but it limits the size of the company you can join because a lot of small companies won't have one or will just have a cash person and not an actual department. You get to look at bond and commercial paper markets, if that's interesting to you. You get a lot of interaction with higher ups because cash is hugely important. You're the first to know if the company is gonna go bankrupt. It's a good place to learn the business if you end up wanting to move, but it's a pretty specific skill set and carries a decent amount of responsibility. It's one of the only corporate finance roles that's closer to front office than mid or back office.  If you are just joining corporate treasury, you'll probably start out doing cash management and forecasting, maybe doing short term liquidity and investment activity. After that, you would move into bond stuff, pensions/401k management, corporate finance stuff as opposed to the cash desk. After that, you'd probably get to be involved in stuff like long term planning and M&amp;A activity, which is the real cool shit.   That's what came off the top of my head. Do you have any specific questions?
I've seen accounting majors in finance roles and finance majors in accounting roles, unless you're really interested in the tax side of things which you'll ultimately need enough credits to pass the CPA.   &gt;Which has better pay?  Sounds like you're ultimately interested in making bank, like the other dude said, get a good GPA, do a few worthwhile internships, and network your ass off.
Wheee . . .what fun . .these fucking bankers never learn and on the other side of the shit spectrum we have the Jolly octopus (AKA Goldman) with investors pulling out of their Rainbow unicorn fund.  I am watching you octopus and if you need [help vs the Octopus](http://www.investorclaims.com/Brokerage-Firms/Goldman-Sachs.aspx)
One more effect that's not yet been mentioned is that companies based in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, but which do most of their business overseas, will increase their earnings in AU$, since most of what they earn will be in foreign currencies. So their shares are likely to appreciate (in AU$).
I am a Systems Engineering major. I currently work at a prop trading firm trading fixed income.   I would emphasize your math skills, analytical thinking learned in engineering school, and express how much you are interested/experience in finance. It seems like you are on top of all that and if the job market wasn't so rough, I would say you sound like an ideal candidate and I feel like most finance jobs like people with engineering/math backgrounds as long as they are knowledgeable in finance.
The highest paid finance role is a hedge fund manager at a top fund - but that's like winning the lotto so here's the most pragmatic way to make a lot of money:  * First 2-3 years out of college: Investment Banking Analyst  * Next 2-3 years: Switch to the buyside (Private Equity)  You'll easily top $400k by the time you're 26-27.  If you're promoted to VP you are golden. Most get forced out after their associate stint and go to a top MBA program, after which you'd go back into PE or do the CFO route.  Not sure w/o a degree, to be honest.
Start reading up on what you want to do. Then decide how you are going to get there. CFA/CPA could only help you, same goes for an MBA. How much programming experience  do you have?   You have a P.h.D in Chemistry. Not too familiar with the field of chemistry, but I'm guessing that it is reasonably quantitative in nature. This demonstrates that you can be taught and can synthesize complex information. A lot of firms look for people like you who can think outside of the proverbial financial box. One to check out is D.E. Shaw. They hire people with obscure backgrounds to work in finance. I bet that most of the people that work there never studied any sort of finance prior to becoming employed there.   On another note, consulting may be an interesting may for you to go.   You could work in a field (bio/pharma) that requires industry knowledge. You'd be quite valuable to a Deloitte, McKinsey, or something of the like.   Best of luck!
Not that I doubt it would work for most companies to raise salaries (and cut hours), but it's hard to judge this without the massive publicity it got. Next company to do it won't be so fortunate, then the real metrics come in.