terp06 wrote:
ryguy904 wrote:
terp06 wrote:
I think the % to look closer at is the number that goes into the "Corporate Finance/M&A" function, rather than the I-Banking industry in general.
I disagree. As far as CBS stats, yes more people go into the m&a types of roles, but still ~1/3 of people that went into i-banking go the S&T route. Plus, they are very different career paths and job duties, so it's not like somebody would likely say, I'll just go the M&A route instead. More likely they will choose a different career route (MC, General management, etc.). With S&T jobs making up about 10% of the post grad jobs at CBS, that's almost 70 jobs. Let's assume that S&T jobs get cut back 25% (this is "optimistic" since trading volumes are down up MUCH more than this). That would leave 17 potential Columbia folks looking for jobs. Add in the same % cuts at Chi/H/S/Wharton/Kellogg, etc., and you will have a much more competitive i-banking class. Additionally, the alternative jobs that these people end up taking will lead to more competition in other areas (MC, etc.)
There is no doubt that S&T has been significantly impacted. Simply look at the fixed income trading revenues at any of the banks. Heck, look at the trading revenues in general. The housing market has crushed exotics such as CDO's, CLO's, CMO's, and even basic fixed income vehicles (MBS). I'm not sure if you follow the stats, but the volumes are barely existent for MBS and literally none of the exotics are even trading. Seriously, I read a Bloomberg article about a month ago talking about how a structured RMBS deal was finally closed in Australia this year. They were talking about Australia because no deals been closed in the US all year! Additionally, you need to look at hedge funds performance, because they are huge customers of the broker-dealer business. Poor performance and redemptions are shutting down funds and curtailing some strategies. Don't believe me?
https://hf-implode.com/As far as the m&a jobs, I think it's pretty straightforward what's going on.
I noticed that you mentioned in your last post that M&A jobs will be tough to come by for the classes of 2010 and 2011. How did you come to this conclusion?
In the last recession, the Dow Jones Industrial Average started taking a slide around March of 2002, bottomed out at around September of 2002, and started recovering beginning in March of 2003. Jobs were difficult to come by for the classes of 2002 and 2003, but the class of 2004 seemed to show a decent recovery and the class of 2005 a more significant recovery. Assuming that this downturn began in January/February of 2008, bottoms out this Fall, and starts on the road to recovery in March of 2009, wouldn't we expect the Class of 2010 to show a decent recovery (like the class of 2004), and the Class of 2011 to be back in full swing (like the class of 2005)?
Also M&A placements seemed to stay relatively stable throughout 2002-2005. Approximately 16-19% of the class went into Corp Fin/M&A. These are huge numbers - no matter how you dice it, by the way. 16% of a class of 711 is 114 people becoming M&A bankers in a recession year. I would venture to guess that at least 10% of them were career switchers (of varying degrees).
Lastly, as far as M&A, I would think the timing of the class of 2003 or 2004 would have been impeccable. If you graduated in 2006, for example, you would barely be a 2nd year associate right now who has seen 1 good bonus year. If you graduated in 2003, you would be a 2nd year VP and you would have seen 4 good bonus years at higher ranks.
Last recession was totally different that the current market dislocation. Last time, tech stocks got hammered and basically gave back gains that were not a part of the economy before the boom. For example, what was the market value of Yahoo, Ebay & Amazon before the tech boom? Even after they gave back a huge chunk of their run-up, they were still a bigger part of the economy than they were before the boom (let's just say essentially nothing). Even the internet firms that disappeared altogether didn't have that much of an impact because it was all new and recent growth.
With the current market dislocation, financials are taking the worst beating. These were real companies with real earnings that have lost 50, 70, 80% of their market value. These were Fortune 500 (including Fortune 50s like Citi, Bofa, ML, Lehman, MS) that have lost 50% or more of their value). I believe its a much different phenomenon than the tech bubble, where essentially companies that never existed before came and then then vanished, leaving behind a few giants. And we can argue all day about whether technology or finance is more important to a growing economy (both are critical), but I know for a fact that many companies are able to put of technology expenditures when things are bad; but when market dislocation impacts finance as it has, everything ranging from the individual consumer borrowing money to the biggest corporation will grind to a halt. Thinking about buying getting a home loan? You better have pretty near perfect credit and an impeccable balance sheet. Want to syndicate 10 billion dollars of loans on your books? Sorry, even people that want to buy can't get the money.
Another huge difference between today and 2003-2005 is that the tech crash had something to fall back on - the rise of mortgage securities (already on the rise for years, but really taking off) and other asset backed securities. Again, this is a difference between a tech crash and a financial system crash. Last time around, even as the stock market tanked, money was put to work in the form of mortgage lending & securitizations. One might argue whether that all led to the current crisis, but in many respects, banking was booming during that period. This time around, it's hard to see which sector will help keep the economy afloat - even energy and commodities are no picnic because of how they impact individuals and businesses.
Which leads us to the final an most obvious difference - this time the banks are taking the brunt of the blow. Does a bank have to lay people off or reduce hiring if their client tech companies go belly up? To an extent, but, as mentioned above, banks had other businesses where they could deploy their people. Now fast-forward and ask a new question; does a bank have to lay people off or reduce hiring if it's own solvency is at stake? Well, that's a much more pointed question. Last time around, it probably sucked a lot if you were looking for a job as a web developer; this time, the suckiness is aimed squarely at the banks. Tough times, especially if market conditions persist.
close
14 Jul 2008, 15:52
I expect the numbers will be just as bad (as 2003), if not worse for Class of 2010 and 2011 for those trying to go into banking. Just using the trading that my company does (not an i-bank, though), S&T jobs will be reduced dramatically. The fixed income folks (in particular BSC and LEH) and hedge funds have been slaughtered, and the trading volume is microscopic, even compared to the recessionary period of 2001. The M&A and IPO markets are all but dead except for the energy and materials sectors. With that said, I'd rather be at Columbia than Wharton if I were trying to go into i-banking. The NYC advantage and the CBS presence on Wall Street cannot be overstated enough. 
