What are people's thoughts on working as an "Investment Professional" for either of these two firms? Is it a significant advantage to be aligned with a firm that is known as being primarily institutionally focused, particularly when trying to win ultra high net work clients?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Are they trying to recruit you? Ivy league MBA's, top of class firms, the elite of the elite. I doubt anyone here can provide any 'inside' insight to you question though.
If you even qualify to work at these firms I would assume that it doesn't get any better from an elephant hunting standpoint. My understanding is that it's $5 million minimums for Lehman and $10 million minimums for Goldman.
Goldman is a great firm with a great foundation and program. Most
of the "brokers" on these boards dont know anything about these guys
because they are too busy trying to get grandma's 401k rollover.
Goldman slashed their pay a while back and lost a bunch of their top
teams. Lehman and Goldman are great firms and if you have a
chance, you should go work for them.
Thanks or the responses. I'm at a top b-school now and am spending my summer on an institutional high yield desk (working in sales). I just feel as though my skill sets may be better suited for a PWM position. Working on a trading floor seems like a 10 to 15 year sprint where people make a lot of money, but burn out young. Guys over 40 are like dinosaurs here. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
If you can survive the first 5 years in a pwm role, it seems like a much better long term play especially at a place like Goldman. Thoughts?
Look, Goldman is the king of the hill. What more needs to be said? They mint millionaires there and if you can hang then by all means go for it. I doubt anyone here works there or can be of much use in giving you a current prospective on what it's like to be a broker there. If you get in though, you gotta let us in on what it's like. I'm certainly curious.