Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey Shows

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by seibelj on Sunday March 21, 2021 @10:22AM (#26530665)

Elite professional services businesses like investment banking, law, and management consulting have crazy hours and terrible conditions. But they all are in service to clients who actually pay the bills! The solution is to go work for the clients. Way more fun, interesting, and remunerating to be the shot caller at a corporation than the vendor providing a service.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by unlimit on Sunday March 21, 2021 @11:27AM (#26531138)

Absolutely. This is true for any professional service business not only limited to the elite. If you work for a company that works for a client then you are basically working two jobs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by junippor on Sunday March 21, 2021 @11:51AM (#26531303)

Yes, but... those jobs are even harder to get into than investment banking :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by seibelj on Sunday March 21, 2021 @12:07PM (#26531419)

There are far more corporations requiring investment banking services than there are investment bankers. Otherwise there wouldn’t be enough clients to support a specialized firm.

The other thing is cutting your teeth and rising up in corps isn’t as bad as the banking / law track. Really don’t see why you would go the services track. Won’t encourage my children to go that way if they want to make a career doing private sector business things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by junippor on Sunday March 21, 2021 @12:16PM (#26531481)

For the question "why would anyone want to work at GS as opposed to their clients", it's not a matter of the number of corporations, it's about the number of good roles.

A very large, say property developer, might hire GS for its fundraising needs, but a GS grad wouldn't want to work laying bricks. He might want to work as CFO or someone very close to the CFO, but those roles are much harder to get than working as grad for GS.

So it's not just about what the grad wants, it's also about what he can get.

This shouldn't be controversial. Anyone who's been in the industry knows that people move "up" from IB to their clients. Of course everyone wants that, but again such roles are harder to get than IB.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by tomatocracy on Sunday March 21, 2021 @01:58PM (#26532399)

It's not that those roles are much harder to get as such. It's that the most effective way to get those roles is to work at GS (or an equivalent) first.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by Latour on Sunday March 21, 2021 @02:24PM (#26532613)

What's the difference between hardness and effectiveness in this context?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Working at Goldman Sachs Suuuucks, Leaked Internal Survey... by tomatocracy on Sunday March 21, 2021 @06:07PM (#26534587)

There are quite a few other routes in to these roles (start as a graduate, lateral hire from consulting/industry, internal moves, etc) and I don't think they really see stiffer competition or higher calibre candidates than you'd see for a front office role at GS or another bulge bracket IB.

However if you start at GS/another IB then you get plugged into a network where you see a lot more of these opportunities without having to go out to look for them as much. It's partially a numbers game so the more opportunities you see the better the chance of landing one.

[ Parent | on HN ]