Been trying for a year, CANNOT get an offer

[bchadwick]

Black Swan wrote:

bchadwick wrote:

Black Swan wrote:
When you read the Warfighting manual (intended for marine officers) you have points it is expressely stated that no technology should ever be implilmeneted and has no role in the marine corp where it limits an officers autonomity to act by reducing his responsibility by overstepping surveilance through the chain of command. I found this dumbfounding, because in an organization known for it’s rigid control (from the outside) you have a completly different picture from within where they truly get leadership and responsibility (in theory). They also go on to elaborate that mistakes when leading will happen, but should be encouraged as leadership entails risk. You never see these concepts in the private sector despite an overall lower level of real risk. And this is what has died with the advent of technology.

I wasn’t dumbfounded, but I was impressed. However, one does have to keep in mind that the real organization may not behave as much the way the books say it should (like markets).
But I liked the explicit idea that someone who took action, even if it turned out badly was considered better than someone who sat there because they were waiting for orders.
They also said that one could decide to sit and wait pending more information, but that that had to be an active decision to gather specfic information or have some kind of trigger point for action, rather than passively hoping to have more come in.

It’s interesting, but again, just feel like the broader point I was making was entirely missed.

Ok, it is surprising that the marines would explicitly refuse an otherwise-powerful technology because it would constrain the junior officer’s ability to make autonomous decisions. (That was your point, yes, along with how it doesn’t jive with our stereotype of the Marines).
If I may, I would like to add the observation that the fact that the Army and the Navy are potentially open to such technologies may make it easier for the Marine corps to take a harder line on this, because it does mean that at least some branch of the armed services can deploy an effective technology that otherwise conflicts with the marines’ policy.
I am aware that this was not the point of your last paragraph, but I humbly submit it for your consideration as a potentially interesting idea.

 

[tyler4040]

You guys are the most pessimistic people I have ever seen lol. What’s humurous is how EVERY one has this mindset. Isn’t the most obvious sign of a bubble when the consenus view is heavily tilted towards one particular outcome? Comparing us to Japan, Greece, Zimbabwe, et cetera is ridiculous. The dynamics are totally different. Although the financial sector is shrinking, AM will no doubt grow. IBD positions have been cutting back and so has other “finance” jobs that no one on this board would be interested in. Baby boomers will eventually retire, the outsourcing of jobs is beginning to be phased out and new technologies in energy and healthcare could be a boom for our economy. Things could be bad for another few years, but the prediction of a lost generation is just foolish.

 

[bchadwick]

Black Swan wrote:

bchadwick wrote:
Calm, calm, my a-little-too-sensitive friend. I’m not contradicting your points, I’m adding more context around them.
And my slippery slope of a slippery slope, was just a play on words for amusement, not a bashing of your thinking.

The first post was attempting to argue against legalistic thinking as a root cause, but I thought somehow differentiating case law from legislature was an empty point to make and didn’t detract from the initial statement.

Ok, I will abstain from commenting more on this, as I am unsure if it will directly address what you want my comment to be.

 

[thefork]

lockheed10023 wrote:
I’m in my 6 month of unemployment. Similar age range. Similar credentials. And I could see this unemployment going over a year easily.
With less than three months to go with the Level II exam, I started slowing down the job search pace.
If you already did ER associate Pre-MBA, there’s no way they’ll consider you now unless the economy and ‘industry’ was growing in a real sense. Which neither really is.
I get a lot of these job descriptions constantly emailed to me by bots, and my eyes just glaze over. I’m pretty sure I missed the train at this point. I was much more marketable in my 20’s with nothing but a good undergrad.
I wouldn’t say, give up flat out, but a battle of ‘attrition’ is not the best approach currently.
So many wasted cover letters/resumes or bullsh–t networking opportunities which were detrimental, because I could have been doing more productive things. Over 99% no response rate, more like .0001 response rate.
No silver lining here. All I can say is, be frugal, and try to find other sources of income until there’s an actual valid expansion in the economy.

I too feel like, “I have missed the train.” All these years of training and study and work, and I “missed” my window, and I can’t get considered for more senior postiions becuase I don’t have “enough” experience, but I am too overqualified for lower level positions that I am MORE than willing to take. I see firms hire younger cheaper people b/c they just don’t believe that I would stay, be happy, work as hard, who knows. I have had 3 hiring managers straightup say to my face they want someone in their 20s for these jobs. I am so sick of sending out Linkedin emails, cold calling people, going to lunches, networking out the wazoo, with NOT one offer in the last year. Regarding geographic mobility…most finance firms won’t even consider you anymore if relocation is needed even if you specify you will handle all relo costs yourself. Companies care much more about cost of an employee b/c so many finance jobs have become so interchangeable that monkeys could do them. I am fine with taking a pay cut but the companies just don’t believe I would be happy with a paycut.
The whole situation is extremely depressing to me. I am fine with money b/c my wife does very very well, but after doing this for a year and having nothing to show for it, it is seriously hurting my ego, self image, and ability to keep studying for Level 2, because I am wondering if being a L3 candidate will seriously make a difference at all.

 

[iheartiheartmath]

thefork wrote:
I am too overqualified for lower level positions that I am MORE than willing to take. I see firms hire younger cheaper people b/c they just don’t believe that I would stay, be happy, work as hard, who knows. I have had 3 hiring managers straightup say to my face they want someone in their 20s for these jobs.

Let me ask you this - would you be willing to work indefinitely at a low level job for a fraction of the money you were making at your previous job while reporting to someone 10 years younger than you who is a pain in the @ss because, well, that’s how they got to be in that position at such a young age anyway? Or would you leave the minute you found a more senior level, higher paying job?
When I was looking to hire a junior analyst to work for me, I needed someone to do my grunt work so I could focus on making investment decisions. That relationship will never change - I will always need someone to do the grunt work and cannot hire someone who wants to take over my job within a few months. If I plan to stay at the same firm for 10 years, I will need a junior analyst for 10 years, and I don’t want to have to keep hiring a new one every few months.

 

[thefork]

iheartiheartmath wrote:

thefork wrote:
I am too overqualified for lower level positions that I am MORE than willing to take. I see firms hire younger cheaper people b/c they just don’t believe that I would stay, be happy, work as hard, who knows. I have had 3 hiring managers straightup say to my face they want someone in their 20s for these jobs.

Let me ask you this - would you be willing to work indefinitely at a low level job for a fraction of the money you were making at your previous job while reporting to someone 10 years younger than you who is a pain in the @ss because, well, that’s how they got to be in that position at such a young age anyway? Or would you leave the minute you found a more senior level, higher paying job?
When I was looking to hire a junior analyst to work for me, I needed someone to do my grunt work so I could focus on making investment decisions. That relationship will never change - I will always need someone to do the grunt work and cannot hire someone who wants to take over my job within a few months. If I plan to stay at the same firm for 10 years, I will need a junior analyst for 10 years, and I don’t want to have to keep hiring a new one every few months.

I realize that is the scenario that confronts me, and I am also aware of the egos involved in finance. I don’t mind doing the grunt work and taking Cr*p from people, because I have become used to it, it doesn’t bother me anymore. Regarding longevity, I don’t know many people that have ever stayed in a position for 10 years in finance, it is more of a mercenary type industry, but I can tell you this, I wouldn’t take the job and keep looking. I would settle down for a minimum of 4 years and bust my Azz.
Having said all this, your contention is what is holding me back from getting a position, because your thesis is really consensus in finance regarding age and hiring. I wouldn’t have left it when I did if I knew how hard it would be to get back in, but I cannot modify that decision at this point. I will probably try for another 6 months before I “throw in the towel” Motivation for L2 study is becoming hard to muster when it is becoming more and more clear that I will never get back into finance.

 

[1BigStudMuffin]

bro, why dont you go buyside? Forget that grunt work you would have to put up with. Network like a baws and you gots this maan

 

[lockheed10023]

Hmm. One thing I’m glad about is that I’m past the phase where I think getting the CFA will help in regards to employment, same with the MBA. It’s now just a feather in my cap, nothing else.
When I see Nonfarm Payrolls at +236k a month, I just know that I’m marginally if not all together no longer part of the labor force.
Just gotta eat what I kill to make a living now.

 

[thefork]

1BigStudMuffin wrote:
bro, why dont you go buyside? Forget that grunt work you would have to put up with. Network like a baws and you gots this maan

i may be wrong but I think buy side jobs are harder to get than sell side. Am I wrong?

 

[former trader]

No you’re not. Both buysiders and sellsiders try to go to the buyside. No sane buysider will voluntarily go to the sellside.

 

[iteracom]

Yea, he didn’t know what he’s talking about. buyside is way harder to break into