投行人士的随机游走

WSJ亚洲版上星期统计了香港banker的跳槽路径，密密麻麻交织在一起的网络，说明现今各大投行的同质化有多么严重，而employer loyalty又是何等的缺失。企业文化到了我们这一代似乎又呈现出两级分化的趋势，过去没什么文化可谈的汽车业食品业开始大张旗鼓地搞文化建设，而传统的Yankee或者犹太投行却逐渐走下神坛。全球化给跨国企业带来的多元化，开始总能给企业带来令人振奋的新鲜感，似乎固有的企业文化总能通过这个过程得到净化升华，到达一个新的境界，但如果所有的企业都在全球化，那最后就只能收敛到同一个极点。
作者的经历就是在讲这样一个故事：从航空公司被挖角到传说中最排外最忠诚的高盛，又从高盛跳槽到与之“不共戴天”的大摩，又因为互联网泡沫和人士危机而下定决心离开大摩。

书写得比较科普，不光讲了IBD业务“是什么”，还把更多的篇幅花在了讲“为什么”上，从banker最痛恨的pitch讲到GS和MS IBD不同的组织架构（GS IBD中有专门的senior banker组成cover team来维持客户关系，而在MS中banker都在自己的行业组内部进行cover工作）这样的问题作者都会详尽分析两者的利弊优劣，让读者对IBD有一个全局观。

书本最后对2000年前后投行的感想也是一大亮点，的确传统的relationship banking似乎已经彻底在美国领土上消失，投行间竞争越来越多变成了费率高低的争夺战，一家投行如何能把自己differentiate出来？联想到CICC，现在走的似乎是Sydney Weinberg时期的高盛老路，朱XX走了之后它将何去何从？

国内高校最优秀的金融学学生对几大行的排序往往是：外行HK>合资券商>CICC,BOCI,CITIC>内资券商，可大家去了外行HK大都被分到China team，做着一些低级的cover team的工作，真正能掌握上市技术甚至产品技术的能有多少？咱们牛逼闪闪的天之骄子们就这样无端端沦落了，最郁闷的是，cover team和高层的关系又有多少牢靠，到时东窗事发，连一个后路都没给自己留下。

扯远了，关于why IBD这个百问不厌的经典问题，作者也给出了大段的成熟作答，可以记下来作为面试时的经典答案（但是如果所有问题都答的太经典也不行，面官就无法看清最真实的你了）。
”it was the ability to have access to and influence decision makers that had kept me in investment banking so long. Although these bleak years had certainly not been much fun at times, I came to the rather startling conclusion that by this standard, investment banking is about the best job in the world… CEOs are probably the most important decision makers in contemporary society… Their impact not only on employees but on the economy around them can be more significant than most policy pronouncements from Washington… Short of becoming a decision maker myself, there was no other job out there that provided either the kid of access or the ability to influence that this one did. If directly influencing decision makers on matters of significance is a role you are looking to play, there is no comparable plat form to that of investment banking.
There is still something uniquely fulfilling about helping a CEO plot a company’s strategic course and executing the plan. Whether it involves a recapitalization, a sale of a division, a merger, or, sometimes, just doing nothing, giving good independent advice to boards and senior executives in a great gig.”

Morgan Stanley’s strength
“What had attracted me in the first place was the latitude it gave its independent industry groups to pursue their businesses as they saw fit. As long as things were going well enough, the group leadership was free to make internal strategic, personnel, and bonus decisions without excessive interference.”