Brownsfan, Thanks for the reply. I think you're right. If I don't follow my heart on this one, I'll probably spend the rest of my career regretting it. Another positive, if the market maker gig doesn't work out as planned (i.e. doesn't offer the satisfaction I'm looking for), I may have the chance to explore other opportunities within the firm, but in a different department. Thanks again!
The biggest financial asset you have is your ability to earn a wage. Therefore, my advice would be follow the money and take the higher sallary, as %profits could be $0, and who knows how the firm will manipulate the books to make the profit come out whatever they want it to be. Besides, you can always trade on your own account. Look at how many musicians got scammed by record companies when they manipulated the numbers to make the profit almost non-existant. A smaller percent of the gross would be better. Having said that, until the advisors make you an offer for $70,000, don't believe them, they are salesmen.
Bad advice. Take the market maker assistant position, people would kill for those jobs. It's easy money, well, at least for some who know what's up. Financial advisor is nothing more than salesman in a very competitive played out industry. That 65-80k a year means nothing if you can't perform, cause you will be out of the door if you do not meet your quota. And it's very likely you will not meet your quota. The other position is a lot easier to succeed in. Has little to do with any trading skill you may think you have (which you probably do not). It's just an advantageous position. It's like being hired for a Sales & Trading desk in a bulge bracket firm, kinda hard not to do ok to good, unless you are retarded.
I agree with Hydro. What panzer said is terrible advice. It actually sounds like the advice my mom's husband, a very conservative accountant, told me before becoming a broker. When I left, I was making more money per month than he was, yet it was a bad decision. Assuming cal is younger since he's just graduating, right now the key is experience in a field that you want to be in. Cal has the option of being labeled as a salesman or a serious market maker. Big difference in the long run, esp if he wants to be in the trading biz. Right now the slate is clean for Cal in terms of being labeled as something should he have to pursue another career. If you like sales, being a broker is great. If you like trading, the obvious choice here is to NOT be a broker given the options that Cal has in front of him.
It's only terrible advice if he has no interest in sales. But then again, if he didn't, why would he even bother to ask other people's opinion about the two choices? I personally wouldn't go back into sales at any price. The most important thing is to be skeptical, and don't believe either firm about what they say could "possibly" be made. Being a market maker is not a license to print money and a sure road to easy street, but it may be a good start.
yes. If you do like sales, be a salesman. It would be rare to go to trading from being a broker. at least in my case. I have done both. If you like trading, go the trading route. If you can make money in and out, becoming a broker will be easy if you can make sales. At least you can make money for your clients and keep them. Where will you learn most? that would be the question. I would rather service institutional accounts personaly. HNW guys that do not trade markets for a living are douchbags for the most part. Not that you will never have a corny manager who blames his firms blowups on you, but that is the nature of doing business in this business. That being said, I know personaly brokers with small firms dealing with large accounts that pay 25-50x more to trade with them at a smaller firm then pay 1-5c/share dealing with larger firms. I have seen many do 500-800k within a month, while 95% of the others struggle to do 5k. In trading it is very rare to do anywhere near 500k unless you are playing with 10s of millions. The brokers I have mentioned know didly about the market and follow IBD(which is a joke IMO). If I were you market maker would look better, especially if you are dealing with size, rather than 'financial advisor' with 'noload mutuals' IRAs 403bs, annuities and all of that other corny shit that they have you conservatively pushing. In the end 'long only' loses hand over fist, and believe me as an advisor you will be long to death, trust me. If you are single, get yourself a $500 room, save that money, learn to maneuver the markets, milk the market making firm, ask tons of questions, take good bets, look good, make your firm happy, become best friends with your bosses. Then after two years of flourishing pnl(if you can do it), get a hedge fund directory, find firms that can use your particular bias, and pitch them you so called salesman. Pitch them, on why they need you and can use you. 80-100k plus bonus should be small to attain. Within three years your base requirements should double should your pnl match your reuqirements.
One of your offers was a polite decline, made to you with the understanding that you would not take it.
That's an interesting viewpoint, Jack, that companies will offer an individual a job just to be polite. Fortunately, courtesy is not one of my strong suits.