Quote from phenomena:
I have a cousin who has been with Shaw for nearly a decade, you don't entirely know what you are takling about. Also, I-bank "traders" are flow traders, not "traders" like people who come to this mssg board, the only way they can end up taking discretionary positions is by being a good worker bee on the flow desk for a very long time...generally speaking, then the real trading tends to get worked in with the flow trading.
You seem to have difficulty with understanding my answer to another person's post, so allow me to walk you through the steps.
Firstly, to get into D E Shaw you would generally need out-standing Ivy League credentials (FACT!!) and so if you sucked at trading then you would be more than likely to get a job elsewhere doing something new. After all the thread WAS supposed to be about life after trading and the affect that prop trading would have on your CV, would it kill your chances. A person good enough to get into D E Shaw would typically have a lot of choices pre and post DE Shaw is all I was saying. And they do teach a lot at D E Shaw which is the reason that they can afford to be selective. You CLAIM your cousin worked there for nearly a decade, if true then why stay that long unless it was a great place.
Secondly I highlighted the fact that NOT everyone could get into an IB even if they were Ivy league, as was implied, I pointed out the vast number of usually top level Ivy League candidates relative to the tiny handful of places. YOU INVENTED the idea that all were great traders, I never said that YOU DID by countering an argument that you yourself made up. I just made the point that MOST people who want to get into an IB to trade even if they have great credentials DON'T succeed and so are faced with attempting to get into an IB doing something NON-TRADING or trade at a PROP-SHOP, which disputed that ONLY idiots worked at prop shops. As I said earlier NOT all prop traders are morons, some are sure, but in equal measure are guys who were just not picked to trade at IBs. I know loads of graduates who left prestigious IBs where they had good jobs with prospects in areas like IT, Operations and EVEN Sales. They gave up such jobs due to their desire to trade and the realization that they would never trade doing what they did for whichever IB they worked for. The choice WAS simple; leave or DON'T trade and so they left.
You need to learn to read properly, as to just leap into presumption makes you look stupid. Had you taken the time to read my post then you wouldn't have needed to reply. I never called I-Bank traders great traders, and MANY do trade off of customer flow sure, where did I even talk about that until you brought the topic up; oh maybe it was the voices in your head talking.
The fact is that former I-Bank traders are more likely to secure work in other areas after trading because Joe-Public respects names like Goldmans, UBS etc. They may be shit and the prop trader may have been awesome, but the public is fixed in its prejudices and they think that IBs are for the gifted and so their former employees are more marketable regardless of skill. Prop shops are usually misunderstood and so will be treated with suspicion naturally. People trust RESPECTED names (falsely perhaps) and they trust what they think they know to be true.
What you forget is the name of the thread. The post was about life after trading and I think that my post is clear in explaining the difficulties faced by former prop guys regardless of how good or bad they were, relative to guys who were at IBs.
I bet that if you met two guys one from Harvard and one from a local State Uni., that you would automatically assume that the Harvard guy was smarter. In reality the Harvard graduate may have scraped a pass by the skin of his teeth and the other nondescript kid may have excelled to the point that he was offered a sponsored Ph.D. place at every Ivy league in the country. But the fact is that presumption as to who went where is all that would have mattered to the average know nothing who draws conclusions without facts, proof or even thinking.