Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hipsters do not power gentrification. They are attracted to gentrification after it takes place. They do not contribute anything to the improvement of a neighborhood. It is what is left of the upper middle class that gentrify a hood. I see them all the time...Young couples with a dog a child and sometimes a nanny. These are the people buying property in atmospheric areas...Hipsters show up later with their tight little jeans and horned rimmed glasses. I have never seen a hipster with a wife and child.
People who wear tight little jeans and horned rimmed glasses have families. You're confusing popular fashion with the so called "true" definition of a hipster. I know several people that would be called "hipsters" based on the way they dress but I can assure you, they hold down some pretty impressive positions at companies like Google.
Basically, they're getting rid of the lower level pople so the upper level people can earn even more money. Those executives are not cutting their own salaries.
And having a few executive who can originate deals has huge impacts on other industries, particularly when those other companies need financing in order to grow. All companies and industries deal with financial services on multiple levels.
Saying that rainmakers are not cutting their salaries (many of them are actually) is missing the point though. Even if there are those who are not cutting pay, headcount is still shrinking and there's no denying that. Sure, deals are being made in NYC but what is there to be proud about if fewer and fewer people can partake in it? It's not something you can count on to drive an economy like NYC nor would the city want to be known as the capital of something that's waning.
Also it's an exaggeration to say that "all companies and industries deal with financial services". If anything, there is far less need for financial services today since companies can manage their liquidity needs in-house. Cash balances are higher than ever and working capital management has become more efficient. Companies are less reliant on capital markets for financing.
Saying that rainmakers are not cutting their salaries (many of them are actually) is missing the point though. Even if there are those who are not cutting pay, headcount is still shrinking and there's no denying that. It's not something you can count on to drive an economy like NYC. Also it's an exaggeration to say that "all companies and industries deal with financial services". If anything, there is far less need for financial services today since companies can manage their liquidity needs in-house. Cash balances are higher than ever and working capital management has become more efficient.
Oh, where did I deny headcount cuts happened? I specifically spoke about some of the megamergers that happened after the financial collapse in 2008, and that's not counting the effect from the mergers (and subsequent cuts) that happened during the late 90s.
You obviously have an ax to grind with financial services, but whatever, those executives are not making less money, and the fees for financial services are not going down. All big companies have at least some needs for financial services.
Any major business will have multiple forms of insurance. That's a financial service. Any major company will have multiple corporate accounts. That's a financial service. Checks are drawn from funds that are in some bank, and accounts receivable are deposited in you guessed it, a bank account.
As for funding needs, publically traded companies trade on the stock markets. Who sells their stock? You guessed it, the financial services industry. Big companies issue bonds to raise capital. Who sells or trades their debts? You guessed it, the financial services industry.
Everything is done with financial services and banking. If the company offers employees benefits, those are financial services as well. 401k plans are typically administered by some investment bank. Pension funds invest their money in the bond and stock markets, among other things. And of course, having benefits like health insurance, dental insurance, long term care insurance, life insurance are all services underwritten by insurance companies.
They may have cut their lower level employees, but as fees for financial services, including insurance, aren't getting any cheaper, all that means is certain executives are getting more money than ever. I seriously doubt Jamie Dimon has a big drop in living standards.
Oh, where did I deny headcount cuts happened? I specifically spoke about some of the megamergers that happened after the financial collapse in 2008, and that's not counting the effect from the mergers (and subsequent cuts) that happened during the late 90s.
You obviously have an ax to grind with financial services, but whatever, those executives are not making less money, and the fees for financial services are not going down. All big companies have at least some needs for financial services.
And therefore, the industry is indeed shrinking and there is no use asserting that "New York is the world's financial capital" (your words). Being the capital of a waning sector is nothing to be proud about. That's the whole point. You do not deny it but you keep parroting statements that are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
Any major business will have multiple forms of insurance. That's a financial service. Any major company will have multiple corporate accounts. That's a financial service. Checks are drawn from funds that are in some bank, and accounts receivable are deposited in you guessed it, a bank account.
As for funding needs, publically traded companies trade on the stock markets. Who sells their stock? You guessed it, the financial services industry. Big companies issue bonds to raise capital. Who sells or trades their debts? You guessed it, the financial services industry.
Everything is done with financial services and banking. If the company offers employees benefits, those are financial services as well. 401k plans are typically administered by some investment bank. Pension funds invest their money in the bond and stock markets, among other things. And of course, having benefits like health insurance, dental insurance, long term care insurance, life insurance are all services underwritten by insurance companies.
They may have cut their lower level employees, but as fees for financial services, including insurance, aren't getting any cheaper, all that means is certain executives are getting more money than ever. I seriously doubt Jamie Dimon has a big drop in living standards.
Again , totally irrelevant in the bigger context and shows little understanding of financial services.
401Ks, pension managers and insurance monies are concentrating on a few big players, many of whom are not even based in NYC.
Corporations have far less need for stocks and bonds today because their liquidity positions are better. Just look at Walmart's and Apple's balance sheets. They are giving away cash.
If anything, you're talking about a shrinking pie. Not something that would elicit the fascination of young ambitious types who want to make a mark in business. They will expect much more than just something that isn't dead but still claims its capital to be NYC.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 04-11-2013 at 11:59 AM..
And therefore, the industry is indeed shrinking and there is no use asserting that "New York is the world's financial capital" (your words). Being the capital of a waning sector is nothing to be proud about. That's the whole point. You do not deny it but you keep parroting statements that are irrelevant.
Again , totally irrelevant in the bigger context and shows little understanding of financial services.
401Ks, pension managers and insurance monies are concentrating on a few big players, many of whom are not even based in NYC.
Corporations have far less need for stocks and bonds today because their liquidity positions are better. Just look at Walmart's and Apple's balance sheets. They are giving away cash.
If anything, you're talking about a shrinking pie. Not something that would elicit the fascination of young ambitious types who want to make a mark in business. They will expect much more than just something that isn't dead but still claims its capital to be NYC.
The debt markets are really what make the world go around, as everything is ultimately based upon debt. And for that you deal with BANKS.
New York City would not be seeing growth in these other industries Bloomberg has been attracting if it weren't for NYC's banks.
Come to think about it, I'm sure many of Apple's products are purchased with debt, including credit cards (who walks around with 1500 in cash to to the store to buy a Macbook?) ITunes songs have to be purchased electronically, which involves cards with the Mastercard, VISA, American Express, or Discover Card Logo). So all of Apple's major products are purchased with banking sector aid.
Did you bother to look at Walmart's 10K first? Walmart's total debt balances are going down. WMT debt is down by almost $6 billion in their latest fiscal year.
Like I said, you parrot individual instances of debt transactions but in the bigger context, debt is playing a smaller role.
It's a shrinking pie when you boil it down to what matters.
Did you bother to look at Walmart's 10K first? Walmart's total debt balances are going down. WMT debt is down by almost $6 billion in their latest fiscal year.
Like I said, you parrot individual instances of debt transactions but in the bigger context, debt is playing a smaller role.
It's a shrinking pie when you boil it down to what matters.
Its actually, not shrinking. Apple is purchasing debt as an investment. That means though Apple isn't in debt, its effectively acting to finance the markets by investing in debt.
As for Walmart, companies debt balances go up and down all the time. Big deal. WalMart isn't departing the debt markets, and certainly hasn't.
That contradicted what you claimed, which is that WalMart and Apple has no involvement in the debt markets. Both do. Period.
Its actually, not shrinking. Apple is purchasing debt as an investment. That means though Apple isn't in debt, its effectively acting to finance the markets by investing in debt.
As for Walmart, companies debt balances go up and down all the time. Big deal. WalMart isn't departing the debt markets, and certainly hasn't.
That contradicted what you claimed, which is that WalMart and Apple has no involvement in the debt markets. Both do. Period.
Your last paragraph is a lie. I did not say that Walmart and Apple "have no involvement in debt". Is lying now your rebuttal stategy?
Your second paragraph makes no sense. Walmart is clearly on a downward debt trajectory. As I stated, Walmert's debt is shrinking and not something that goes "up and down all the time". Apparently you did not analyze the company's financials before you posted.
Your first paragraph is pointless and again demonstrates little understanding of financial markets. What drives employment in wall street is the issuance of securities. Not the investment of companies in securities. Less new debt issued means less deals for underwriters to underwrite and therefore less jobs.
And please, Apple is investing in TREASURIES. How much more boring an investment strategy can that be?
Dude, when you get busted, you change your story big time. You claimed that WalMart had absolutely no debt, so that investment banks were not important.
That is factually not true. Walmart still has considerable debt, and therefore is heavily involved in the debt markets. Apple, by purchasing treasuries (underwritten by banks) is HEAVILY involved in the debt markets and it is irrelevant if that is BORING.
You were wrong, and you said something that was proven wrong, plain and simple.
Dude, when you get busted, you change your story big time. You claimed that WalMart had absolutely no debt, so that investment banks were not important.
Changing my story? Can you back this up with solid proof? Please quote where I allegedly said that "Walmart had absolutely no debt".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
That is factually not true. Walmart still has considerable debt, and therefore is heavily involved in the debt markets. Apple, by purchasing treasuries (underwritten by banks) is HEAVILY involved in the debt markets and it is irrelevant if that is BORING.
You were wrong, and you said something that was proven wrong, plain and simple.
Walmart - I believe I used the word "shrinking" too many times for you to miss that one. There is no point in you repeating that Walmart has debt. What's important is that it is becoming much less reliant as it improves its liquidity and therefore is less reliant on the markets for financing. You miss the big picture again.
Apple - Again, you do not understand. There is less new debt being underwritten. Apple was investing in debt that was already in the market. In no way does that prove that more underwriters were hired just because Apple invested in debt.
So it all boils down to the basic question - are there more or LESS finance jobs? Of course there are less. None of your posts has disproven that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
