Reddit Posts
5.5G era is coming: Advanced 5G will comprehensively surpass the existing 5G in terms of rate
MBB, an ETF that trades mortgage backed securities has taken a nose dive and is trading at a lower level than 2008
MBB, a triple A rated MBS ETF, has crashed and made a new all time low under the 2008 housing crash. Worst quarter performance ever by far. Mortgage departments everywhere seeing layoffs. And as a bonus, Fannie Mae executives are jumping ship!
Mentions
That’s true for MBS pure (like MBB) but mortgage REITs hedge against interest rates for most of their book. I was wondering about the full impact of $200B. Thats two months worth of current coupon issuance.
Yup. I have this theory we're in the "age of managerial incompetence" which is largely driven by MBB consulting firms. The core idea is the majority do not have technical backgrounds in an ever increasingly technical world, so they've outsourced much of HR/Staffing and basically become the new HR. And naturally, HR managers running a tech company will be a disaster...
You are cherry picking favorable stats. The TTM yield of MBB is 4.07% and the forward yield is 4.18%. Meanwhile the 10 year note is yielding 4.17, and the 20 year bond is yielding 4.78%. There is no logical reason to hold MBS's.
Goverment bonds aren't yielding more. MBB iShares has a YTM of around 4.8% with an average maturity of 6.7 years vs the comparable 3.9% a 7 year treasury currently yields. And there isn't really any extra credit risk because these MBS are issued and/or guaranteed by US government agencies. The main drawback of MBS is they have prepayment risk - if rates go down, borrowers can refi and force the lender to re-invest at lower rates, but the lender can't do that to them if rates go up.
MBS (and all ABS) are not available to retail traders. so the short answer here is no, no one is. the only way for retail exposure is through ETFs: MBB, SPMB, VMBS, etc. (and for reference most institutional investors not relating to the securitization process, make speculative and carry bets on the iboxx us-non agency or bloomberg MBS Index, in its various traunches)
They charge more than that lol. My firm (not MBB) charges 250k/wk for that level of staffing.
Executive compensation is already absurd even pretending everyone earning millions per year and more were an absolute wizard, but they're actually just fucking schmucks with no ideas or balls and all just call MBB in and then go 🤷🏼♂️ for $10m/yr or more.
I worked at an MBB up to the Manager level, and while the final decision lies with clients, I have at many times pushed back against SVP/EVP clients if I disagree with them fundamentally. They can’t just say shit and I have my team accept it, they need to argue it out with us and win.
Getting into MBB is basically the same as the T2 firms you mentioned, but just add the step of "Get a T14 MBA"
Went through 40+ comments to find this. MBB is fucked for sure, but this post is just a lie
My GF is an M&A consultant for an MBB firm. They are paid to figure out how the new org structure will work and who to fire. A part of it is air cover for executives and part of it is they're genuinely dumb and can't make decisions.
> The Agency problem; internal management will always try to paint a rosy picture of their work and their departments, but that means the executives have bad information most of the time. The agency problem is just a PR friendly way of rephrasing "managerial incompetence". If you can't trust any of your subordinates to not blow smoke up your ass it's because you hired poorly and cultivated corporate culture that rewarded that type of behavior. >Consultants are sent to go fetch information from the frontline teams and piece together an **accurate** picture of the current state of the company on short notice, and to present it without judgment. The bolded part is where we disagree. They may *try* to do that, but more often than not they just yolo together some metrics without any understanding of the underlying business and roles (often with the intent of 'justifying' what executive leadership wants to do anyway) and then present it to leadership as some sort of accurate assessment. This is how you get idiotic shit like developers being measured based upon the lines of code they output. > Missing expertise; it could be a specialty in industry forecasting, depth of knowledge around a new software suite, really any skillset that's not currently used at the company. Consultants are basically borrowed employees to help fill that gap when it's too slow or not worth investing in permanent employees. I'd argue this is the only legitimately constructive contribution from MBB. > MBB have also made executive PR insurance a key part of their business model, so they set themselves up as a lightning rod for complaints or any PR fallout the executive team might experience for making significant changes in their companies. Notice how we're here blaming McKinsey, and not the CEO/Board who made the series of bad decisions? That's the PR insurance at work. Right, again the role is "act as cover for inept leadership". I don't disagree with that at all, but I am not sure that MBB are quite as much of a unwitting patsy with no hand in influencing decision making as you are making out. That all the companies they work with end up pursuing the same handful of remediation strategies seems mighty convenient. > There is, we have organizational modeling and other toolsets that handle that quite well. Of course, but that's on an one off basis, and I was talking on a national scale so that we could quantify and publish the waste and lost productivity driven by these type of recommendations. >However, modern corporations all face a fundamental tension between investor motivation for their equity/debt operations and market motivation for their revenue operations. While the two sides of the corporation benefit from each other, they don't have the same goals or incentives and often pull in opposing directions. > Most big blunders you hear about are because of that tension, and more often it's investor motivations that step in and interfere self-destructively in the revenue operations. If you ask what the market motivation was for those bad decisions, the answer is most often "just greed" but that's missing the fact that the literal job of the executive team is to monetize the business (i.e. use any invested money to make more). > As long as the current shareholders benefited from each move, long enough to leave and be replaced by other shareholders, then the long-term negative impacts on revenue operations were a fair tradeoff for meeting their equity/debt obligations. Having the company provide a good product/service, contribute to everyone's quality of living, and cultivate a happy fanbase have never been part of the executive job description. That simply isn't what they were hired to do at the company... which you'd be right to see as a flaw in the modern corporate approach. That internal disconnect is a massive, socially-corrosive problem that no one has figured out a solution to quite yet, other than confirming the other historical approaches are even more broken. A shorter way of saying this is that they are brought in by vultures seeking to extract as much short term wealth as possible from a company regardless of the long term impact. Is it really surprising that they are disliked? Just because they are just doing someone else's dirty work doesn't mean they should be absolved for their contribution.
I’m shocked how generically people use the word “consulting” as if strategy consulting is the #1 volume seller at professional services firms lol SI work is far and away the money maker for consulting shops outside of MBB consulting and is decidedly complex, valuable work
> So your point is that executives are so shit at their job that it could be done better by a few 20 something know-nothings with an MBA and a barely surface level understanding of the business? Typically, consultants are there tackle two specific things: * The [Agency problem](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp); internal management will always try to paint a rosy picture of their work and their departments, but that means the executives have bad information most of the time. Consultants are sent to go fetch information from the frontline teams and piece together an *accurate* picture of the current state of the company on short notice. * Missing expertise; it could be a specialty in industry forecasting, depth of knowledge around a new software suite, really any skillset that's not currently used at the company. Consultants are basically borrowed employees to help fill that gap when it's too slow or not worth investing in permanent employees. The important piece is that *consultants don't make the decisions* for the executive team, they're really just acting like surveyors and presenting that key information to the executives to help with their planning process. MBB have also made *executive PR insurance* a key part of their business model, so they set themselves up as a lightning rod for complaints or any PR fallout the executive team might experience for making significant changes in their companies. Notice how we're here blaming McKinsey, and not the CEO/Board who made the series of bad decisions? That's the PR insurance at work. > I wish there was a way to quantify the money wasted with the "offshore to save a few dollars > everything fucking sucks > bring back onshore" cycle, or the massive hits to productivity and quality that follow. There is, we have organizational modeling and other toolsets that handle that quite well. However, modern corporations all face a fundamental tension between *investor motivation* for their equity/debt operations and *industry motivation* for their revenue operations. While the two sides of the corporation benefit from each other, they don't have the same goals or incentives and often pull in opposing directions. Most big blunders you hear about are because of that tension, and more often it's investor motivations that step in and interfere self-destructively in the revenue operations. If you ask what the industry motivation was for those bad decisions, the answer is most often "just greed" but that's missing the fact that the literal job of the executive team is to monetize the business (i.e. use any invested money to make more). As long as the *current shareholders* benefited from each move, long enough to leave and be replaced by *other shareholders*, then the long-term negative impacts on revenue operations were a fair tradeoff for meeting their equity/debt obligations. Having the company provide a good product/service, contribute to everyone's quality of living, and maintain a happy fanbase has never been part of the executive job description.
I spent four years working for MBB after business school and 10 years in internal Strategy / M&A roles at two Fortune 50 companies. Based on my experience, I'd summarize the role of MBBs of the world as follows: \- 70% providing cover for what senior leadership knows it should do \- 10% providing the "how" for what senior senior leadership wants to do \- 10% filtering through messaging leadership gets to figure out what's real / what's BS \- 10% market intel No one is curing cancer, but all of the above is necessary in both corporate and government settings. Internal strategy is much more necessary IMO because leadership needs people looking beyond the next 2 to 4 quarters to actually plan for the future because no one from middle management upwards is planning to be in their current seat beyond the next 24 months. The efficacy of internal strategy teams is entirely dependent on how empowered they are and what the CSO's relationship is with the CEO. In my first internal experience, the CSO was the CEO's right hand. We had unlimited access to anything we wanted and helped them pivot the entire company's business model, despite some massive internal pushback, and make it to the other side of industry wide disruption in better shape than the other incumbents. My second internal experience was likely more representative of most internal strategy roles where we provided justification for pre-made decisions, not dissimilar to MBB life. That sucked and I lasted less than two years.
Do you want real answers and not the average cynical redditor’s take? (I work in management consulting). Simplest answer.. Because big corps are huge fucking bureaucratic messes. You want your internals to solve their own managerial problems / reconciling decisions while wrestling with their own self-interest and covering their own asses, you’re gonna have to wait until heat death of the universe. Yes, companies need real values to exist as ongoing business. But managerial problems (no matter how stupid they can be) can kill good businesses faster than you can blink. You don’t hire management consultants to help you RnD a new zesty gen AI model that would kill Anthropic. You hire them to get that project and resources running and making heads roll where necessary to push it forward. They also front the heat and conflicts to make shits happen (even if the shits are stupid things like renaming a brand). If all you can do are “pitching ideas” and “making power points”, you aren’t even gonna last 6 months especially in MBB.
MBB (which this post is about) hires could pretty much get any other job within their relevant field.
Interned at one of the MBB consultancies - can confidently say there were some quite annoying and cringe people, who were obsessed with 'delivering stakeholder value'. In case you didn't know, that is a consulting dog-whistle which means pitching the most braindead ideas to people with 30 years of experience in their field. Tip: Consultants can be spotted in the wild via their the $700 Tumi bags which still look like shit.
Retail investors didn't really buy mortgage backed securities. They were considered a boring bond while retail prefers more exciting stocks. The actual bond failures were mostly limited to subprime MBS traded over-the-counter (not available to retail). Look up MBB for something available to retail in '08. It did fine because it held government-guaranteed mortgages only. The real damage was done by all the CDOs and synthetic CDOs that institutions traded among themselves. Completely unavailable to retail. Institutions also used insane leverage that retail can't. Lehman Brothers' peak leverage ratio in MBS was 33x.
i told my previous boss the same, feelsgood.jpg , now I am full time gamer until i sign with either MBB or FAANG soon / next couple of weeks 🫠 so yeah fuck them and go elsewhere else that pays better, because them puts are gonna get very expensive soon
holy fucking shit i got an interview with MBB lol, 100% gonna fuck this up , leeeeettts go
Anybody here a partner at MBB can get me a job? Please ill do anything
Which MBB is cashing their checks on this one?
Those portfolios are long term holds. I don't trade by the minute, hour or even daily. Right now have a number of swaps on - selling 10' buy2's ,,,,,selling 10's but 180day SOFR, SELLING 20's and buying EUR. Selling 180day SOFR buying MBB . If you were paying attention you may have seen a block trade come across for ZTU5
What events on the calendar are of interest? 20-Y, 30-Y? Ive got an automated script to check in on daily rates and $MBB value. Would be interested to know key days or other leading indicators when setting up my notifications
To the gen z. After 09 my Managing Director started buying physically gold. He was former MBB and MD at BB. Also autistic genius. He met kept buying through 2023 and literally burying it in his backyard. He is not crazy. He literally thinks in his lifetime the financial system will collapse. In fact every hundred years a financial collapse generally occurs. Be warned. PE-IB-private credit jobs won’t be spared
Exactly, [Buffett has a whole letter he sends his management team](https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-MBB-31129), the TLDR version is 'We can afford to lose money we cannot afford to lose reputation'. Because damage to your reputation can be done in an instant and can often be permenant. The world no longer has any reason to trust the US to be a good ally, trade partner, stable global presence. We could roll back all of this tomorrow and our reputation will remain tarnished.
Absolutely. Add to that opex for the week and the algos will be on high alert to burn puts and shorts. My portfolio is a confused jumble of nibbled long positions, some offsetting puts. Longer dated otm S&P puts. 1 1dte S&P 544 call and a crapload of TLT and MBB puts and Faz calls. Absolutely insane market action.
Guys tariffs means everything becomes more expensive, stocks included. Its not that hard. Source: Harvard Yale MBA BSC MBB Graduate
wtf just happened to MBB 
That's adorable. Maybe you should actually go to b-school for an MBA first before popping off about a process you've never even been through. So many people on their MBA journey actually feel entitled to MBB, VC/IB/PE, LDPs, and certain tech roles and then find out that recruiting isn't actually what they thought it would be. Many people feel like because they made it through the door into a great school that suddenly they are owed pay and prestige work. It turns out that recruiting is competitive and you have to actually be good -- it doesn't really matter that someone specifically goes to HSW, an M7, or even in most respects a T20, because they all have to make it through the actual recruiting process and lots of people at all those schools have great GMAT/GRE scores, work experience, ambition, and potential. McKinsey still hires people every year from Goizueta, Ross, McCombs, and other schools that aren't HSW. As do all the other major consultancies, tech companies, VC/IB groups, and major corporate players in other industries. People getting their MBA from Stanford GSB have incredible recruiting opportunities every year and IMO "failure" in recruiting there really just reflects too narrow a scope for role/location or unwarranted self-aggrandizement.
I don’t think you understand… when normally 25% go into MBB, 40% go into big tech as PMs, 25% into VC/IB, and 10% are funded founders and now those numbers are each down by 5% and 25% of the class has to take a lower paying job or wait - it isn’t a good indicator. Going to a top 3 business school and graduating should land you in to a high paying career. If more than ~3% aren’t, it’s because tech, consulting, and IB firms aren’t doing hot. Yes they can find a job, but it’s bad if they can’t find those jobs.
Lol no he didn't. Bezos was from a wealthy family, and had a background working in what is still TODAY the an MBB firm.
Being a Powerpoint Monkey myself I always wondered, is this what MBB looked like before PowerPoint?
Sounds like you need a high powered job, something where you make a fuck ton of money, buy expensive dinners and shit on your employees. Good idea to look into PE firm or MBB firm
The (long-term) problem with PLTR is that it is a consulting company with an in-house software shop. Look at their split between how many software engineers vs. business development (forward deployed engineers). Business development is 80% of the game. Would you want to own a consultancy at these P/S metrics? Now, don't get me wrong, they're a very good shop running a tight ship. Consulting is *extremely* lucrative. MBB pays fresh college grads with bumfuk experience top salary to yap at companies and provide business cover. add on that PLTR actually provides a working product, and clients think it's the second coming of their second wife's hot young sister. However, the Foundry platform has a high, high barrier to entry. Use PLTR and you are closed into that ecosystem forever. They are directionally constrained by the fact that very, very few users are building on their platform, and simply using their own consultants (at a high billable rate) to build things that clients pay for in perpetuity. Which, again, is a very good business model. **But it's not a software shop, it's a consultancy.** If McK QuantumBlack or BCG Gamma were spun out and gone public, they could rival PLTR with YoY growth. People need data integration/ingestion services but are ultimately paying for consulting. So: why would you own PLTR at these prices? I'm taking the other side of the bet - they're going to start scaling consultants: employee count goes up, total revenue goes up, but revenue per employee goes down. PLTR will grow into its valuation on a long-term horizon, but medium term, Palantards are in for some pain.
Spotted the MBB consultant
Quick question: Do they have consultants that perform advising once they have data or are the consultants just for implementation connecting previous data architecture to Palantir? I’m assuming Palantir brings the data tools and is known for quicker integration + security clearance. MBB etc. brings the higher level advising once everything is set up.
Not on RH. Only MBB which is an etf for mortgages issued by GNMA, FNMA, and FHLMC
I used to working for MBB consulting firm so I quit and work in tech 
What tickers do you track for Macro trends? I have SPY, TLT, UUP, MBB, QQQ, and UVXY. What else can I add?
MBB are not the big 4. If you’re going to rage against the institutions at least sound like you know what you’re talking about.
if it aint T15 dont waste your money. unless you dont care about IB/MBB/VC/PE then go top 25 but out of the T15 and take that sweeeeet scholarship money.
Like if you get a good name on your resume tho m, big 4, MBB, any reputable IB, FAANG, Salesforce, MSFT, top cyber security firm, etc you can pretty much get any job Getting your foot in the door at the first reputable company is the hardest but after that, corporate America is at your fingertips
The old MBB trick: use something like 40% for probabilities. 50-50: a coin toss, don’t need a coke fueled management consultant. 30-70: you moron told me there is a 70% chance!. 40-60 or 35-65: prudent, makes sense. I’ll pay you a gazillion dollars for your monkey bet.
No. I am saying you are wrong cus that’s not your funds strategy nor how you make money and you know that. I don’t care if you work on Wall Street either cus I legit go to one of the best finance university in Europe which is a target school for family offices, funds, banks MBB so I don’t care. Yes, that’s how you general generate alpha, but unless it’s a hedge fund, you have very strict limitations(and not necessarily regulatory)on what can or can’t be done. If it’s an actively managed fund(which I assume it is) and you deviate from the strategy significantly and underperform other funds you risk losing your investors. Your entire comment was how you are happy retail fools exist because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to generate alpha. You just confirmed that you are not generating your alpha because of retail. You are generating your alpha because of your strategy, which as you said does not care who is on the other side. To claim it was because of retail was ridiculous and that was my point.
Sure, the marketing has been great. The distribution is immaculate. so is MBB's and I praise the company for that. But enterprise customers also benefit heavily from paying for MBB's slides. So there is no need to have state-of-the-art software when plenty of companies basically only use email and simple VBA. I think Palantir generates a lot of value for its customers, and rightly so. But if you are using an image of a cutting-edge AI product company for valuation, I am not sure this is the case. You are buying a hype consulting company with perfect marketing and a charismatic leader who is capable of saying controversial stuff, not an AI champion with a suite of AI products and a history of having top-tier ML talent. Maybe the valuation of this company should be even higher. But it is not a product company, but an implementation center. Just for comparison, Palantir has been around nearly as long as Meta/Facebook. Meta released Llama, uses AI extensively and has published plenty of AI research. Palantir has big-name customers. So it is still the implementation that gets paid for, rather than the product. What would you say is the more scalable company that actually showed their AI skills?
As a person with a lot of experience from the inside, all I can say is: XD You have no idea what you are posting about. Stuff like: If a company’s in-house data solution is data-Frankenstein, then Palantir is a data-Zeus, the god of all data solutions. Means everything and nothing. Truth is, Palantir is Accenture with MBB-level marketing. Not even 2 years ago there was a companywide ban on AI. Seriously, if you wanted to develop any sort of ML for a client, it had to be developed by a third party. The AI rebranding is a 180 shift on where the company was 18 months ago. As to all the platforms being so great, why did the model (adopted roughly 2 years ago) of self-serving and moving towards SaaS-like solutions that the customers can just use with no need for consultants fail? Why are Palantir "deployments" essentially built from scratch? Surely if there is a hospital managing solution that works, it would be very low-lift to use it in nearly any hospital instead of just one, right? Why are there no scalable products released? Like if Apollo, Gotham and Foundry are so much better than the alternatives, why didn't they just release them straight to the customers? Why not become an actual product company? I think we all know the answer to that- the product is not scalable, the platforms very laggy and full of bugs. If they released it to the public, any developer would be aware of stuff like how "Ontology" is just a set of tables linked with foreign keys and the AI positioning is pure marketing.
Well fuck man, now I’m rethinking that whole next degree from LSE. I wasn’t trying to leave MBB for finance, but come on! These things aren’t really connected, but your comment makes it seem like trying to do anything other than VTI or/and VOO or/and VUSXX or/and NUVBX or/and VXUS or/and VUG or/and VIG is useless. (I mistyped when I said option 4. I think option 4 was one of the more ridiculous options. Same with option 6. Option 1-3 had big flaws and red flags, but I thought there was some good or logic in there. But option 4 with some adjustments seemed reasonable and like it would do better than ~8%) Thank you again for your responses
I’d bet my BA portfolio that MBB will sooner or later be brought to the spotlight and not in a nice way in this saga. Capable of anything, Accountable for nothing
If it was MBB, then it was still worth it. He could buy MSFT stocks with lucrative compensation he got from MBB.
>You mean to tell me that a 30 year at 2% fixed somehow hadn’t decreased at all in value? No one is saying that? Look at like an MBS ETF like MBB, its down 20% over the last several years; they have lost money
You’re using MBB as a proxy for mortgage rates?
Get the house, if you can afford it and need it. If +/- 1% makes the difference, you can't afford it. I'm under contract for new construction with no rate lock myself. Construction finishes in July. I'll request a rate lock if $MBB hits $94 again which translates into ~6.5% at the highest credit score. If that doesn't happen, then whatever. 7.5% won't stop me from buying.
You ever heard of MBB SE? Also very small German company, serial acquirer. They look interesting.
Lol found the incel. Nvda already took over Amazon market cap. You're giving MBB a bad name. Reformed ber, cause bulls left your butt hole leaking. Remember when you said you went full port on spy puts and lost or after spy 500 the sell off begins.
I could see one of MBB proposing this, but it seems like an Accenture thing - it is really stupid and they can try to sell the implementation (it's Accenture, so I'm sure it will take years and suck anyway)
People beyond just MBB are intelligent enough to have told Wendy's this was asinine but it depends on what the client really wants (assuming a consultant was even involved at all). Wendy's themselves may have come up with this and they can pay any sort of management consulting group to give them cover. With that said, if floating such a controversial and ridiculous idea was merely intended to gain publicity and word-of-mouth, then it would have to be considered a huge success, but it also makes management look hapless and dumb. If it was serious, then the Board might have to intervene on behalf of shareholders.
It cancels out when Cathie becomes bearish. She's the best reverse indicator. Also, what happened to the top being SPY 500, we hit 510 last week. MBB consultants be funny.
Yep. and i'm sure some MBB did the due diligence on how easy or hard it is to combine those tech stacks and underestimated the cost by 5-10x. More work for us IT consultants tho!
The CHIPS Act is bringing TSMC to the US and they’re struggling to find staff .. granted, a lot of it is because Taiwanese companies apparently have toxic work cultures Long MBB, per usual… if they’re anything like US management, they’re going to hire a bunch of consultants to make it work
For an MBB guy, you sure ain't smart. AMD PE isn't 1400, due to its xlinix acquisition. What type of due diligence MBB doing?
Tech jobs, NYC. Mid-senior level. Background is an M7 MBA with MBB. Making it through processes to final rounds and getting vague feedback about how other candidates were better fits but they enjoyed our conversations.
Oddly enough I think tax practices tend to be scummier than commercial consulting practices. I'm not really disagreeing with you but kpmg does such different work than MBB (and kpmg tax does such different work than their consulting practices) it's not totally comparable
MBB. You have all that time to post on wsb? Unless you're on bench and if you're go on vacation. Hearing consulting firms are having a rough year.
Management consulting for MBB, retail and consumers coverage. I think both permabulls and permabears are gonna have a tough time the next 2 years. I mean most permabears have already been completely wiped out probably since the two weeks of November. I used to hate bears a lot more since it's a of anti-work/socialist types but it seems like most of them have been gone since beginning of this year lol. Kinda getting tired of hearing bulls boasting though but I have been bullish since getting burned calling the top early in November. Switching back to bearish for Q1.
you just have no idea what you're talking about on the 2008. The cause wasn't "super low interest rate", the big reason was people lying on their loan applications and loan officers looking the other way. People took out ARM's that they couldn't afford. There was no "Super low interest rate", interest rates were normal. And guess what, MBS still exists **today**, I can literally go out and buy it right now (or through MBB / VMBS etf's).
They and other mortgage backed bond derivatives, didn't contribute to, but caused the 08 crisis. The current conventional wisdom is revisionist history (written by the financial industry). Consider the facts around what is now called the 2009 mortgage crisis. The facts are that exceptionally leveraged, trillions worth, speculative investments in derivatives of mortgage-backed bonds, in late Aug/Sept 2008 started vicious cycle of lack of trust between large financial institutions - basically they discovered many of them could not make good on these mindbogglingly large positions in MBB derivatives, so they started trying to redeem (redeeming before everyone else meant you might get at least some of your money). [The big short is about the guy (Whose name I can't recall) realizing this before anyone else and capitalizing on it.] This led to a credit freeze up (a financial inst. can't loan if they owe $ to pay off huge positions in derivatives) including to corporations and companies that relied on credit to operate their businesses, which lead to those companies' reducing operations, which lead to layoffs, which led to mortgage defaults, and the "2009 mortgage crisis". Had these highly leveraged, huge speculative positions not been created and therefore not led to the credit freeze, companies could continue to operate at capacity, layoffs avoided, and mortgages paid. If you doubt this, just look at the timeline. Lehman Brothers, the large financial institution that was a casualty of this crisis collapsed in mid-September of 2008. At that time there was no mortgage crisis at all, employment was still high, and people were paying mortgages. When people started losing jobs due to the credit freeze due to financial institutions lack of trust in each other due to stupid speculation in MBB derivatives then people got hurt and had trouble paying mortgages. Still not convinced? Consider the government bailout: the government lent enormous amounts of money to the banks so they could trust each other to make good on what they owed each other (largely the speculative positions in MBB derivatives). If the crisis was actually a mortgage crisis the government could have just guaranteed mortgage payments for a year or so, but that would not have worked because that was not the problem. I could go on, but you get the point. Oh, and don't feel back if knew it was all about average Joe being irresponsible and not paying mortgages, that is the revised history that suites global corporations and particularly the largest of banks. You might be thinking, okay, I'll accept the facts, but why would the financial institutions weave this tail and blame average Joe who got laid off, for the crisis? Simple. Profits. While mortgages are a very large business, they are also a very low profit margin business, the mortgage business does not make billionaires. On the other hand, while a smaller total amount of business, derivatives are hugely profitable and make bankers tons of dough. So, the last thing the financial institutions wanted was government trying to further regulate derivatives, which have relatively very, very little regulation at all. So put the target on the average Joe and his mortgages, which are already pretty heavily regulated and allow government to do more there. It worked. History is rewritten, the average Joe was bad in getting mortgages he couldn't pay, mortgages are more heavily regulated, derivatives are still hugely profitable, hugely risky and relatives unregulated. Pathetic, but true. Reality was quite different. So why I am not brainwashed? Three reasons: in the late 80s and early 90s I worked on Wall St with trading floors I continued to follow the industry, and very carefully followed it as the crisis unfolded in 2008 due to the changes in mortgage requirements that rolled out in 2010, a successful small mortgage business I owned and operated, that served people who I deemed low risk, but did not meet the federal (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) requirements, was no longer viable and had to be shuttered. Fortunately for me, this was only a very small part of my income. Unfortunately for some of my clients, they could no longer find financing
The prospectus for the ETF (ITDD - 2040) that I am interested in has the biggest bond holding in MBB (5.76% of total assets). Corporates, treasuries and tips make up the rest of the bond portion - no munis.
It's the same with any MBB.
I think you’re completely missing my point. OP’s argument was that layoffs happen in conjunction with company performance and they were looking at their equity as a source of funds. I’m saying if that’s his you see equity then simply allocate a rainy day fund that’s more liquid and easily accessible. Otherwise, liquidating your equity *carte blanche* without any consideration for the company where you hold your equity is absurd. For instance I have partnership equity in MBB and VC firms. I have pre-IPO equity in tech firms that I know will do well. I’m not giving those up just because some guy on Reddit says I should. But if I’m working for a less than stellar company then sure.
I didn't downvote you, in fact I just upvoted you so that your experience that you stated isn't downvoted just because. Your experience is valid. I would ask you what your definition of driven is? I am sure our definitions of that are very different. The people that I am referring to don't want a small restaurant to run or another other small business, these fuckers(I mean it in a loving way) want to be C suite executives at F100 companies. Worked at FAANG, and some people there were super into their work and wanted to be at the top, they wanted to be the guys, or girls, that are truly making decisions that can affect the company. I work in Asset Management now, and most people just go in because of the money, but sometimes you will meet people who want to be like Buffett. I am not going to lie, I am in that latter category. I think that sometimes we are bat shit crazy for it, but at a very early age, I always wanted to be someone. Someone here meaning that I could make changes on a decent level, either local or at least state, at least enough to where my opinion was highly respected. Do I need to have kids? No, but, yea I also helped raise my brothers and sisters in high school and still had to help them via facetime when I was in college, but even then, I wouldn't be opposed to it if my SO wanted them. They just have to be ok with taking the lead and knowing that there will be days when I get home late, but that I will be there for them for their sports game, dance/piano recitals, etc. But, I guess I should have been clear by want I meant by drive, which are the people that are in MBB, IB, PE, HF, AM, climbing the corporates ladder fairly young in there careers, work at a V20. Like the guys who want to get into an M7 or T14. Yes, the border line psychos that want to work or do see it as their goal to be someone big in their field. I would say that a good amount of my schools faculty were also childless. Like, the old professors had kids but most were old and male, but the PhD people and masters level people that wanted to get their PhD for the most part were childless and a good only had 1 kid but would not want another one. I said male because I feel like guys tend to go with what their spouse says. I suppose like me. And we do get the luxury of not having it ourselves. If we did, I think that most wouldn't want to. Anyways, yea, the freedom was another reason that I listed, defiantly the major reason for a majority of the people, those that aren't crazy like some of us, lol. And, yes, I know that the chance of being Buffett or CEO at a F100 are incredibly, exceptionally low. I am not delusional, I just want to see how far I can go. To hopefully use whatever power/money I have to help people in my situation.
After the Great Depression of about 100 years ago laws were passed to prevent another. They worked well for 50 or so years, but then people started to forget the virtues of those laws, and the Federal Government started to serve corporations rather than Americans (which at this point serving global corporations is all federal government does of significance), so many of those laws were overturned or weakened. As a prime example, after the Great Depression banks were broken up into three types: commercial, investment and retail. In the eighties the deregulation ball started rolling and by the 90s banks could once again be in all businesses. Since then, economy has never been as stable as it was post the GD regulations and up to the point of the deregulation started in the 80s. There are certainly other factors, but deregulation of the financial industries is a significant, maybe the most significant. Many people well versed in the history have attempted to reverse the trends that got the US into this now forty yearlong boom and bust economy, but the large financial institutions spend a lot to thwart those facts from getting established as truth and propagate deceptions, such as it was the same boom and bust before the deregulation, etc. Their large $ generally overshadows facts. An example of relatively recent, very significant revisionist history (written by the financial industry) consider the facts around what is now called the 2009 mortgage crisis. The facts are that exceptionally leveraged, trillions worth, speculative investments in derivatives of mortgage-backed bonds, in late Aug/Sept 2008 started vicious cycle of lack of trust between large financial institutions - basically they discovered many of them could not make good on these mindbogglingly large positions in MBB derivatives, so they started trying to redeem (redeeming before everyone else meant you might get at least some of your money). This led to a credit freeze up (a financial inst. can't loan if they owe $ to pay off huge positions in derivatives) including to corporations and companies that relied on credit to operate their businesses, which lead to those companies' reducing operations, which lead to layoffs, which led to mortgage defaults, and the "2009 mortgage crisis". Had these highly leveraged, huge speculative positions not been created and therefore not led to the credit freeze, companies could continue to operate at capacity, layoffs avoided, and mortgages paid. If you doubt this, just look at the timeline. Lehman Brothers, the large financial institution that was a casualty of this crisis collapsed in mid-September of 2008. At that time there was no mortgage crisis at all, employment was still high, and people were paying mortgages. When people started losing jobs due to the credit freeze due to financial institutions lack of trust in each other due to stupid speculation in MBB derivatives then people got hurt and had trouble paying mortgages. Still not convinced? Consider the government bailout: the government lent enormous amounts of money to the banks so they could trust each other to make good on what they owed each other (largely the speculative positions in MBB derivatives). If the crisis was actually a mortgage crisis the government could have just guaranteed mortgage payments for a year or so, but that would not have worked because that was not the problem. I could go on, but you get the point. Oh, and don't feel back if knew it was all about average Joe being irresponsible and not paying mortgages, that is the revised history that suites global corporations and particularly the largest of banks. You might be thinking, okay, I'll accept the facts, but why would the financial institutions weave this tail and blame average Joe who got laid off, for the crisis? Simple. Profits. While mortgages are a very large business, they are also a very low profit margin business, the mortgage business does not make billionaires. On the other hand, while a smaller total amount of business, derivatives are hugely profitable and make bankers tons of dough. So, the last thing the financial institutions wanted was government trying to further regulate derivatives, which have relatively very, very little regulation at all. So put the target on the average Joe and his mortgages, which are already pretty heavily regulated and allow government to do more there. It worked. History is rewritten, the average Joe was bad in getting mortgages he couldn't pay, mortgages are more heavily regulated, derivatives are still hugely profitable, hugely risky and relatives unregulated. Pathetic, but true. Reality was quite different. So why I am not brainwashed? Three reasons: 1. in the late 80s and early 90s I worked on Wall St with trading floors 2.. I continued to follow the industry, and very carefully followed it as the crisis unfolded in 2008 3. due to the changes in mortgage requirements that rolled out in 2010, a successful small mortgage business I owned and operated, that served people who I deemed low risk, but did not meet the federal (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) requirements, was no longer viable and had to be shuttered. Fortunately for me, this was only a very small part of my income. Unfortunately for some of my clients, they could no longer find financing. Have a nice day.
I’m in BND, CMEUX, MBB, VCIT, VGT, and IF
MBB moved sideways since the end of June, dropped at the beginning of July and recovered this week and dropped .77 today. There's no indication it's going to peak between now and the 2nd - and the RSI is slopping down. Personally, I'd go for it now since it might keep falling, but that's me and this isn't financial advice. ​ https://preview.redd.it/qwpy1ls0v5db1.png?width=643&format=png&auto=webp&s=0744c21d738cc17eae4747d70eaf4a7d352ea4a1
Hello, I'm new here and would like to know when $MBB will be at it's peak from now until 2 August. Another reditor told me that this information may help in determining the best time to lock my mortgage interest rate. Thank you for your help!
It’s a few industries only that’s for sure. Investment banking, maybe MBB consulting, and Big Tech are basically it unless you own a business.
Sure but they all have 300 applications from all the laid off big tech and MBB consultants
Same. I see a lot of people clearly bursting with schadenfreude at how "AI will make developers jobless" And I'm just thinking, dude, if this AI can code like a developer, what do you think it's going to do to your excel+powerpoint IB/MBB/PM job?
Yeah, funds were making these plays the second ChatGPT got big and the capabilities of LLMs became clear. Timing is important though, and while whole sectors like tech outsourcing, much of midrange, tech and low level (ie. non-MBB) consulting and customer support will be demolished in the next few years, it's unclear when exactly the dominoes will fall. Outsourcing is already feeling the hit, but the penny has to drop for Tata, Capgemini, Accenture etc.. to truly collapse, and they have long contracts and the tech still needs to advance. Right now, strategy seems to be focusing on B2C applications where prices are high and consumers are motivated to switch to ChatGPT. Education is a huge one, but most B2C consumer edtechs aren't public companies so can't be shorted, and the big publishers (while suffering) have a captive market in schools and colleges, at least for now.
Yeah, the pay is way better in RE private equity. I'd thought about the management consulting path when I was picking business schools, but my heart was really in real estate and community development so I followed it. Sometimes I still wonder how things would be different if I chased MBB though
BCG is a group that offers strategy consulting to companies. They're very well respected in that field and get a lot of work. Because they have a good track record, companies that are already failing and looking for a lifeline will employ BCG or companies like them (MBB are the typical big 3 talked about in this space) to try to figure out how to stay alive. These companies often have a single digit percentage hope of staying alive before hiring BCG or other consulting firms. Hedge funds are already shorting those companies before BCG gets hired, because it's obvious that they're failing. They're not shorting because BCG gets hired - correlation is not causation, and the education level on reddit is on full display when this kind of shit gets brought up. And BCG has a pretty good history of success - they work with many companies that are doing very well. Reddit just focused on the companies that are in obvious distress before hiring BCG and associating BCG with their already-obvious demise. To put this in a non-business example: let's say you've got a dozen 90 year old, 400 lb lifelong smokers who all need extensive open heart surgeries, and you've got 500 middle age, relatively healthy folks who also need open heart surgeries. A cardiac surgeon comes in and performs surgery on all of them. The vast majority of the 500 healthy folks survive, and the majority of the 12 unhealthy folks die on the table. Is the doctor murdering patients? Reddit, including the person I originally replied to, would say yes, by their logic.
1. you suck at math. 2. if any of that was true only the top 5% of households would be able to afford childcare or home ownership. Which is absolutely not the case. 65% of households own their home for example. 3. It's hard work but it's not difficult work. It requires effort to be a self sufficient adult but there's no hidden secret to pulling it off, you don't have to be in MBB or IB to be basically middle class and have a modest home and afford daycare...
Just to afford a nice single family house in the suburbs and two kids in childcare, I'd need like 14k a month post tax. Thats like $280k a year. That doesn't count food or utilities or clothes or even a cheap ass corolla lease. Nevermind savings, lol. I'm not an IT nerd, so basically to be able to get a house and have someone look after two little snotbuckets, I'd need to find a $300k job? Ugh, I'm too old to climb the MBB or PE ladder, not smart enough for VC, def too lazy and old for IB. So what? No wonder we are all looking for shortcuts just to achieve a life that our parents could at a fraction of the cost
Except now we have stranger things which should have ended at season 3. They’ll probably keep that around until MBB gets some real acting gigs and doesnt need it anymore. The rest of the cast is already struggling to keep up with the momentum of the shows grandeur.
When you have a bunch of ex-MBB consultants working in corporate finance, its irrelevant what your operating margins or revenue is. If you can cut, you cut. They could be having great numbers but realized 1/2 of their staff is HR and ESG, and use this as an excuse to trim the fat.
Nice username. Hope you haven’t met MBB.
So a consulting firm advised a business? And turns out that business may have been funded by inappropriate funds? Oh no. Anyway… I mean, if this is the bar consulting firms can’t operate anywhere. Anyone who’s worked in any developing country knows just how intrinsically corrupt things are. Their job is to provide business advice. That’s what they did. If it turns out that they furthered the corruption or took park in it, then that’s a different story but I’ll bet a million bucks that’s not the case. Try provided advisory services for a business and that about it. As a former MBB partner (at BCG’s competitor, no less), seeing dumb shit like this on Reddit and seeing the apes act like this is a big deal is fucking hilarious.
think I'll go heavy in long dated MBB puts today. Housing armageddon LFG fuck your mortgage fuck your pension fuck your system
yeah I might get some MBB puts instead
Give me panic and despair in the markets I wanna see some boomers getting fukt MBB/DAX/WFC/FTSE MIB September puts should suffice
u/VisualMod, will my MBB puts print?
Is it bad to leave your first prestigious job in 6-months (big4/BCG/MBB) if you have another job lined up? Just dont enjoy the work im doing even though the pay is decent and title is nice. If I found another job with better WLB and just a little bit more pay should I do it? Or is leaving such a good company so early going to look bad on me as my first job? Assume I will have a job lined up from interviewing.
Is it bad to leave your first prestigious job in 6-months (big4/BCG/MBB) if you have another job lined up? Just dont enjoy the work im doing even though the pay is decent and title is nice. If I found another job with better WLB and just a little bit more pay should I do it? Or is leaving such a good company so early going to look bad on me as my first job?
Prestigious. MBB are the most prestigious consulting firms. Commonly known by consultants and to the Fortune 100 companies that hire them.
I work at one. We don’t track hours. When we negotiate the contract with the client, it’s based on a number of weeks. We give a rough estimate of how big the team will be but the actual number of people is up to the partner’s discretion. What you’re describing is true for Big 4 (Deloitte, PwC, etc.) not MBB.
All dogshit. Which stinks the least? I have no data and am too lazy to research but do work for one of MBB consulting firms who uses Okta so between this guy and me and a sample size of 2, I’d say Okta wins. Yes, I belong here.