☰ Menu eFinancialCareers

Seven very good reasons why you should be working for Credit Suisse

Out of all the banks that have reported second quarter results so far, Credit Suisse’s investment bank looks in a particularly strong position. It may even have supplanted Goldman Sachs as the place to be. Here’s why:

1). Revenue growth

Percentage change in net revenues, 1H08-1H09
Percentage change in net revenues

2). Low risk

Average daily VaR at end of Q209 (US$m)
Average Daily VaR

3). Stable risks

Percentage change in average daily VaR, Q208-Q209
Percentage change in VaR

4). Cost control

Compensation ratio Q209
Compensation ratio

5). Limited redundancies

Percentage change in headcount, Q208-Q209
Percentage change in headcount

6). Profitability

Profit per employee (US$)
Profitperemployee

7). Pay

Pay per head 1H09, (US$ ‘000)
Pay per head

All figures refer to CS investment bank

Comments (15)

Comments
  1. u realise we are going to have the same usual comments again?

  2. so will credit suisse claim the crown? Will it be the market leader in everything? Unlikely.

  3. i’ll start……..is…

  4. OH my god
    please go away
    Credit Suisse is really a different league.. Bad bank
    Crud people
    Would never want to work there

  5. An other big title supported by what ? Sarah ?
    1 / Revenue growth : CS was in negative in 08 vs positive earnings for GS . Consequently, any gains change in net revenues for 09 calculated as a percentage will obviously highly favour CS and alikes who lost big in 08. CS IBD earnings are highly likely from fees and margin from unusual widen spreads in vanilla fixed income stuffslike for any IB this year anyway. Not much to be proud of really !
    2/ VaR is a useless risk measure for monkeys. An airbarg working all the time, except when you have a car accident. a/ It focuses on risks near the center of the distribution and ignores tail risk (I didnt see much normality since August 07 in markets returns distribution!!)… b/ It violates second-order stochastic dominance, c/ it is not sub-additive. So d: / It leads to excessive risk-taking and uncontrolled leverage from mickey mouse trades and is a catastrophic risk tool as it creates since donkeys years a false sense of security. So VaR (x) at CS or VaR (y) at GS don’t say anything about their real risks. As for the other graphs, I won’t even comment. They are pathetic to explain a pref of CS over GS ! A 200 K duck

  6. Is Credit Suisse the new Goldman Sachs????? Isch don’t zink so

  7. Is da Credz Suisse massive da new Goldmanz massive?

  8. is hackneyed cliche the new goldman sachs?

  9. 2 very different banks, 2 very different cultures.
    Both are the two best places to be right now and both wll offer different oportunities. There is no basis to compare.
    However, people like Mr GS should get of their high horse and realise that the time for BIG US banks is up! and arrogant behaviour of those who support them will not get them very far.

  10. good risk???? the eqd book (exotics) lost around $80-100m every year for the past 2-3 years. Notorious bad systems and risk management in place

  11. Is Goldman Sachs the new Goldman Sachs?

  12. sarah, can you please stop putting dots after )
    its either one or the other, not both!

  13. actually, grammarskool, in list headings punctuation is typesetting not grammar, and this particular choice of sarah’s is valid, if quite old-skool.

  14. CS Supposedly “One Bank”. Didn’t look after their own Asset Management arm. Sold them out!

The comment is under moderation. It will appear shortly.

React

Screen Name

Email

Consult our community guidelines here