Yes, maybe, but people still think of these functions in terms of revenue-generating/client-facing non-revenue-generating/non-client-facing. And anyone client-facing still has a higher compensation ceiling than people in the middle or back office, regardless of the value of their contributions (one of the problems at big companies is that it’s difficult to measure who contributed what and what difference it made).

Technically, yes. But it depends on what type of role you’re referring to. “Broker” is a pretty generic term.

To be honest the fast track route would probably be to take the experience and rebrand yourself with a masters or mba from leading institutions with your ‘story’.

Costly, yes. But if your networks are lacking abd you lack the funds to go to pay the entry fee for some events, it is worth a shot, in my opinion.

I mean since brokers generate business could you say it counts as a FO role?

Perhaps a few years. It depends on how good you are, your network, and how you are perceived at the firm. If they are willing to give you an opportunity to shine, and you perform well through that opportunity, it may take a few years if not less

Thanks for your input.

Having worked in BO and FO, I can definitely say work as an analyst in FO is a lot more relevant, important and has a bigger contribution towards revenue.

We all know directors aren’t less replaceable, for all their ‘revenue generation’. It seems client contact, which is extremely overrated, is all many people on these forums consider as revenue generating work.

PS
I’m an analyst in structuring. “Your job will be to slave away and be at the whims…” This definitely does not hold true. Might be different for banking groups though.

FO>>BO, forget hours and bonuses, most importantly in understanding how the business works and what drives it. Not a myth. At all.