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.
Good morning everyone. I would like to ask, between the Financial Analyst and the Economic Analyst, which field is better for someone who wants to work in a company or in a Financial institution . Among the two professions, which has higher demand, offers better career opportunities, and higher salaries. Personally, I have a degree in economics, but now I am doing a master's in finance and Banking , and the truth is that both fields have piqued my interest a lot. Last but not least currently I am doing my internship in a financial institution.
I would highly appreciate your opinions on this topic.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,690 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46166
Do some informational interviews with professionals in organizations that you are interested in joining.
Economics careers are investigative and often education or government based, often risky to find correct niche. (More seekers than positions, high emphasis on your school / research/ contributions)
Finance is a huge range from customer direct to back office research to accounting office support, and marketing research and projections for company products and direction... Plus banking (investment, lending, evaluation, budgeting...). Quite mechanical but not boring.
One of my kids did Financial Economics as a major, and obtained CFA + a few jobs US and international in very exclusive (and small) firms that cater to HNW individuals, universities, insurance investments. Then went into CFO positions at creative startups.
Nice, interesting and creative career. +/-
Another friend does international financial economics for marketing strategies in a fortune 50.
Another learned 5 Asian languages, and writes international trade agreements. (Living and working overseas for 30+ years has brought many diverse investments and adventures for him).
Several others work in research and strategy for Fisher Investments.
Of course I've met many at Fidelity and Schwab of various quality.
Hint: look far into your future, and follow Buffett suggestion. Find and surround yourself with very smart and respected companies and individuals. The magic will follow.
I’d say a financial analyst, but that title can be associated with a lot of different roles. In my experience, CPAs are probably the most in demand and accounting is useful for a wide range of roles.
I’d be cautious about becoming an economist. You need a PhD and even then it may be competitive.
An actuary is another area that is worthy of consideration!
Good morning everyone. I would like to ask, between the Financial Analyst and the Economic Analyst, which field is better for someone who wants to work in a company or in a Financial institution . Among the two professions, which has higher demand, offers better career opportunities, and higher salaries. Personally, I have a degree in economics, but now I am doing a master's in finance and Banking , and the truth is that both fields have piqued my interest a lot. Last but not least currently I am doing my internship in a financial institution.
I would highly appreciate your opinions on this topic.
All major financial institutions have economists on staff. Since you are already working at a financial institution, why not go to one of the economists and ask for their info regarding what they do and any advice they have.
Same with the financial analysts.
All of these are very broad terms, however.
Also, go onto one of the job application websites and look at the job descriptions for the multiple of finanacial and economic analyst jobs.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,059 posts, read 7,493,946 times
Reputation: 9787
Since these careers deal with OPM and careers:
Can you schmooze well?
Can you write and speak well to make a convincing argument.
Can you admit your mistakes.
Good morning everyone. I would like to ask, between the Financial Analyst and the Economic Analyst, which field is better for someone who wants to work in a company or in a Financial institution . Among the two professions, which has higher demand, offers better career opportunities, and higher salaries. Personally, I have a degree in economics, but now I am doing a master's in finance and Banking , and the truth is that both fields have piqued my interest a lot. Last but not least currently I am doing my internship in a financial institution.
I would highly appreciate your opinions on this topic.
Economics guy here.
Finance is one of the more important facets of economics...........I joke, I joke.
1. I like that you segued from one to the other educationally.
2. StealthRabbit is makes a good point; it's tougher to make way in economics short of a Ph.D but people do it.
3. In gross terms finance is a deep dive in to a fairly narrow but mission critical information column - "shown me the numbers." Economics offers a wider view - usually - "tell me why the numbers are this way and what should we expect going forward?"
4. Every company of any size simply must have a finance team. Far fewer companies must have an economics team.
5. Being an economist is more frustrating. You'd send lots of time arguing with people who have little idea what they are talking about and still dead-certain they are correct. Recently in another section of CD a guy went on and on that PPP adjustments were A. not reliable. B. "unsophisticated" C. little used D. tricked up to make The US look good. Obviously none of that is even a little correct. A different poster, several times, made reference to the graphic below claiming it was limited because it didn't account for inflation - of course the chart not only accounts for inflation it's titled as such (Real) and labeled as CPI-U-RS corrected.
And similar happens at dinners, at the bar, on airplanes etc.
Finance is one of the more important facets of economics...........I joke, I joke.
1. I like that you segued from one to the other educationally.
2. StealthRabbit is makes a good point; it's tougher to make way in economics short of a Ph.D but people do it.
3. In gross terms finance is a deep dive in to a fairly narrow but mission critical information column - "shown me the numbers." Economics offers a wider view - usually - "tell me why the numbers are this way and what should we expect going forward?"
4. Every company of any size simply must have a finance team. Far fewer companies must have an economics team.
5. Being an economist is more frustrating. You'd send lots of time arguing with people who have little idea what they are talking about and still dead-certain they are correct. Recently in another section of CD a guy went on and on that PPP adjustments were A. not reliable. B. "unsophisticated" C. little used D. tricked up to make The US look good. Obviously none of that is even a little correct. A different poster, several times, made reference to the graphic below claiming it was limited because it didn't account for inflation - of course the chart not only accounts for inflation it's titled as such (Real) and labeled as CPI-U-RS corrected.
And similar happens at dinners, at the bar, on airplanes etc.
I think you could view it similarly to marketing. When I was in college, the majority of people in business went into marketing. To me, it was a bit of a cop out. There really is no right or wrong answer in marketing. Economics is more theory. If you like to wax poetic about concepts, that would be a better fit. I chose the finance route. I saw it as a difficult option and I wanted to push myself. I also had a sense that since far fewer women went into it at the time, it would give me and advantage. I never had much trouble finding jobs.
For me, I'd rather be one of the economic prognosticators. I supported a large team of financial analysts at a hospital system in my previous job. It was basically back office corporate finance - nothing exciting about it.
Being an economist is more frustrating. You'd send lots of time arguing with people who have little idea what they are talking about and still dead-certain they are correct.
This sounds accurate. I witnessed it more times than I can remember. I am under the impression that you get to have less debates of this type as a financial analyst.
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.
