Analyst vs Associate

I'm trying to apply this to a very small, niche boutique, but any firm or geographic area would still be helpful.

I'm trying to apply this to a very small, niche boutique, but any firm or geographic area would still be helpful.

I'm trying to apply this to a very small, niche boutique, but any firm or geographic area would still be helpful.

associates are useless.

Who else would forward work onto you from the VPs and MDs and then spend 5 minutes checking it?

1. Analysts, whether you like it or not, have to listen to and do what their associates say. The difference is one of authority, title, responsibility. In a standard firm, its 3 years as an analyst (2 if you're really good). The main difference in responsibility is that its the associate's fault when you, the analyst, fuck up.
2. Compensation is higher at associate than at analyst. Look up the statistics on the compensation survey.
3. At smaller firms analysts tend to get more responsibility and may not have an associate above them on all projects. This is also true for experienced analysts at most firms (really good 2nd or mediocre 3rd years).
4. It's pretty standard across the board, 2 years with an option for a 3rd as analyst at the banks discretion. If you are really good (I won't define what good is, but suffice it to say that "good" analysts get associate offers) then you get an associate offer. It's then 3.5-4 years as an associate till VP. The big difference is that associate is more of a career choice than a career building choice.
5. A very large portion of associates were never analysts and just went to business school and had some previous experience doing something stupid. An MBA is basically the required degree.

Let me say also that I despise MBA associates for the first year or two because they tend to be completely useless, however they think the degree taught them something. I would take a 1st year analyst over and out of b-school associate for a project any day of the week.

Disclaimer: I am an associate and I don't treat my analysts that well.

Thanks PM - great explanation.

What about someone who obtained a Bachelors and Masters at the same time (say in 4-5 years) in the same major (say economics). Non-Ivy League school. Does that carry the same weight as undergrad and grad degrees obtained consecutively or with a year or two as an analyst in between?

It seems to me it wouldn't carry the same weight assuming a bunch of courses counted towards both so its a watered down version of two independent degrees. Has anyone done this or run into people who have?

Also - I've heard this about MBA. Curious though - why aren't Masters' in Finance or Econ acceptable?

A joint masters obtained in 4-5 years carries little to no weight. For someone who had good internship experience etc and has this in addition they may, in a good job market, be able to start as a second year or something of the sort, but in this market you are a first year just like anyone else. This isn't to say that it might not help non PE/HF exit opps or give you some sort of personal benefit.

I know a number of people who have non-mba masters taken immediately after college (or jointly) and none of them got a boost out of them. There is a connotation to these degrees that you just couldn't get a job out of college if it wasn't a joint program. If it was a joint program, well its a nice thing on your resume, but I would rather see good internships in banking etc.

As a point of reference, broadly speaking little to nothing learned in a program like this would be useful as a banker. Yes having seen a BS/IS/CF is a good thing, but you'll learn everything you need to be an analyst in your firms training program or within a few weeks of people pounding the information into your head 90 hours a week.

As to an MBA vs other degrees, an MBA is a Masters of Business Administration. Now, depending on the university it can mean a number of things, some have you do a bunch of case studies, some focus on class work, some are entrepreneurially focused, others corporate. All of them though provide one thing of value, a network of like minded individuals in your class and in an alumni network. This network and the training to network on your own are the important aspects of business school. In other parts of the world a Masters of Finance is viewed in exactly the same light and actually provides a much more useful technical background and focused experience that is truly good for banking. In the US, these programs are not as common and thus not as well received.

If you want to break into banking after working for a few years, get an MBA from a top school, don't bother with another degree in the US. In general, banks won't even interview non-MBA masters candidates for associate roles unless they have a lot of relevant experience.

Further Disclaimer: I've never known anyone who was an MBA associate without prior banking experience that I respected in their first 2 years on the job. I also haven't found any of the non-MBA masters kiddies to be any better, smarter, or more capable than their college grad compatriots.

agreed. a 2nd yr analyst is more valuable to the firm than an fresh mba grad.

For the first 6-12 months, all our MBA associates get 1st year analyst work. Everyone knows they're as or more useless than a 1st year analyst for a long while. The difference is the company is making a bigger commitment to them, because as PM said, the associate track is more of a career path than a 2-years-and-done style of analyst programs.