Trending Content
| +169 | The "Not So Obvious" things that get you a return offer? | 20 | 2h | |
| +101 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 25 | 1h | |
| +64 | Best IB group on the Street | 27 | 5h | |
| +56 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 4h | |
| +49 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 5h | |
| +46 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 22 | 7h | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +35 | Georgetown Placement for 2024 and 2025 | 21 | 6d | |
| +34 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 3h |
Career Resources
Both are great roles, but I would say it depends on your long term career goal.
Agree but I'm kinda stuck with this decision. I have a DCM background, so the debt fund seems like an obvious move. However, going to equity and gaining experience on the other side of the financing spectrum could be also interesting. Just curious what the community here thinks in general and appreciate any comments ...
I'd go Barclays. But based on what you want to do, debt or equity.
If you're interested in doing an HF/AM, go the Debt Infra route....even if Barclays is a better name than Macq. You could bring a lot to the table with a DCM background as well.
Beware that infra debt can be a slow and boring monster, Mac is the best place for it but you’ll no longer be dealing with corporates. So make sure you’re “into” infra before getting involved, at least with ECM it keeps you open to tangential roles within “normal” corporate banking.
Thank you guys! Appreciate every input. Agree that Barclays might be better off in overall reputation but when it comes to teams I see it the other way round. Macquarie has one of the strongest teams in the infra space, whereas Barclays ECM is ranked somewhere between 5 and 10 in league tables (but imo there is strong potential/motivation to improve and they als have the ex-Lehman franchise in the US). On the other hand, ECM could still give me some more flexibility in career progression, whereas Infra likely puts a significant stamp on my CV. I was involved in some transactions for infra corporates but I wouldn't say that I have a lot of insight and that I feel dedicated to this industry. However, I wouldn't rule that out going forward. Generally, I would prefer working on the buyside in the long term and HF/PE would be the goal. In addition, I also have some secondary thoughts on job security and employee rewards. Barclays was cutting back the IBD division in the past months and I think they will still go through some restructurings and face regulatory difficulties. Macquarie, I have to admit, wasn't on my radar for any bad press so far but I guess also infra debt funds will be challenged by regulations sooner or later.
I can't comment on Barclays, but there is a fair amount of internal mobility in Macquarie's IBD, whether geographically or between teams. I've known people who have moved between 2-3 various desks over the course of 5-6 year stints there. Also, there's a good degree of movement from their IBD into their infra funds PE GP business.
Thanks guys
Iste architecto ut in vero incidunt dolores. Et minus ea quo tempore qui ducimus est. Quibusdam tempora est quo modi ut nostrum. Amet itaque ipsum et omnis quisquam corrupti praesentium veritatis.
Cupiditate veritatis dicta et ipsam. Modi vitae ex est adipisci nesciunt aut voluptatem.
Omnis ut eveniet aut alias. Occaecati qui neque eaque iste quasi doloremque autem. Quis velit dignissimos illum voluptas enim perferendis. Enim aut debitis qui reprehenderit recusandae. Voluptates ut mollitia voluptates molestiae enim id magnam. Aut et tenetur facilis ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...