I've received 2 summer analyst offers - Barclays equity research and Citi investment banking - and I don't know which to take. The job function of equity research (marginally) interests me more, but I'm more concerned about job security and exit opportunities.
Barclays research is basically Lehman Brothers, which I hear had a good reputation in research. However, UK regulators are thinking about shutting down the entire investment bank. Citi is slashing jobs left and right and I'm concerned about the anemic deal flow, but I also know the worst is over.
I have no idea what I want to do in 5 years but I probably won't want to continue working 80-100hrs/wk so maybe move to the buyside at PE/HF.
thoughts?
I interviewed with Barclays ER for SA last year and thought they were amazing. If you have any idea who you'd be working with or just who you interviewed with, PM me. If you are leaning towards ER, not many better places you could go than Barclays in my opinion... especially if you're into consumer/retail or tech.
If you want to go to PE/HF long-term you're better off in investment banking.
2 years at a BB or E-boutique will set you up better to leave for PE/HF than working in Research.
Now if you leave the BB/E-boutique and are dead set on HF's then you could be in a better spot sliding into ER and working for a Top 3 II ranked analyst in the space you want and then leveraging from there.
Overall in terms of 2 years out and HF/PE opps IB would be your best bet.
Remember though, HF and PE are practically night and day. Why? because PE you are doing TRANSACTIONS so you're doing modelling LBO's etc, but in HF's you're making stock calls and taking positions.
IB better than ER for first 2 years in general because we know you can work under stress, accurately and have the basic concepts of finance down pretty cold.
Finally, neither of those jobs are bad, B-cap has good research and a BB banking job is of course.. a BB banking job.
Thank you WhiteHat and WallStreetPlayBoys - your responses were very helpful!
I think it boils down to figuring out what I want to do longterm. it's just hard to say at this point because I've never had direct experience in either field. I'll continue giving it some thoughts.
Thanks! :)
since you've basically outlined most of the pros and cons of both, only you really know which way you're leaning. if it were me, id choose ER, but that's mostly because of a personal interest in it.
yes, you should consider what you want to do long term, but don't put an exorbitant amount of pressure on yourself to decide. you don't know what you'll want in 5 years, what -if any- industry changes will be, and what these two companies will look like. so, yes, it is good to have an idea what you may like in the future, but do what you're interested in now.
I dont know why you're thinking. Citi's new CEO knows how to execute, dumped all the compliance and legal costs into the 4th quarter's annual report (which means the future is looking bright), most of the layoffs are done, and most importantly, Citi is now ranked 4th globally and 3rd in the US for M&A (couldn't find IB as a whole..source:WSJ).
ER is great but I'm pretty sure Barclays is set to shrink their US operations big time in the near future. Go to Citi - you will learn a lot about industries, how companies grow, and the exit opportunities will be way more superior to Barclays ER.
Necessitatibus deserunt suscipit provident dignissimos eveniet sunt nihil. Consequatur accusamus quaerat laboriosam dolorem est sed sapiente dicta. Atque ratione illum est placeat magnam harum nemo. Omnis enim deserunt corrupti eius architecto est qui. Ex voluptas veritatis explicabo error optio.
Totam quaerat a a esse consequatur voluptas autem magni. Dolorum beatae eos ut. Ullam vel earum voluptatem vel natus vero 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...