How Important is "Brand Name" Work Experience?
I was wondering if anyone could provide any insight into how important it is to have a brand name employer on your resume when applying to B-schools?
As a senior I'm starting to think about what jobs opportunities to pursue if my intent is to enter business school 3-4 years after graduating undergrad.
Keeping in mind a goal of getting into say a non-Harvard/Stanford M7 school for eventual associate placement in IBD, which opportunity would I be better off pursuing:
1) corporate finance at F500 company, 'development' program within the company's finance department
2) Boutique IBD, very small BB/Elite Boutique IBD, but would be worried the lack of brand name would be harmful for business schools. Given a strong undergrad background (3.5-3.7 @ Ivy) and GMAT (~730?), would I be ok going with boutique ib to start?
interested as well. At what point is it better to go for a non-IB brand name over a no-name boutique?
If the boutique is filled with blue chip MBA types (or the folks are not MBA alums, but went to great schools and worked at blue chip firms), go with the boutique - it may not be as "unheard of" as you may think, especially if there had been analysts before you who had gotten into the top schools from that boutique.
Go with your gut on this - which seems to suggest the boutique, as it sounds like you'd get more out of the experience there.
Also, for b-school admissions, school pedigree is more important than employer pedigree.
Ah fuck, lol. Where you went to UG is more important than where you worked since? Would good GPA and good work experience set you up well for not M3=
Ah fuck, lol. Where you went to UG is more important than where you worked since? Would good GPA and good work experience set you up well for not M3=
Ask the boutique IB where their previous analysts have gone after leaving the bank. That will give you some sense of the exit/b-school ops available to you.
Also, boutiques that have partners/VPs that came from top b-schools will position you a lot better for that path. Admissions people like to see references from alumns of their programs who were your direct supervisors.
I can really only see this being beneficial if you want to stay in banking though. Since PE mega funds don't recruit from regional banks, you would probably end up at a smaller shop without the MBA connections. Or is this assumption just wrong?
I'm not exactly sure what your question is. At the boutique where I previously worked, all but one of the partners had top MBAs. Most of the VPs did as well. A couple of former analysts ended up in pre-MBA PE positions, and a couple of others took different paths and then went to b-school. You can break into mid-market PE shop from a boutique but not likely into a mega-fund pre-MBA. All of the former analysts that applied to b-school got into top programs.
The OP was interested in top-MBA -> BB associate so in that case I don't view the boutique route as hurting his chances.
Firm Brand Name vs. Location vs. Function (Originally Posted: 02/09/2013)
Hey guys,
I was wondering what job you would pick out of these in terms of most learning, most prestige, best exit opportunities, most pay and any other factors you think would be relevant. As you can see, the jobs cover multiple functions, locations and firms which is why I'm having trouble seeing which one is best. Your thoughts would be very helpful, thanks!
I know some folks at BAML Houston energy S&T and it is very legit - if you can handle the city (I wouldn't be able to), it's probably the best choice (assuming you prefer markets to banking).
Do you have offers from all these separate places?
Thanks jtbbdxbnycmad, the only thing I was concerned about was that apparently you don't have much of a say in whether you become a trader or salesperson. Would that affect your decision at all?
eleutheros, I'm still waiting on a response from them, but I got superdays for all of them. Just preparing to make a decision.
If you're interested in FO trading or banking, I would cross JPM TSS off your list
eleutheros, that's what I was thinking, but I really wanted to live in New York.. and I was hoping the JPM brand name would compensate for the non-FO role if I recruit for IBD or S&T in New York again in the future. Is TSS considered more MO? They still deal with clients and make money for the firm though. Also, I heard internal mobility is pretty good at JPM, and it's common for people to move divisions.
I got an anecdote here, for what it's worth. A friend of a friend summered there and was miserable. He didn't return and now is doing a master's degree.
And it should go without saying that if you want IBD over s&t then go for #4.
WF or baml
1st or 3rd.
BO or MO at JPM is still BO/MO.
What sort of boutique?
Wells and then swing into PIMCO. Have a nice life.
You'd have to pay me a looooooooot to live in Houston. Austin, different story.
Okay, so it seems like it's pretty unanimous that JPM should be knocked off. The boutique is Gleacher. Problem is, I'm not sure if I'm a better fit for IBD, S&T or Fixed Income. Which offer do you think would give me the most flexibility to move to other industries/roles if I don't like it later? I know once you're in S&T, you tend to stay there or maybe exit to a hedge fund. So mobility is a concern.
Surprised no one has suggested the IB job, am I still on WSO?
This is the trader part of the forum.
3 or 4 IMO. I just couldn't deal with Houston, regardless of job.
depends on which boutique.
but i'd take WF.
What's people's problem with Houston. It's a perfectly nice city and an analyst's salary goes a lot farther there than NYC or SF.
The Brand Name Advantage: Valuable, Sustainable and Elusive (Originally Posted: 10/03/2013)
Why brand name valuation matters
To provide an illustration of pure brand name power, I took a stroll through my local pharmacy and found these two bottles in the painkiller aisle:
The value of a brand name
Implications
- Brand name is one of the most sustainable competitive advantages in business: There are very few competitive advantages that have survived as long as brand name. A technological edge can be lost and economies of scale can be matched but brand names often endure the slings and arrows of competitive fortune.
- Brand name is not the only competitive advantage: Not all valuable companies have a valuable brand name (Eg. Walmart, Exxon Mobil) but they have other competitive advantages; Walmart’s edge comes from unmatched economies of scales and supply chain management whereas Exxon’s come from its reserves). Even some of the companies on the Interbrand list have questionable brand name values. As I see it (and I am biased), Microsoft’s competitive advantage has not been its brand name. With both Windows and Office, the company has used a mix of overwhelming force (packing the products with features that most of us never use) and a networking effect (where not using them makes you the odd person out) to win.
- Misidentifying your competitive advantage can be dangerous: You may feel that the parsing of competitive advantages that I am doing is pointless, since they all lead to excess returns, but I do think that it matters. If you do not know what your true competitive advantage is, it will not only be difficult to nurture it but you may put it at risk with your actions. Thus, while brand name value is a sustainable advantage, its benefits can still be lost by careless, deluded or distracted managers. A classic example is Coca Cola’s ill-fated attempt in 1986 to introduce New Coke, in a misguided belief that it was taste that mattered, when in fact it had little to do with Coca Cola’s success.
- Investor alert: If you are an investor in a company whose primary competitive advantage is brand name, the primary risk you face to your wealth is not that the company’s growth will lag (though that is always a concern) but that its pricing power will dissipate. In pragmatic terms, investors in brand name companies should track operating margins at these companies, staying alert to slippage.
Brand name spreadsheet: Generic spreadsheet for valuing brand nameThat aspirin example is a very bad one, as it has very little to do with Bayer's brand. Usually pricing of store brands has an inverse relationship with the CPG company's brand power (i.e. in order to buy Cott soda, it's gotta be really cheap compared to Coca-Cola). That isn't the case here.
The reason store brand aspirin is priced so low is because people who take aspirin often generally have chronic medical issues. So they're very valuable pharmacy customers, and drawing those customers on low-priced related items is a common strategy. Generic pharma margins are really high at pretty much any price, and by discounting that much to the brand, the store brand can further their claim to providing a lot of value throughout the store, but still make a decent margin.
Source: Lots of retail consulting experience.
Wow, good stuff Mr. Damodaran. I didn't know you were active on WSO.
What do you have currently as your equity risk premium? This is a topic that is always extremely interesting to me. I used your ERP last spring in an investments class to calculate WACC for IBM. Enjoyed reading your material. Thanks
sorry forgot to add on the post that this is a syndication from his blog http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com - comments to him should be directed there
p.s. nice username -a seahawks fan
An Argentine tango fan here.
I think Coca -Cola's dethroning on the Interbrand rankings this year had to do with their lower ROIC in EMs, and not so much with Apple's or Google's rise in brand value since last year.
Brand Name vs. Experience (Originally Posted: 02/28/2013)
Just wanted your opinion on what matters more the brandname or experience. So, interning for Goldman or a reputable name being the coffee boy or instead being at a no name firm which let's you do financial modeling and skills that can be carried over.
and yes I have already used the search function
You can't look at such an extreme scenario like that, it doesn't make any sense. The comparison is Brand name vs. non-brand in a similar job function. The truth is no one really knows the answer because it's very situation specific, but the edge in recruiting goes to brand. If the choice is waterboy / corporate jizz rag, then go with the non-brand firm that will allow you to develop skills.
Brand name vs. potential experience earned from internship (Originally Posted: 12/04/2012)
Hi fellow monkeys, I've been a lurker on WSO for a while now and recently decided to be more active, please be friendly! Not sure if I've posted this in the right forum, but if you guys have any advice or comments, I'm open to them.
I'm a sophomore at a non-target, majoring in Finance, and I've recently been offered an internship at a big AM firm (think Aberdeen/ Schroders) in Investment Ops, and also another offer at a much smaller bank in Risk Management. My career goals have the buyside in my sights, probably in AM or PE, but I'm looking to gain exposure and experience in corp. finance at this point in time.
Here's the dilemma: I'm fairly certain that I won't get much finance exposure, if any, from the Investment Ops internship (I was assured of this by the head of Ops who interviewed me), but the brand name of the firm will definitely help turn heads later on. On the other side, the RM gig would probably give me a whole lot more experience that might come handy in future interviews, such as analysing trends, and creating research reports, but as I said, it's a much smaller bank, brand name won't do much for me.
What are your opinions on this?
I would say do the risk management role. You don't want to be labeled OPs guy if you want to get into finance role. Go to the internship that you'll have more experience in and be able to apply going forward into your next internship.
Cheers for the response,
I had that same sentiment as well, and I'm one to avoid the monotonousness of an ops role. It turns me off that there's no element at all of research in it, which is what I'm rather interested in as I think that gives me the greatest exposure to almost all areas, as compared to S&T, etc.
I'm still quite uncertain as to which outweighs the other though, brand name or job experience?
Would you want to be the janitor at Goldman Sachs? Good brand name, not such a great experience.
Well this is one of the more terrible false dichotomies I've seen in a while. It all depends; personally I'd prefer good experience over a brand name if it's what I really want to be doing. If you're unsure of what you really want, brand names will give you the most options.
Thanks everyone for your input. I've decided to take up the risk management position, since I can't for the life of me imagine myself working in the sort of environment that is ops. Either way I shot a nice polite email to reject the other position, that was kinda awkward though since they thought I was accepting it.
brand name, low deal flow, what to do? (Originally Posted: 10/27/2009)
The title pretty much explains it - im a 2nd year analyst at an elite boutique (Moelis/LAZ/BX). You might not believe it but deal flow has been stagnant and although i'm getting an overall great experience (reasonable seniors, decent client interactions) i don't think I am getting the experience that I should be getting in terms of executing deals and modeling extensively. I am interested in PE's, not necessarily a mega shop and would have no problem getting interviews according to HH's, but I am genuinely afraid that I will just embarrass myself for not knowing nearly enough about industries/LBO modeling and such.
I am wondering if I should stay for a 3rd year (assuming getting the offer) or start interviewing and see what I could find. I mean i have no complains about the job really except for some transaction experience, which, of course, is crucial.
Lastly, I'm wondering if it's already too late in the cycle for next summer's position, in which case I would need to stay for another year. This also brings up another question that I always wonder about - say if positions for next year (2010) are full, so I would need to interview for 2011 summer positions. I know that the process would start April/May 2010, at which point I will still be a 2nd year analyst. Assuming that I land an offer in June/July 2010, or before my 2nd year ends, do PE shops generally expect me to complete a 3rd year as an analyst? Or is it a possible scenario that I don't have to work until the summer of 2011?
Lots of questions, any feedback will be appreciated!
I am in a similar position as you.
You need to learn the material on your own, so build your own models during the day, read company research, know where companies in your industry trade and be prepared.
That being said take the third year offer as well and leverage that onto other opportunities
Bump - can someone shed some lights? My situation has not changed substantially, and the 3rd year offer is in no way for sure.
you obviously work for Moelis (and please stop writing "Moelis/LAZ/BX", as if Moelis is better than or on par with LAZ and BX. No offense.)
you clearly don't like your group/firm, so you should get out. i've heard that 3rd year analysts, when interviewing for the top PE shops and hedge funds, get slapped on a stigma (i.e. "must not be a top analyst, or he/she would've found a job already last year")
i think you've missed the boat on large cap PE recruiting for summer '10 start. i think some MM and smaller shops are still hiring, but even those are dwindling. your best bet for this summer is probably hedge funds, which do hire late.
didn't know Moelis had an office in HK...
I would try to secure your 3rd year offer before going out on interviews now given that it's relatively late in the process. You don't want to be left without an exit opp or 3rd year offer.
Also I don't think there is any shame in staying a 3rd year if it will give you more transaction experience and prepare you better for buy-side interviews.
guys thanks for the feedbacks. First of, Im assuming that 2nd to 3rd year is still given to a small percentage of the class, so worst case that I don't get it, it by no means would raise eyebrows in eyes of recruiters, please comment on this.
If i don't land another offer and become "jobless" in july, im assuming the options left are just some scattered, random (but by no means sub-par) PE opportunities in smaller shops. Honestly I don't think I have much trouble getting interviews with the resume, but i haven't done a LBO since training and I have announced two deals in two years.... don't know how much i can impress with those. please comment on this as well.
well elite boutiques in HK don't quite have the deal flow as in the U.S, but do you happen to be in a group like LevFin or Financial Sponsors which doesn't have much deal flow in Asia in general?
while I don't know about specific application dates, if HH say you will not have a problem getting interviews and you have shots at good PE opportunities, than what's the problem? are you just concerned about your modeling skills, why don't you revisit your training documents. you should focus on getting those interviews lined up first.
yes doing just that - reviewing all the training materials. In terms of deals - well I've announced 3 deals in two years, not substantial but i guess i still can talk about them.
My question is if i don't end up getting a 3rd year offer, how will that affect the recruiting effort for PE if by summer I am still not placed. How will funds view my candidacy? Honestly i started the process quite late..
Brand Name versus Department Group (Originally Posted: 12/10/2009)
Hi all,
So I am now confronted with a classic dilemma. Which is more important: Brand name of bank, or specific group?
Currently, I have to choose between two options (both in Hong Kong): JP Morgan Equity Capital Markets (ECM), or HSBC Investment Banking Real Estate Group. So obviously, JP Morgan is stronger as an I-Bank and as a brand, but ECM does not give me nearly the same modelling and deep exposure than IB. I am currently leaning towards HSBC because its real estate IB is perfect for what I want, but my only concern is that its brand and teams are not as strong.
How much difference does brand vs. skills make? If I plan to go into PE, Corporate, or IB in the future, is it more important to have the modelling skills, or be in a brand name bank such as JPM? Or putting on the flip side, which is more of a disadvantage: NOT having IB/modelling skills, or not being in a big name, bulge bracket bank? (Ppl say I can easily transfer within bank from ECM to IB, but I am quite skeptical about the reality)
I should also mention that HSBC is certainly stronger in HK than in the US, and it is certainly an up-and-coming bank. Also, they will have a HUGE deal in the pipeline when I enter, so I'm guaranteed with lots of good work. BUT, it is still not as strong as JPM in terms of potential connections, contacts, and door-openings.
Thanks a lot for all your advice! Psylo500
I definitely think you should take the JPM offer and after a year or two try and switch over to JPM IBD as a second year analyst.
Internal transfers rarely happen - the prospect is used to lure people into jobs they're lukewarm on at best.
You will not have good exit ops from any capital markets gig and you can forget about p/e.
I'm not sure what you should do but keep in mind yesman posts the same thing over and over and nontargetguy is still in school and knows very little about banking let alone anything else. GS/MS/JPM capital markets does have pretty good exit opps from what I've heard (ask around yourself), but if you know you're interested in RE modelling and you're sure HSBC will have good dealflow maybe you should go for that.
I'm in equity derivs TRADING, thank you very much. And as I've written before, I know people in capital markets who had/have good exit opportunities besides just business school. One is going to TPG growth, another to a hedge fund, and one to an f500 strategy dept. Then again, the people I know are from targets and at top banks.
By the way, I did my IBD summer internship a couple of years ago. Last I heard you're still licking the bottom of people's shoes to beg them to give you anything. Based on what you've posted about yourself, it suits you well :-)
I'm in a top 3 ecm desk also in Asia.
JPMorgan's ecm desk is quite good out here in asia although they're stronger in INdia and SE Asia.
I can tell u with 100% certainty ur better off in JPM ECM. The people on the HK ECM desk and syndicate dekss are great (Yes I know them personally)
Non target guy - hyou do talk a lot for a kid still in school. If you want to continue talking like that please post your name and school
Exit ops: Brand Name vs. BSD Group Head (Originally Posted: 08/19/2010)
I'm currently considering the possibility of joining a well known financial institution but sub-par IBD in hopes of improving my PE exit options. The issue is that the bank in question, while it is a well known global financial institution, their IBD is not competitive with the well known IBDs (e.g. GS, MS, JPM, DB, CS, BAML, Citi, Barclays) they have been poaching some well known talent to head some of their groups (namely the one I'm currently in final round interviews for).
Now from what I've surmised thus far, I'll have pretty good client exposure and exposure to the BSD MD. I'm wondering if the lack of IBD brand name can be mooted by this MD helping me secure a primo PE gig. And is this something I can count on him to do, assuming I do really well and impress the right people?
So basically, if I join AllianceBerstein/Brown Bros Harriman IBD (do those even exist?) and they just poached the head of CS FSG to head their FSG group... assuming I can make a name for myself in my 1-2 years, will his connections make up for the lack of brand name?
Would you rather be a small fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small pond?
Are you implying the small pond of Jeffries/Macquarie/Pipar FSG is better than the large pond of GS TMT, JPM FIG, CS FSG?
Size of the pond has nothing to do with it. It all depends on the reputation of your firm/group in the PE world. If you're working is a FSG and not advising on any decent deals... its going to be hard to catapult to a megafund/top PE gig. On the flipside if you've got a well know FSG head hitting up his rolodex to get you interviews, that will definitely help. But remember, even if he can get you interviews for some very sought after PE positions, if all your competitors are from top groups at GS/JPM/MS, you're deal experience will pale in comparison... hopefully the tradeoff is that you were in a much leaner environment and got a richer experience, albeit on smaller/lesser known deals.
I'm interested to know what some of the other experienced monkeys, possibly the ones already in PE, have to say regarding the OP's question.
How limiting is a lack of BB brand name? (Originally Posted: 06/22/2012)
Hey everyone,
I'm a rising junior with what I think is a competitive profile for recruiting next year. My plan is to do 2 years of IB, 2 of PE, and 2 for an MBA. This is obviously subject to change.
Because PE firms are looking for people with very solid financial modeling skills, among other things, I currently believe that an elite boutique analyst stint would be a better foundation for kicking ass in PE than 2 years at a BB for 2 reasons. The first being that I would be guaranteed broad modeling exposure as there would be no risk of being placed in a group like capital markets or a sub-par industry group. The second reason being superior exposure to the deal process as I would work more closely with associates/MDs. (I'm telling you all of this because I hope that you guys will poke holes in my logic... or reinforce it).
I have a friend that accepted his offer from JPM IBD and had to deal with the possibilty of being placed in a group that would have eliminated a lot of his exit opportunties. Is this how all of the bulge bracket banks work? (Making you accept their offer before they place you in a specific group).
Finally, would working at Greenhill/Centerview/Evercore put me at a disadvantage relative to someone with Goldman/JPM on their resume once I've left the realm of high finance, if I do? Say I wanted to be on the management team of a non-financial company. How much less appealing of a candidate would I be to those that don't know the name of the bank or the PE firm (given that it's not a megafund) at which I worked? Is this an important consideration?
Thanks in advance for your input.
When you say Division I athlete, does that mean you play a real sport like football, baseball, basketball, lacrosse, wrestling, or boxing or some pussy-ass shit like cross country, golf, tennis, gymnastics, swimming, tiddlywinks, or anything else celebrated in the summer Olympics....
Examples of people who play real sports (yes most are super athletes but I'm trying to make a point): http://www.pridefc.com/pride2005/images/fighter/354_l.jpg http://fattylane.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/antonio-alfonseca.jpg V.S. pussy shit: http://www.110pounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/phelps3.jpg http://looklikeanathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/male-gymnast-bo…
^ Lol
Dude your profile is ridiculous, athlete and 3.7 at HYP is ridiculous. I think a lot of places look at elite boutique as equal if not better than BB in some cases, so I wouldn't worry about that at all if that's what you'd rather do than work at a BB. Don't limit your options but ya, you're fine and elite boutique is not in any way a disadvantage, haha.
If you are confident that you understand what PE entails and are sure you want to do it, I absolutely agree with your logic on elite boutique vs. BB. Don't need to risk getting put into a group you have no interest in. (HR at every BB will tell you that people always get their first or second choices, but I know a fair few people at various BBs who didn't get any group in their top 5)
Ditto BlackHat, elite boutique is not a disadvantage. Solid profile, good luck with recruiting!
In terms of management team... it kind of depends. Just realize that a top goal for your long-term ambition should be getting into a top 5 MBA program. See if analysts at Evercore/Centerview/Greenhill are getting into places like HBS, Stanford GSB, etc. vs. BB product groups. Just speculating, but being in a random product group might affect your ability of getting into a top MBA program. I know that analysts at the boutiques you mentioned and other top-notch advisory firms do sometimes move to corporate development senior analyst roles at F500 firms (not quite management, buy high-exposure). That being said, outside of high finance, those names are not always well-known. If you want to do corporate development, you will be ok, as many interviewers in internal M&A were likely formerly in banking themselves, so they know what's up. If you want to do something other than corporate development, you might be a little at risk... but if you have experience with good advisory projects (say, transactions involving well-known firms), which elite boutiques may offer their analysts, you'll be ok. The risk of getting placed into a random product group at a BB is definitely valid though. It has happened to two friends of mine. If you wanna do management, try to get pure play M&A now and a top MBA later. But maybe you should consider management consulting? Because with your gameplan, you'll either need to "go corporate" post-MBA and wait 10+ years to get to management level with some lucl, or wait until you get high enough in IBD or PE (at least VP-level, but perhaps MD/partner) to move over.... and I'm assuming you want to do corporate finance/development/strategy as oppose to marketing or some other function.
Don't want to derail the thread but I have a question about this (big noob). Why is the Capital Markets Group bad? I hear of a decent amount of people going there, I'm guessing it is less prestigious than other groups within IBD?
thanks
FormerHornetDriver - I don't want to go into details but it's a sport that requires me to be big and strong enough to (probably) kick the living shit out of you... if that answers your question
thewaterpiper/BlackHat - that's good to hear, thanks for the encouragement
bulldogs12 - looking at the MBA track record of elite boutique analysts makes a lot of sense, thanks for your insights (and I haven't ruled out consulting but I want to at least try banking for a summer)
...so does anyone know if the elite boutique analysts do well in terms of MBA placement?
Oh lawd, we got a bad ass over here..
How does it feel to know that he has a job and you don't?
D1:
You have a nice looking profile but are probably getting a little ahead of yourself. Focus on preparing for / nailing your interviews and then see what your options actually are. One step at a time man.
That being said, here is my nutshell comparison between BB and Elite boutique: BB = Good brand name recognized everywhere. Actual work experience is highly dependent on group Boutique = Leaner deal teams (better xp w/ entire deal process). Harder to transfer out of finance.
BB ultimately gives you more optionality.
that was said with approximately 10% seriousness, but to answer your question, it feels perfectly fine
he's on his track and I'm on mine
also, I could probably beat the living shit out of you too
Didn't realize volleyball (girl sport) / soccer (poverty ball) players were such hard asses.
Gotta be a wrestler then. Until you can handle those Cornell guys though don't be so sure about that last part!
Thanks illiniPride, I definitely get ahead of myself, it's a problem. The main reason that I'm trying to figure the elite boutique vs BB predicament now is because I want to apply my networking efforts effectively. Is networking enough for an interview at the elite boutiques and some of the BBs feasible given the time constraints of a busy student?
Also, everyone says "network, network, network" but how many bankers from each bank should I be reaching out to?
If I had to choose between networking with boutiques vs. BBs, I would choose boutiques simply because they give out less offers. I know I had to beat out well over 200 applicants for the SA slot at my boutique.
Also, the main value of networking is to get passed the initial resume screen. You still have to nail the interviews after. Your profile will get you interviews no matter what so I would suggest your major focus should be interview prep.
Sounds like your head is screwed on straight so I think you'll be fine. Good luck.
Honestly, networking is a great deal and it can't hurt, but I wouldn't kill yourself over it. For entry level positions with OCR, very minimal networking is needed, none of this "search LinkedIn for alumni at banks I want to work at" bullshit. Yeah go to info sessions and make an effort to get to know people, but you don't need to be firing off a ton of emails to people you don't know.
You go to one of the top schools in the nation, are a varsity athlete, have a great GPA, and are doing what seems to be a very solid internship currently. You'll drop your resume in January and get interviews regardless of whether you know anyone at the bank. What you need to do is make sure you have your interview skills down pat and that you come off as a likeable guy.
Yea man i'm sure you could beat the living shit out of all of us. Especially, the ex-military guys. Nobody wants a piece of you.
^ This
Having gone through OCR for SA positions this year, networking didn't have much of an impact in hindsight. I'm doing an IBD SA stint and I didn't network with anyone here lol, whereas some of the other firms I networked with I wasn't even offered interviews.
Seems like you have a great profile. Just maintain your GPA, and keep in close contact with your alumni friends. They are the ones who will most likely get you interviews (or can help doing so). Because HR keeps track of who comes to the corporate events on campus, just go, sign in, have some free food, meet some peeople, have a short but meaningful talk, get their business card, shoot them an thank you email, and don't waste your efforts. If they respond, try to follow up for phone informational interviews or what not, but if they don't...whatever. I think the biggest points people miss when networking is that you have to ultimately nail your interviews to move on. Some people network a lot thinking it's gonna get them the job, but that's not true. Just be careful of getting carried away with networking too hard (or being too aggressive about it).
FormerHornetDriver - I am gonna have to tell you that you are one ignorant dude who does not know the demands of the sports you so called pussy. If you cant play those pussy sports at a professional or world class level you do not have any right to call those sports as pussy. Go get a life you ignorant ass.
Barring a personal connection with a recruiter, what impresses about the varsity sport is the time commitment. My senior bankers always "adjust" the GPA of a varsity athlete up to reflect the time commitment, so a good thing. Also, social sports (like golf) a good thing. No one plays office league football anyway.
BB Name vs. Top MM w/ More Inegrated Deal Experience (Originally Posted: 10/17/2011)
When applying to top MBA programs, how is the top BB name on your resume' compare to a top MM? More specifically, if you have more hands on deal experience through pitching, execution, and contact with PE firms and CFOs vs the typical analyst roles at BB firms. It seems that at my firm I will be taking on more associate level responsibilities than most analysts at other banks.
So what really matters, the name or the actual experience?
BB/elite boutique name matters more. This is finance. Prestige >> everything else.
I'd say BB.
MMs often sell their experience, but MM doesn't not necessarily mean better experience/closer to deals. In fact it could mean the opposite: less infrastructure = you do more back office bitchwork like database management or formatting while the BB analyst is running the model because they have internal presentation teams. BB > MM (assuming both are NY offices and both are IBD and not capital markets). There are some very legitimate MM firms (e.g. Harris Williams) with tremendous steady deal flow, but even then the BB has a bigger name for whatever you want to do later
The only consideration I'd make if it's really close (e.g. it's UBS vs. a William Blair) AND there's a legitimate fear that the BB is firing analysts, in which case you might go MM if you're risk averse, or if the BB offer is FIG/real estate specific and you don't want to be pigeonholed
Thanks for the input, I definitely understand your point of view. I will be working in a small office of this MM IB (which also has a large presence in Europe) that is mostly sell side M&A with a specific industry focus. Most of the work is dealing with PE firms and MidCap firms where the analysts are literally on the phone with the CFOs on a daily basis. The office also has an internal presentation officer for formatting of presentations which should minimize grunt work. The structure of this office is also unique, because there is an MD, Director, and 3 analysts including myself. Could this lead to an experience that top B-schools would see as comparable to BB analysts?
Thanks!
Most MM shops (e.g. Jef, HL, Cowen) even boutiques are structured like that. I'm sure you are in a great program. However everything else being equal it will not be comparable to BB. How impressive it is to B-schools will depend on your particular case. For example, you might have worked on some cross border deals that are small, but a lot more interesting than what a typical BB industrial guy has done. That said, one large deal at a BB can easily beat out 5 of your MM deals. Since it's so easy to brag about these large deals, even if you barely contributed anything.
-It would be a more convincing argument if MMs were unambiguously recognized as "the top experience" game in town, I feel many would argue that this isn't the case. There are going to be large variations between banks at both BB and MM level, so unless the admissions officers at each of the top MBA programs know the MM space intimately well, they won't really know how much of each transaction you were truly exposed to. Furthermore, as the kids at the BBs will be able to sell their experiences to sound like they had EXACTLY as much (or more) involvement on their various transactions as you did, the experiences point becomes moot and prestige will win-out.
(Besides, there's a much greater consensus that the top deal exposure/experience ratio comes from Elite Boutiques rather than BB or MM anyway.)
-Unless you plan on getting your MBA directly out of your analyst years (which is itself and unadvisable route that puts you at a disadvantage), you're going to need a second (or third) job in the industry before applying to top programs. Again, we can see how the advantage will be given to the Bulge, as the higher expected prestige of their exit-opps further opens the margin between them and you.
Of course, the system isn't perfectly efficient and this model leaves out things like undergrad performance (which likely gives advantage to BB again), GMAT scores, ECs and the like, but you can see how the argument becomes difficult to win from the MM perspective. Of course the top MM candidates will frequently win-out against the very bottom BB candidates and lateral moves are also quite common at the analyst level, but you can begin to see how the system sifts out the MM kids from the beginning (arguably before, actually).
Ok cool, thanks for taking the time to give your inputs! It's always nice to gain multiple perspectives :)
Eum veritatis culpa optio. Et aut porro quibusdam incidunt quia. Provident temporibus voluptas cumque aut qui. Eos qui blanditiis et aut a rerum. Porro aut aut dolor.
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...
Ut laboriosam delectus quasi non qui nihil aut. Qui est accusamus fugit sunt. Sed animi consequatur repellendus fugit. Ipsa voluptate molestias et doloremque reiciendis voluptas.
Doloremque quis illo officiis quaerat maxime quis modi. Beatae nesciunt inventore delectus. Iste veniam commodi praesentium autem voluptatem nemo. Autem voluptatem officiis saepe porro.
Non dolorem odit repudiandae quas modi omnis. Quisquam voluptate autem et repudiandae minus. Cupiditate vel rerum dolorem natus. Amet sit aperiam totam dolores sed et similique dolor. Ipsam et delectus pariatur autem laudantium qui.
Sit molestias provident deleniti molestiae recusandae nihil vitae. Eos itaque voluptatibus doloribus nesciunt.
Et ea quia quis quia. Fuga omnis ut velit repellendus enim enim quam. Quos mollitia accusantium necessitatibus distinctio minima. Quo quas distinctio soluta culpa. Expedita ea ut deleniti.
Dolorem autem nesciunt in consequatur numquam earum. Debitis vero cum nostrum. Odit quae facere in. Quae fugit quia quos aut at numquam.
Non enim laudantium odit quia aliquid. Quam earum architecto omnis ipsa fugit animi. Eum aut totam est natus eaque. Quia beatae aut assumenda sunt earum quos voluptatibus. Temporibus vel amet nostrum est ut.
Perferendis ipsam ut enim nihil eum qui. Rerum asperiores sit minima at distinctio qui. Autem dolore tempore consequatur quidem qui ut.
Neque in recusandae sint. Neque est quo quisquam harum. Facilis soluta consectetur ut et dolor recusandae qui. Unde accusamus consequuntur reiciendis necessitatibus non corrupti ad. Tempora necessitatibus facere facere.