Help deciding between MS, GS, and EVR
so ya, i usually hate these kinda of posts and i feel hypocritical for posting this, but definitely need some help deciding between firms.
i'm trying to decide between MS in nyc, GS in sf or nyc, and EVR for the summer.
off the bat, i really like the culture at MS, definitely felt like i met some of the coolest people here, but i guess I'm just worried about group placement (i think i can get into a good group, but it's up in the air) and their IBD practice more generally (read that it might be downsizing and the firm might move toward wealth management even more)
GS is obviously awesome, but I'm not sure about exit opps and what group id want to be in. SF is huge on tech and that would be cool, but if i end up not liking tech, i'd probably be pretty stuck out there. for the NYC office, haven't networked as much so not sure what group id get into at all really.
and EVR is really great. some really great people, and obviously well respected among PE firms. but I'm not sure i wanna do PE and thinking about brand name, etc. in that light, it's hard to really justify going there.
anyway, any and all help is appreciated and again sorry for the annoying ass post.
At the end of the day your going to have to work with theese people for many hours. Id say go with your gut and the people at MS. Brand name and great exit ops still
Wow, tough choice. Congrats on the offers.
I would try to leverage GS/Evercore at MS to see if you can get M&A/another top group.
If you can't, I would probably go with GS NY. As you mentioned, if you end up deciding that PE isn't what you want, the prestige/brand names of GS and MS will still help in transitioning to something else. If you end up wanting to do PE, GS is likely a better choice than MS -- given that you don't know which group you'll get at either -- as GS industry groups do their own M&A modelling and, on the whole, are stronger than those at MS. Just make sure that you're fine going through FT recruiting in the event that you don't get a return offer.
On the whole, all three are excellent, and will probably each take you to the same place. Congrats again.
Over/Under 5 minutes before someone throws monkey shit at OP
congratulations. Amazing choices. The guys in this forum have forgotten more about finance than I know. Not kidding. Based on the significant research I have done for my son, GS is the best place to start your career. Working for the #1 pedigree employer out of school sets you apart. 15 years from now, people are not going to be overly concerned with the IB group of your first employer. They are going to look at the name. Having GS on your resume is more respected than the other 2. And exit opportunities seem to be best coming from GS. Just my 2 cents. Congratulations again.
i m sorry but why are you on this forum? why are you doing "significant research" for your son, who should be old enough to figure things out for himself? this is super weird. takes me back to college confidential.
Why do you care? If he's done a lot of research, he might be able to offer valuable input. At least reserve this kind of crap for trolls.
The hell is wrong with you w1420. The guy is looking out for his son and good on him! My dad helped me get into college, didn't have a clue about banking so my older brother helped me out with this. I got help from a family member and I am very happy I did.
Back to OP - All 3 are great - i'd tend to go with the people you get along the most, but given you have no idea which group you will end up in this is a really tough choice. I'd go for GS NY, as you'll get to meet a lot of other people through head hunters in the future. GS SF I'd have my reservations just because of the location. I had two friends who started at GS, after a year they quit it was so intense, a friend worked there and he is now a trader at GS. They look out for you, and if you can cut it the sky is the limit at GS in the amount of different teams you can work in, but again in a big city. EVR is what it is, a shop; my old roomate is working there as a VP and really likes it and the people he gets to work with, they hire some pretty impressive MDs. But on the other hand EVR doesn't have any proper equity business, so you are limited to advisory and you don't really get the full service a house like MS or GS can offer a company. MS I don't know so won't comment.
GS end of story
I think one thing to consider, which you may already know is that GS IBD has a lot of random groups, and they are not what many would consider to be traditional coverage groups at all. You say you haven't networked at GS, so this might be a potential issue.
Is your GS SF offer generalist or specific to TMT? If so, then that might be a gamechanger as it's one of the strongest and most respected groups around.
I would not worry too much about MS being in decline. They are not going to ditch IB for wealth management anytime soon, they are still winning front page deals, and top groups are still placing lights out.
EVR M&A is a powerhouse unto itself of course.
Personally I am leaning towards MS/EVR due to the randomness of a generalist GS IBD offer. If you are fairly certain that you will get placed into one of the traditional coverage groups however, then the decision swings in favor of GS.
That's actually an interesting point. I had heard about GS having a few nontraditional industry groups. I think public finance is one. What are some of the others?
There's PSI (public sector & infrastructure), Real Estate and all of the groups that aren't classic IBD (M&A, LevFin, ECM, DCM). WSO vastly over exaggerates the odds of a candidate being placed in these groups if they pref all classic IBD groups.
there are quite a few financing groups in GS IBD. entire capital markets divisions also sits in IBD. some structured finance and corporate finance groups get thrown into the mix as well. i am not sure how much their recruiting pipeline overlaps with classic IBD, but i know quite a few of kids from my school who are in weird groups that all fall in the IBD umbrella. the recruiting process might vary a bit by school also perhaps, so unless op has more color on group placement it's hard to say that GS IBD is the unambiguous winner here
[quote=w1420]
It is true what w1420 is saying, in GS you can be placed into a capital markets role and not ibd classic. MS has it broken down in IBD and GCM, so if your offer is for ibd and you want to do ibd then MS.
really appreciate the posts...lots of helpful advice.
GS has a great reputation/network that is incredibly invaluable. GS alumni is like McK alumni, you guys are together for life. GSers usually make great politicians and are leaders.
Who are some of these grrat GS politicians? Hank Paulson? John Corrine? Rahm Emmanuel?
+1 if ibdad posts are epic.
Definitely GS, pretty easy choice
If you could distinguish between what you've been offered for a group at GS / SF, then it would make it easier to provide clarity for your situation. If it is TMT, and not a generalist offer, then recruiting for PE (whether you are thinking about the option or not) will be no different between the West Coast and East Coast locations (aside from logistics, of course). Another point if the offer is for TMT - the work that you will be doing as an analyst will be no different from the analysts in the TMT group in NYC. As far as my knowledge goes, this is one of the only groups at GS that does not send all of the modeling / analysis for a particular deal back to their "home base" in NYC. The SF office is almost entirely autonomous as far as the TMT group is concerned. The work will most likely be interesting, SF is a cool city, and if you perform well and are still at the firm after your first two years then interoffice mobility is usually no issue (GS is known for this). NYC is obviously a great place to be, but it depends on what sort of experience you want to get (if within the TMT group). If you are leaning towards NYC, then I will echo what other posters have said about the firm's reputation and the effect it has on one's resume - it's a gold stamp on the resume that almost no other firms can offer, both inside and outside of finance. If you get a group you don't prefer (which is not likely to happen), then you can request to move to another group if you perform well or test the waters during FT recruiting if you get a return offer at the end of your summer.
MS is great. IB segment of the firm is doing well regardless of Gorman's newly-established focus. Don't know too much about MS so I can't really speak on the environment too well, but in my experience during the recruiting process they have very impressive people. However, these were mostly the alumni from my school who work there, so take my comments about the people with a grain of salt. Like any bulge bracket, culture is not homogenous group to group.
Evercore is excellent. If you are worried about name-recognition within finance, then trust me when I say that there will be no issues there. It is one of the most respected firms on the street - the way the firm does things and the people it hires are all very impressive, and this is an opinion you would hear from anyone you talked to. You'd be working on some really cool deals and learning from talented people. What one of the above posters said about it not having a proper equity practice - disregard completely. As an analyst, equity and debt offerings are very plan-vanilla, and after going through one or two complex mergers at Evercore you would be able to do those in your sleep. Having said all of the positives, your worries about name recognition outside of finance are valid.
GS SF (if TMT) > GS NYC > EVR NYC > MS NYC > GS SF (if not TMT)
Own personal preferences. I've laid out all of the positives above that I can think of above, so it's up to you to decide after taking all information into account. Congrats on the offers.
FYI you probably don't know this, but the current second year analyst class in the generalist group at GS SF actually placed better than TMT did for PE (multiple megafund offers in a class of
You're saying that SF Generalist did better than SF TMT; not better than NYC TMT, right? Not trying to accuse you of inaccuracy - I actually have no idea how any of those groups did in terms of MF recruiting.
Actually, now I'm curious - anybody have any idea how the current second years at either SF TMT / SF Gen / NYC TMT did in terms of MF placements?
I'm going to clear up some misconceptions here about Goldman's IBD recruiting process. The financing groups at GS do indeed have different recruiting processes than classic banking. My own experience: went through the regular on-campus first rounds, did well at the IBD super day and was asked about group preference. I asked for a product group, and I was told to go to another super-day, group specific for one of the financing groups. Unfortunately, looks like I screwed up because I didn't connect too well with the particular group I was placed in and didn't get an offer, but regardless, can confirm that the classic banking and financing group recruiting is separate.
My advice: go with GS in SF, that's pretty golden. TMT banking there is really top notch.
Not true. I can tell you from first hand experience (as well as lots of friends) that getting an IBD offer at GS is by no means a guarantee to be in a traditional investment banking group. Lots of people every year get pigeon-holed into random DCM groups. Though you have the opportunity to go through the accelerated process for other groups within GS for FT, the spots usually end up going to laterals from other banks.
It's also very tough moving to another bank because you're competing against tons of kids that come from less reputable firms but have really good experience as a result of being placed in a solid group elsewhere. The whole nonsense about the GS name getting you every interview is really focused on jobs outside of finance. Everyone knows that DCM is DCM.
This should be an EVR vs. GS SF decision. Exit opps would be similar at both firms (with GS having the edge for TMT exits) but I have heard really great things about the culture at EVR.
Highly doubt that what you're saying is accurate, likely out of date. Just went through my process for this recruiting cycle, and personally know a couple 1st year analysts in the financing groups at GS that had to go through the same 2nd super day process before getting their offers.
EDIT: Perhaps it's only for the smaller product groups, and not ECM/DCM, but given the number of spots in classic banking vs. these groups, likelihood is that giving a preference to classic banking should get you a spot somewhere in that realm.
As far as I know, the Summer Analyst program for Goldman in SF is generalist. You'll work with both TMT and West Coast Advisory. Placement into either group happens if, and when, you are given a full-time offer.
what's so great about Evercore? what's their placement in pe/hf?
Do a LinkedIn search and you'll know.
LOL @ the dad thoroughly researching potential employers for his adult son
Wow there's a lot of unhappy people out there. If it helps people feel better I never wound up as a trader or in IBD and things have worked out pretty darned well for me so far. So don't feel too bad or too jealous of the 100 hour weeks coming for OP.
If OP can get a decent handle on his group at MS, and they seem like good people to work with, Id think long and hard about taking the offer where there's a good cultural fit.
With multiple offers, you have some modest leverage to shop for a group a bit and maybe get a soft commitment from the team and HR. I'd give HR a call and Id be prepared to have them set up a phone call so you so you can sell yourself again to a group you want and just get yourself on their radar screen. It's not a guarantee but it increases your odds north of 50% of winding up in that group if the call goes well. I'm not sure if that's good enough for you, but I think it could be an option.*
*: I am not all that familiar with how inflexible MS's recruiting processes are, or how swamped HR is. But I just find it hard to believe it would hurt to ask.
If you're opposed to the idea of calling Morgan Stanley and shopping a little for a group (ideally one with one or two people who interviewed you), could you next time please state why I'm being stupid when you throw MS? Otherwise it looks like someone who is pissed off he didn't get an offer.
I feel bad for the people who did not get offers- the good news is that many, maybe even most people in the front office didn't start there. The former CEO at my old firm started off as a risk manager in the 1980s. I feel worse for the people who did not get offers and are pissed off at the people who did. The key to getting a nice job on the street- and to advance on the street- is to have a good attitude. And I feel bad for the folks with bad attitudes.
I've never been deterred by the potential for rejection terrorists in handing out advice to nice, non-douchey people who get multiple offers. And I genuinely feel bad for the folks throwing MS in this forum. Everyone knows it's kinda meaningless here, and it's merely reinforcing the bad attitude that hurt you in the recruiting process in the first place. Every time that you get pissed off about someone getting an offer that you didn't, it makes you a little smaller and a little weaker.
In any case, I'm going to try and work with Patrick on a system that allows feedback to be more direct and less anonymous. QuantNet has a great feedback system that is traceable to every poster. It encourages more direct, more civil, more informative discussions.
MS instituted a new practice for SA's that get offers: you can go through placement again and do FT in a different group.
Real question, guys - why wouldn't you pref GS NYC over everything else, since it's expected value is probably greater than any of his other choices?
What I mean by that is he said himself that he's unsure of group placement at all the firms - and given that, isn't GS NYC as a whole generally better than any of these others (gross oversimplification, but I think you get my point)?
GS TMT in San Francisco > GS DCM, ECM, LevFin, RX in New York
Since this is for an SA position, and because GS has a relatively low SA --> FT conversion rate, there is a higher amount of risk in taking GS NYC. MS is the closest of the BBs to GS, and EVR is arguably the best of the EBs. If you go to GS and don't get a return offer, you still have a great shot at landing FT at another great bank, but it might not be at the level of MS/EVR.
Although, for what it's worth, I'm beginning to think the general fear of not getting a return offer at GS is overblown. If you're confident in your ability to perform, it shouldn't be too much of a concern. But I think the low callback rate may explain why there's some hesitation here.
See, that's what doesn't make sense to me - this idea of low conversion rates is insanely (and inaccurately) overblown on WSO. I have multiple friends who summered at GS. In two of their groups, the conversion rate was 13/15 and 10/12. And this isn't unusual - most of the groups had around or above an 80% offer rate, which is competitive with pretty much every group on the street.
Also, your second point is somewhat suspect - I know three people personally who didn't get a return offer at GS. One is going to Lazard, one is going to JPM, and one is going to MS.
BTBanker - aren't the odds of landing up in TMT in San Fran much less than ending up in a Classic IBD group in NYC? Hence your argument, while true, doesn't really make sense from an expected value perspective?
I'd rather work with a bunch of people whom I liked at Morgan Stanley than people whom I was just OK with at GS. #1 there's a bit of the not-quite-as-small-fish in slightly-less-gigantic pond aspect of working at an ever so slightly less prestigious firm. #2, you are going to be with these people more than you'll be away from them. #3 There's a little more room to impress people at MS. That is, it's ever so slightly easier to get an A in CS at CMU than it is at MIT.
All else equal, GS wins. But there are enough group dynamic effects counterbalancing prestige and rank that it doesn't take a huge push on the people issues (not culture issues- all large banks have the same culture; all banks lie and claim they have a distinct culture) for another ~top 5 firm to knock out GS.
Totally agree with you about the culture point - if OP likes MS the best, of course he should go with that, GS be damned. But I was talking more about from the all else equal point, since OP says in his post his group placement chances are up in the air everywhere.
This thread pretty much exemplifies WSO's obsession with preftige. The marginal difference in opportunities for an analyst going to GS, MS and Evercore is slim to none and OP will have great opportunities no matter what. At this point, cultural fit is really the only differentiator and if you feel like you clicked best with the people from MS, then by all means go with MS. If you're concerned about getting into your preferred group, try to leverage your GS offer with HR.
Eum quibusdam commodi pariatur ipsa. Ab quis consectetur ex qui enim. Nemo minima sunt sed.
Quia qui quia facilis sequi occaecati. Esse veniam consequuntur nihil. Provident adipisci quam rerum et nihil. Beatae molestiae adipisci fuga et a voluptas aut. Dicta qui numquam molestiae eos. Blanditiis adipisci explicabo fugit qui dolorum.
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...
Cupiditate numquam necessitatibus et. Voluptatem iure omnis aut beatae alias voluptatum. Doloremque a illum eius quasi eaque ipsam.
Voluptatem odio eligendi sapiente non assumenda dolores pariatur. Adipisci et laudantium qui iusto facilis.
Sunt et atque corrupti occaecati sit deserunt. Veniam nihil rerum fugiat dolor.
Aliquid velit omnis rerum nemo hic veritatis. Nobis rerum ea omnis iure qui perspiciatis. Non aut eum doloribus aspernatur officia. Sit maxime ut maxime nihil totam quo inventore.
Aut ea quaerat ut voluptas. Occaecati maxime earum quia qui est dolore. Et ea maiores aut ut. Maxime soluta laboriosam voluptatem in.
Et qui nemo dolores iusto. Ut accusantium culpa eveniet accusamus temporibus unde quos. Assumenda dolores consequatur sint fugiat impedit quaerat ducimus. Dolor fugit eveniet deleniti.
In eos eum molestiae accusantium quae debitis. Accusamus enim ut repellendus quia qui sint. Porro quis impedit minus esse. Dolore omnis maxime et. Eos ipsum hic aliquam voluptatum repudiandae voluptas.