IBD Analyst Deal Assignments and Staffers
I have read sporadically on these forums about the workload/hours for IBD analysts, and it always seems to follow that there resides a large variance in hours and workload between analysts of the very same group. I am wondering, how do the "assignments" to various deals and overall individual workload get placed and assigned? I always just envisioned the staffer being told to distribute the deals equally among the analyst group...but apparently, as so many of you have said, there is a degree of volunteered workload? How is it that some analysts have decent work/life balance, while others of the same group may spend 100 hours at the office every week...are analysts staffed on a volunteer basis, or is it something in between that and just blindly assigning labor randomly?
Also, is the assignment process something like this: MD --> VP --> Associate --> Staffer --> Analyst?
Yeah I was wondering about this too. I'll add: Do all banks have these "staffers" or mostly just BBs and MMs?
Staffers are usually "VP"s
Bump - interested too
Any legit and well-structured IBD team will have a staffer, some large teams, such as FIG and Industrials may have two staffers. Most staffers are senior associates or junior VPs, but I've seen MDs as staffer too.
Some really small boutiques, such as those 5 ppl or 10 ppl boutique may not have a staffer because you work directly with the MDs.
Staffers need to be fair in distributing assignments, whether it is a pitch or a live deal. Especially at the analyst level, they also need to make sure that every one will gain exposure to all products in a meaningful way. Thus, a good staffer will def. try to put you into all types of pitches/mandates including equity financing, debt financing, M&A, restructuring (if any), project financing (if any). They will also try to let you work on all types of assignments including company profiles, case studies, comps, models, industry research, memos, and deal execution. 2nd year and 3rd year analysts do tend to get more interesting projects and live deals because they are much more experienced and in a more senior position than 1st years.
The only thing that is beyond the staffer's control is the outcome of the assignments. Say whether a pitch would materialize into a mandate or whether a deal will eventually close. As a result of that, you may see one analyst in the team may close more deals or have more meaningful experience than someone else in the same team. But most of the time, it is not a staffer's fault.
So far based on my own exp and my friend's exp, none of us complained about our staffer being biased. However, there are ppl feel that the staffer is more difficult to approach. But given the fact that they control the distribution of work flow, I think it is necessary for the staffers to appear harsh and give ppl poker face so that fewer people will annoy them continuously by asking for more interesting work, say live deals over pitch.
From my experience, the MD will tell the staffer he needs people for a certain type of deal. The staffer will then contact you and tell you that you've been placed on this deal and to talk to the MD or VP or someone on the deal for details.
Some groups just have one staffer for analysts and associates (usually a VP), while some groups (larger ones) may have one analyst staffer and one associate staffer because the size of the group makes it hard for one staffer to keep track of everyone's workload.
In addition to all that mentioned above, you'll quickly find out that some staffers are better than others. Some won't care to find out how busy all the analysts are and will therefore just randomly assign people to deals. Others will make the effort and will try to always staff the "least" busy analyst. Through my 2 years, I had 3 different staffers. Staffers rotated every year or so at my MM bank.
You also have to take into account "rogue staffings" which are done outside the normal channels. This is either when a MD will directly request a favored analyst on a deal, or some senior banker will come by the bullpen and assign something to whoever looks the least busy (a "drive-by").
good stuff, thanks guys.
Bump - this is a good question, something I was wondering too. Thanks for the helpful replies.
Some general advice for dealing with your staffer:
After your directors, the staffer is usually the next person you want to impress. For example, while you can take some extra time to respond to emails from certain VPs, responding to your staffer's emails in a timely manner is a good way to stay on his/her good side. Going the extra mile for them, whether it's staying later than them for no reason or creating extra work for yourself (nothing serious, but just something to make the staffer think you give a shit), will pay dividends.
It's simple: you should always do your best to stay on the good side of the person who decides your workload. Like CompBanker said, some staffers are great and assign the work evenly. But others assign work based on a number of other factors, so staying on your staffer's good side is wise.
Asking staffer for better deals (Originally Posted: 11/09/2013)
I am on a small team that has recently had moderately strong deal flow. The other first year analysts have been placed on some great live M&A deals, but I have been doing mainly pitches. My concern is that I will not have enough/relevant deal experience for PE recruiting come the spring. How proactive/aggressive should one be in talking to the staffer about getting put on some better deals, especially M&A.
Interested as well
This whole idea of "I need lots of deal experience for PE recruiting" is overblown. I got two megafund offers without closing a single deal. And the topic barely even came up for most of my hedge fund interviews.
You might spend 5-10 minutes talking about one project/deal you worked on, but it won't make or break your interview since all you're doing is regurgitating a bunch of crap you've memorized.
So relax, you'll be fine
Agreed...when I interview, deal experience is usually just a check-the-box kind of thing rather than an actual assessment factor. Unless I'm intimately familiar with the deal, I have no way of knowing if anything you tell me is true or complete BS.
I also know that you've already prepared answers to all the high level questions I'll ask (strategic rationale, revenue drivers, industry outlook, unit economics, etc.), so I'm really just trying to see if you can talk eloquently.
for people who aren't as pedigreed, does being on 'better' deals matter as a form of adding credibility to your experience?
haven't even started working yet, just curious.
The above responses seem to imply that your pedigree (school, GPA, bank, group) predetermines what interviews you get, and once in the interviews, those who get offers do so based on fit, given that they have the basics down (modeling test, baseline performance on case studies/talking about deals, not offending the interviewer). What separates those who get offers from those who don't (what are the interviewers looking for beyond the basics)?
Fuga est perferendis velit alias quibusdam. Aut possimus nam natus et alias distinctio. Quasi placeat ipsam eos quos. Maiores qui et est ut ut consequatur modi in.
Enim corrupti sed cum sapiente vel non qui voluptas. Aut est incidunt assumenda quasi magnam esse. Nam molestias quos minus et dolore at et. Reiciendis ad molestiae necessitatibus aut laboriosam. Reprehenderit ea provident ut. Dolorem debitis dolores vero esse.
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...