Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete
Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete
Trending Content - Asset Management Forum
Career Resources
Seriously?
.
No. Like most comparisons people try and make on this forum, apples and oranges.
Interested as well , so please share your wisdom !
Again, completely different. Even within BB the compensation scheme can vary dramatically according to a mentor I have who is a VP in Wealth Management. His firm (a major, European headquartered BB) compensates almost entirely on a commission basis whereas other firms are dominantly salary.
Different groups can also vary dramatically in their perception of the business. In this firm the clients are viewed primarily as the individual's ( as in the VP of the wealth management office) client's, whereas at a lot of other firms the clients are viewed primarily as being clients of the institution.
In other words: You're better off talking to people at each individual bank instead of asking generalized questions that assume a false equivalency.
Thank you for this, I always wondered were these questions originate. For me they are clients of the institution. Oaktree/Wellington always come in comparing apples to oranges from a Custody & Clearing standpoint. But again, its like you said we all have diferent perceptions of the business.
Depends whether you're talking about their mutual funds or pwm.
^this
oaktree PE = JPM MF =/= JPM PWM
Assuming you're talking about investment management and not other areas such as wealth management, in general the differences are:
Bank pros: - higher initial comp, i.e. salary (not always true though) - very stable - banks have great distribution networks which, if used correctly, can lead to product growth - brand name is good if you end up switching to another role or industry
Private investment manager pros: - higher long-term comp. All profits are split among the partners / employees. - More focus. Investment management is all they do. - Depending upon the firm, the brand can be excellent if you stay in the industry (e.g. Wellington). - less BS and bureaucracy - good access to investment professionals; you'll learn a lot
Bank cons: - layers of red tape and bureaucracy. Forgot about advancing quickly or doing anything innovative. - comp tends to level off earlier. Banks are cost focused. - some banks AM groups don't perform very well. They only exist since the bank has a good distribution network. - can be boring / low energy
Investment manager cons: - tons of variability among managers. There is no such thing as a typical manager. - can be much less stable, especially at smaller managers.
models_and_bottles
What do you think about doing the Analyst Programme in the JP Morgan Equities Behavioural Finance Group before getting a MBA and use the MBA to switch to a pure Asset Management firm / HF ?
Thank you ?
No idea what that group does or what your other opportunities are. You should ask yourself where you want to be long term and work your back from there.
Mollitia omnis culpa architecto debitis. Repudiandae dignissimos asperiores temporibus porro. Suscipit ut necessitatibus sunt ut dolore.
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...