Evaluating Competing LO Offers for Senior Analyst
Calling experienced folks for any and all input. Assume you are an experience senior analyst facing this choice:
- firm 1 long only offers good comp, wlb, firm stability but your strategy is shrinking to the point where it could be phased out in a few years even if not explicitly stated and 0 chance of making PM (non zero chance you’d be allowed to take a different role at firm but would likely be in something with less interest/ability)
- firm 2 long only with similar prestige, firm stability, WLB, but a stable/larger allocation to your strategy and potential to make PM medium term
How much of a comp discount would you take to move from firm 1 to 2 and how much deferred would you leave on the table?
When faced with such a decision, it's crucial to weigh both the immediate and long-term implications of each offer. Here's a breakdown of factors to consider based on the most helpful WSO content:
Compensation: While Firm 1 offers good compensation, it's important to consider the long-term earning potential. If the strategy is shrinking, this could impact future bonuses and raises. Firm 2, while not specified, seems to offer a stable or potentially growing strategy which could mean better compensation growth over time.
Career Progression: The potential to become a PM at Firm 2 is a significant opportunity. It's not just about the title, but also the experience, responsibility, and compensation that come with it. If Firm 1 offers little to no chance of becoming a PM, this could be a major factor in favor of Firm 2.
Deferred Compensation: Leaving deferred compensation on the table is a cost that needs to be factored into the decision. However, the potential for higher future earnings and career growth at Firm 2 might offset this initial loss.
Interest and Ability: If Firm 1's alternative roles are less interesting or don't align with your abilities, this could lead to dissatisfaction and underperformance. Being in a role that excites you and matches your skill set at Firm 2 could lead to better performance and job satisfaction.
Long-Term Stability: Even if Firm 1 is stable now, a shrinking strategy could mean less stability in the future. Firm 2 offers stability within your strategy, which could translate to more security in the long run.
Based on previous WSO threads, it's often recommended to prioritize long-term career growth and job satisfaction over short-term compensation. However, the exact "discount" in compensation one might accept can vary greatly depending on personal circumstances, market conditions, and individual risk tolerance. It's a personal decision that should be carefully considered with all these factors in mind.
Sources: Very Tough Decision - Short-term Comp vs. Long-term job, PE associate comp, Accepting TWO offers (one SA, one FT) during same year; date clash! Help!, Is this associate compensation competitive?, Would you move to a 'tier-2' city?
Probs firm 1. I have taken a job which underpaid me once in my career and greatly regretted it
Thanks for the input- you mind elaborating why beyond the obvious less comp?
Bump
Mind if I ask specifics on comp?
I am happy to answer thematically but unfortunately not specifics
Range ?
Vel repellat veniam quis. Sed dolorum quia est vero quod dolorum. Illo corrupti aperiam illum consequatur inventore soluta qui minus. Expedita cumque voluptatem non fuga quia illum quam.
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...