Will lateral ER to "better" bank / analyst = better buyside opty exit?
Hi – I've done over 2yrs of SS ER (solid sector platform) w/ about as fair of hours as could expect in SS ER – but may have upcoming opportunities to jump over to bigger banks / "higher II ranked" analysts.
Wondering if a move like this would be worth it to improve my buyside prospects? The difference in junior level payscale seems fairly immaterial, so I believe it becomes more so a question of if it'll better position me for buyside (likely working >>> vs current team)?
It seems like I'm somewhat qualified for buyside now, so I feel unsure about considering this jump, esp given that I have relatively "fair" hours.
Thank you so much in advance!
Buyside recruiting, particularly in AM, is rather meritocratic and things like "prestige" won't get you as far as it might on the sell side or at hedge funds, PE shops, etc. So a better ranked team may help you incrementally in terms of being something you can implicitly or explicitly use to get looks, but overall, buyside AM doesn't view SS ER (as a business counterparty) very favorably since the style of work is so different. If you are trying to go to a HF, SS ER places well to the MM platforms and you should be fine going straight over if you're good. If you want long-only, it'll probably be hard without an MBA, but certainly not impossible. Targeting HFs from SS ER is a good pipeline since you interact with them a lot more I would think. Also, try to make the jump sooner than later and decide if this is really the path for you. Investing is something where you need a lot of passion to be good and to demonstrate to interviewers that you will be a good investment for them. Best of luck; hope that helps.
What westcoastbum said 100%. At bigger banks, the sell-side job is the same. Being higher II ranked has almost nothing to do the ability to generate alpha, so a buy-sider doesn't care about a junior who works for a bigger peacock than their peers on Wall Street? The only exception is you can lateral into an II-ranked analyst who gets ranked because they can generate alpha for clients, but let's face it, they are rare (if any).
The only thing that matters: are you perceived to have the potential to generate return for the fund down the road?
I will not bother lateraling, one you have to learn the workflow of a new team (which takes 6-9 months), two, you have to explain the move during interview.
Appreciate the help here guys! I know this is more in the weeds, but
1. Does it make any difference that my current team doesn't really mentor me for shit / I feel like I have stalled in learning? Analyst "encourages" me to ask for feedback but ignores 80% of time. New potential new team does genuinely seem like they develop their associates significantly more than mine – although I'm sure they all promise this to an extent (a recent exit did go to an awesome HF).
2. Current role is not in NY, but new role would be in NY... (went to non-target & have minimal network) is that worthy of consideration?
Basically am trying to judge or weigh how much more learning & NPV of future opportunities truly may be on the table at new gig (and sacrificing net pay/savings & work/life balance of current gig).
Thank you once again.
Qui dignissimos est minima fugit tempore corrupti occaecati. Neque architecto eaque aperiam repellendus magnam. Est laudantium corrupti consequatur aut. Qui minus sed aut possimus fugiat aut cumque error. Labore unde quidem maxime iste.
Non dicta culpa culpa possimus dolor. Ducimus consequatur dolore quo occaecati vel ullam natus dolor. Deleniti excepturi error debitis maiores dignissimos nobis. Sed consequatur non eveniet earum sit alias.
Odit sed qui omnis omnis. Eius quis eum aut saepe omnis occaecati animi.
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...