“I found my mentoring session with André very helpful, particularly because I came into it with very little understanding of commercial banking. My background is in life sciences and healthcare, and most of my career exploration so far has focused on consulting. Although I had become interested in commercial banking, I had not previously explored the area in any depth. I therefore needed a clear starting point and an honest conversation about what I should understand before deciding whether to pursue it.
André helped me establish that starting point. The session gave me a clearer way to think about commercial banking, how it differs from consulting, and what I still need to learn. Before the conversation, I was looking at opportunities and wondering whether I should begin applying alongside consulting applications. Afterwards, I understood that I needed to take a step back and make a more informed decision about whether the work genuinely interests me.
One of the most valuable aspects of the session was how it helped me recognise the gaps in my current understanding. I knew that I was new to banking, but I did not necessarily know which questions I needed to answer for myself. André’s guidance helped me think more clearly about where I am now, what I am missing, and what I should begin doing next. Having that direction was useful because it made the process feel more manageable. Rather than treating banking as a broad and unfamiliar industry, I now have a clearer starting point for learning about it.
A particularly helpful message was that I should first develop a better understanding of commercial banking and assess whether I actually like the work. I took away a sensible sequence: understand the area, decide whether it appeals to me, and then, if it does, commit to learning and preparing for applications. If I discover that the work does not suit my interests, I should be willing to recognise that and focus my efforts elsewhere. That advice sounds straightforward, but it was an important perspective for me at this stage.
The conversation made me realise that I should not rush into applying for commercial banking roles simply because I have found programmes that look interesting. Before the session, I was at risk of moving too quickly from curiosity to applications without having a strong enough understanding of the career itself. André helped me see the value of being more deliberate. I would rather make a considered application based on a genuine interest in the work than spend time applying to positions I cannot yet explain my motivation for pursuing.
Another important takeaway was recognising how substantial the differences between banking and consulting can be. Because consulting has been my main focus, it had become my reference point when thinking about other careers. The session helped me realise that I cannot assume banking will involve similar work, suit the same preferences, or require exactly the same preparation. I need to understand banking on its own terms rather than view it mainly as another option alongside consulting.
I also appreciated that the session was useful even though I did not finish it with a final career decision. At this exploratory stage, greater clarity about what I do not yet know is meaningful progress. I now feel better equipped to evaluate my interest, identify what I need to learn, and decide whether commercial banking deserves a more focused place in my career plans.
Overall, André was very helpful, and the session met an important need for me as someone starting with limited knowledge of the field. Its greatest value was giving me direction and encouraging a more thoughtful approach to my next steps. I left with a clearer understanding of my knowledge gaps, a more realistic perspective on the difference between banking and consulting, and a better sense of how to move forward before committing to applications.”
Read the "Mercer Management Consulting" topic, this has already been answered. If you find risk management, IT systems, compliance and check-processing to be an amazing source of daily inspiration, Oliver Wyman FS is the firm for you. Haha, OK that was not really true. Besides all those boring areas, they will also advise in areas like HF trading strategy, ibanking partner-pitching strategy, selecting targets for a private equity firm, etc.
Reputation: Top notch in financial services (#2=Oliver Wyman, #1=McKinsey). I think these are the consulting mag's rankings.
Travel: Terrible, at par with McKinsey and not as nice as Bain.
Exit opps: I've heard from their consultants that PE/HF exit opps are great but I'm extremely skeptical. I've never seen a Mercer/Oliver Wyman alumni in the private equity industry. I think the best exit opps are in a strategy group with a bank, e.g. Morgan Stanley Strategy Group.
Pay: Ridiculously, outstandingly good. They pay WAY above market. First years make a guaranteed all-in of $100K with an average all-in of $120-140K. So: $65K (base salary) + $40K (guaranteed bonus) + $20K (average additional bonus). It's definately ibanking money and way fewer hours.
Culture: very weird. Consultants don't get blackberries and partners don't get offices. The firm is known for being very very cheap with everything except salaries. My friend tells me there was a rumour to stop serving Snapple because it was costing the firm too much.
BUT, factor in the lower reputation (read: significantly worse exit opps than MBB and narrow practice area), and it's not exactly the best deal in town.
I doubt MOW travel is as bad as Mckinsey. And not sure where you are getting your info but Bain travel is just as bad as any of the other firms.
^ credited. mckinsey travel is insane because they have a lot of offices. if you're in cleveland, you're ALWAYS going to travel. if in ny or nj, you'll probably stay local.
bain has marginally less travel, especially for ny and boston.
mrcanuck, how would you compare Oliver Wyman General Management Consulting against its Financial Services practice and M/B/B? Thanks!
movetofinance: yeah that's what I meant. OW office in NYC is really good for travel. But all the other offices are not very good.
Dinendal: again, read the "Mercer Management Consulting" post. I think the posters there have it spot on. Great firm, but no real differentiation and exit opps pretty much limited to bschool. I know that they don't really serve a lot of PE clients (unlike McK/Bain) so exits there will be difficult. You can't really compare M/B/B to Deloitte/Monitor/Mercer. It's pretty much a strict hierarchy and there's a pretty wide gap between M/B/B and all the other consulting firms. It's not like banking where league tables change every quarter. That being said, OW in financial services is amazing. I cannot say the same for their general management practice.
boozer: My friend in the London office tells me that Bainies get really nice treatment in terms of travel. I could be horribly wrong, and I'm only talking London here...
What does nice treatment mean? On my last project, our preferred hotel was the Ritz but I still didn't enjoy flying out there 4 days a week.
Bottom line, EVERY single GMC will claim to some degree that they are better about travelling when in fact they are all the same. But they all travel well.
-disregard-
Thanks for the response.
Can anyone else confirm mrcanuck's statement that first years at OWFS get $120-140 K on average all-in. Also does it grow as quickly as Ibanking salaries do?
This is slightly too high. There basically is a common bonus pool for a all consulting employees at OWFS that adds the same fraction to everyone's salary. In the last years, this has been at between 60 to 70%. First years get base salary, relocation bonus, and half the bonus pool rate on their base or 25% on their base as bonus, whichever is higher. As of year two, your salary is base plus full bonus pool rate. I was told that base salary can grow "aggressively", not sure if that's on par with IB pay rises. And then it's just 6 to 9 years to directorship (this could change if things cool down but apparently things are not cooling down!)... Hope this helps.
wow, I can finally help with a consulting question. My roommate works at Oliver Wyman Financial services.
Reputation; Very solid in FS, a definite top player
Pay: Very very good - basically close to if not at par with banking money
Hours: Garbage, like 9-11 sometimes, and just a shit load of hours
Travel: lots of it, and you're travelling economy
Work: Seems a bit boring to be honest. I'm not sure how you can get excited about the implications of Basel II on european bank consolidation in emerging market service areas.
how do they pay so much?
there has to be some give and take. the partners must be taking a smaller cut of the profits. they def. don't charge as much or work as long as mbb.
the financial services firms pay more. it's pretty simple.
what does it mean "pay more"? insurance companies simply pay more for consultants? that doesn't strike as being quite right to me... the market isn't efficient if certain industries are paying more for the same work. you'd expect a lot of firms to crowed into that niche.
Boozer: OWFS consultants have to fly economy if the flight is shorter than 10 hours (basically you never fly business). Also the hotels they stay at are terrible compared to McK. Think Holiday Inn, Comfort Inc, etc. Also OWFS offices are HORRIBLE. Conference rooms are matchbox-sized and consultants have to fight over phones (because there are not enough to go around). You don't get your own phone, they use a VoIP solution provided by Cisco, you actually have to log into the phone using a password/username....should I go on?
Movetofinance: OW charges less than McK for Financial Services consulting assignments. But their "engagement-flow" is very high (i.e. not a lot of time spent pitching). Financial services consulting is the most challenging because of the depth and variety of subjects to consider. So you need a really good research division, which means economies of scale is a big factor. Also you need a lot of quant guys for the risk management stuff. This is a natural barrier to entry since Ma & Pa consulting firms cannot advice Goldman. Also, financial services firms, in general, are much more picky in who they choose relative to say consumer product companies. So actually there are few consulting groups who this very well: McKinsey, OWFS and Bain come to mind. I know my bank has used Bain for several engagements.
trust me, i know bain does a lot of fs. ;)
what kind of stuff did bain do though? overall firm strategy? relating to M&A etc.?
from what i know, mbb do the "good" FS consulting work - PE, M&A, CorpFin etc. while MOW does a lot of risk management, insurance-type stuff.
still, i think they pay less to consultants at higher levels. it just can't work otherwise!!! haha.
Actually my bank just changed its succession plans (in accordance with SOX), so the new CEO-to-be wanted to do a full strategic review of all our operations and look at areas in which to cut costs (in particular). I know that BCG and Bain were in the running to do the project, but the CEO-to-be picked Bain because he had worked with a particular partner before, Mr Canuck
What I was trying to say is that Bain doesn't get treated any nicer than the other GMCs... it's a really minor point. Anyway, in New York at least, most offices are pretty shitty because of hotelling to some degree.
Just to continue this discussion - can please more people share their insights on the actual work that OW FS does? I know from one friend who's been there for one year (and then left because he couldn't cope with the infrastructure problems) that he did two strategy projects for banks in Europe, one risk management project and research for one journal article. Sounds like 3 interesting : 1 not so interesting tasks to me. 2 more friends I have are currently working on post-merger integration work, cannot say more cause I don't know much more. Any people here with some inside knowledge?
Hey m2, my roomate in NY works for Oliver Wyman and I just asked him this question. Here's an example of some historical engagements that apparently people within MOW brag about:
UBS: Developed a strategy to help investment bank MDs improve their pitching strategy in order to support organic growth efforts within North America.
Citi: Conducted interviews and full strategic review of operations/compliance and made recommendations to board regarding how many positions can be eliminated without significantly hurting internal risk management frameworks and slowing down operations turnaround. Also consulted on how to outsource based on successes of HSBC/BofA.
MS: Developed integration strategy for Dean Witter retail brokerage. Strategy included new management structure, layoff recommendations, exploiting new synergies, etc.
In New York, Citi and MS are their major clients (i.e. uses them on a very very frequent basis). Other banks tend to use OWFS on a more ad hoc basis, Mr Canuck
Sounds interesting, thanks a lot Mr. Canuck.
Atque consequatur deleniti deserunt sint maxime quo molestiae. Ut officia ad dolor explicabo in velit id. Sit et harum qui tempore quas. Delectus maiores aut libero modi incidunt itaque. Est exercitationem iusto id dolor provident id ut. Corporis sed eius qui et commodi.
Occaecati qui officiis ipsam nihil dignissimos. Est voluptatem saepe molestiae. Dolorem facilis id non.
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...
Eligendi illum qui in id accusantium possimus. Quia eveniet qui ab eum et. Occaecati ut id officia sapiente.