Which is more effective: F300 FP&A > F50 FP&A (same role/more $) or F300 FP&A > F300 FP&A (different role/same $)?
If your end goal is to become CFO and maximize future opportunities do you think it's better to:
Move from an F300 FP&A team to F50 FP&A team (same role and more $. Will a F50 company offer more roles within the company to pivot into every 2/3 years?), or
Lateral between two F300s FP&A teams taking on a new role to expand your skillset (i.e., switch from managing expenses to revenue; same $)
Open to all feedback.
.
Ahhh, now I get it.
I agree with the Fortnite comment. If CFO is your goal, it's a balancing act between being a company that can rotate you between roles or being at a company where the role has exposure to multiple areas. Large publics have the ability to rotate folks to different roles, but some do not have formal programs, or it can be challenging to make the rotations without senior management support. On the other hand, there are roles at small publics, privates, and portcos where you'll be exposed to multiple areas. I've done FP&A at a portfolio company for 3 years (previously 6 years at big 4) and have worked on internal/board/external reporting/analysis, three M&A transactions, two refi's, an accounting standard adoption, and some other projects. You'll probably make a lot more as CFO or even VP/Director at a large public vs CFO of a portco, but you may be able to reach CFO of a portco faster and have the opportunity to make significant comp with a successful exit.
Go where you will get the best experience and stretch your skills the most.
For FP&A - you want to go where you will get the best experience with modeling and partnering with a business/Operations
In terms of evaluating Résumés heres a Very simplified ranking that shows how I usually rank people’s experience:
All the below + M&A >
Full P&L (Revenue + Expenses) responsibility + Operational modeling > Only Revenue + Operational modeling > Only Expenses + Operaional modeling > Only Revenue > Only Expenses > Only SG&A Expenses (Labor only)
To me, size of a $ responsible for is only a differentiator within each tier.
Oftentimes going to a smaller company will allow you to wear more hats and get more hands on. When I see people who have only worked at F50 or F100 it can be a red flag - bc some of those people don’t have hands on skills. And if you don’t have hands on skills how can you evaluate talent and train people up?
Source: Divisional CFO (2 steps down from Corporate CFO) at a F500
I've worked for both (near-F50 companies and near-F300 companies) and have a few thoughts.
1) It really depends on the role. Likely better to work at a F300 company in the highest level corp FP&A team that has exposure to the corporate CFO than to work in a $4bn division of a F50 company (or lower- a $100m product line in a $4bn division). I've essentially done both. The granular nature of the second role really only teaches you cost accounting and deep financial system recon- things that you will not do as a director, VP, etc. Working at the corporate level allows you to learn what your CFO and VP are looking for, how they view the business, what they care about, what questions they ask, etc. These things will benefit you. You need to be good enough at data mining in order to advance, but don't waste too much time here- data mining and excel skills matter less and less as you climb higher.
2) Generally, all else equal it is better to work at the large company because you have a name-brand on your resume, there is more finance headcount and therefore more internal promo opportunities, and more chance to see things "happen" (M&A, divestitures, product growth or decline, etc). This, however, is on average- there are plenty of exceptions. But on average it is easier to start big and jump for promos at smaller companies than vice versa.
3) You mention jumping between teams to expand your skillset- this one is the most important. A general rule of thumb is that it takes about a year to get familiar with a role, and another year to add value to it. If the role does not change much, you likely want to do something new or additional every two years in order to keep expanding your skillset. Once you get to more senior roles, the role and landscape changes even if your title does not, so you are still learning. This is the best way to advance- keep learning new things and working through new scenarios.
Hi!
Can you please share you experience in FP&A?
How did you get in, how comp and WLB were, exit/promotion opportunities etc etc?
Please explain to me honestly, (I am a pretty good student at a semi-target uni, always thought I would go to IB but now realizing I don’t have the strength to completely sacrifice WLB and thus want to look on other interesting careers that don’t require me to sell my soul (don’t really care about comp, just one that guarantees me a good living)
Sapiente similique laboriosam est veritatis. Non excepturi rerum et sequi sit. Facilis aspernatur eligendi sint sunt nesciunt aperiam. Ut et repellat quidem dolore.
Repudiandae ad quidem aspernatur veritatis iure nisi enim. Non ad odio ex.
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...