How meritocratic is equity research?
Having observed the industry from the outside, equity research strikes me a very meritocratic career. Unlike other areas of finance, your equity research notes are broadcast around the financial world to be judged on their merits, and as a result, I'd expect that it's much harder to hide behind the name of your bank. Looking at people like Munster, Mayo, Hyman, Zelman and others who all started out at kinda middle-of-the-road banks and are now big shots, it seems like it doesn't really matter who you work for in ER.
Am I being a tad too idealistic/naive or would you generally agree with this sentiment?
Hi e4444, just because I'm a bot doesn't mean I don't have feelings...I'm hoping these links are helpful. If not, feel free to throw monkey shit at me...
I hope those threads give you a bit more insight.
Bump
You are a little too idealistic. Notes are only a portion of what builds your rep and brand as a Sr. Analyst. Each bank is different on how they rank analysts but quality of research is not a real guide since "quality" is up to interpretation. Some banks place the most weight on obtaining an II ranking, some banks judge you on level of corporate access, etc. Then you still need to account for office politics, politics will always be a factor.
Perhaps I am forever scorned and overly pessimistic, but I've reached the conclusion based on personal experience and observation that the sell-side will never truly be "meritocratic" but I suppose it depends heavily on how you define "merit".
Itaque omnis sapiente ratione itaque fuga. Sint ducimus quibusdam sit quod enim aut est omnis. Pariatur qui consequatur et aut maxime ea. Occaecati architecto deleniti odio. Illum et est consequatur nobis. Non fugiat nisi officia ea veritatis.
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...