How to pick your next sell-side research job

It’s that time of the year where music chair takes place across Wall Street after bonuses, equity research is no exception. This article should help maximize your chances of improving over your current situation and also help new industry entrants decide on a good first role in sell-side equity research.

Disclaimer: My views are biased as I moved from sell-side to a non-multi manager buy-side, so please be aware of that.

The decision points in evaluating a sell-side research role are the following, in the order of importance:

  1. Analyst
  2. Sector
  3. Firm
  4. Compensation

Analyst

Choosing the analyst is the most important thing. Equity research teams are franchises. Each analyst (the most senior person on the team) has complete autonomy on how to run the team. Effectively, a junior person works for the analyst and the franchise, not for the firm that provides the office space. Given the intensity of the profession, you will spend long hours with the analyst so it’s paramount that there is a pleasant working relationship. During the diligence, focus on the following questions:

  • Is your analyst a good person? If the big boss is a decent human being, all the messes on the job become a little more tolerable to deal with, which increases everyone’s longevity with the team. No one wants to work for a computer keyboard / phone slammer or a screamer (think Jim Cramer). Am I right Furthermore, teams with good retention run more efficiently because there is so much “system knowledge” that resides within the existing team members (eg. How the analyst likes research notes and models formatted, etc.).
  • How does your analyst run the team? Analysts should let associates “shadow lead” a subset of companies (eg. On a media research team, Associate A follows cable / satellite / radio, Associate B follows traditional media). Under such model, you develop deep knowledge on a smaller set of names and have a quicker path to building credibility in front of equity sales force and later, with clients. When a client calls, none of them values shallow knowledge about 30+ names – they need your deep knowledge on a few names they are working on. So, depth is more valuable than breath. On that note, get a sense of whether the analyst will give you exposure to clients via 1. delegating you to talk to smaller clients once you prove yourself; 2. listing your name right below the senior analyst’s name on published research reports on a stock that you are the shadow-lead on. The second point is very important, as long as your name is on the bottom (if the team has 2+ people), clients will only ask you to send them notes or models, which are not helpful in building your own brand, for sell-side or buy-side.
  • What is your analyst known for? Truth is, very few sell-side analysts are great stock pickers, but they need to be good at something. Does your analyst’s “something” align with your career goal? For example, if you want to become a good long-term investor, there is not much value working for an analyst who is known for near-term channel checks. You can ask your buy-side friends (that fit your investment style) which sell-side analysts they respect the most, those analysts are whom you can learn a thing or two before your eventual move. For those who aspire to become a senior sell-side analyst, this point is not important as long as you get to learn what your analyst does successfully to receive client votes year in and year out.
  • Finally, if you are buy-side track, Institutional Investor ("II") ranking matters if you are gunning for exits at a MM (multi-manager like Citadel) or shops that use sell-side a lot - make sure to work for an analyst who has a lot of touchpoints with those types of clients. Because of II voting weights changed from AUM to commission, the analysts that can provide you that access to MM are highly likely to be II-rated. If you are gunning for a buy-side shop that doesn't use the sell-side a lot, know that II doesn't matter to those types of buy-siders, so don't fixate on having to work for a top ranked analyst. However, being II-ranked does mean job stability for you. Also, think twice about working for a first-time senior analyst, they tend to be younger and eager to prove themselves (think the "II Rising Star" types), they will overwork you and overwork themselves. If you are not that passionate about becoming a sell-side analyst yourself, think twice about working for a rising star analyst.

Sector

After the diligence on the analyst, sector decision is simple: prioritize sectors where capital is flowing into. For example, a few years back, there was a massive layoff of maritime shipping analysts across Wall Street, and you can see why – no big IPOs, stocks were freefalling because those companies generated negative ROIC, so capital was fleeing the industry. Without investor interest, there is no need for sell-side. Conversely, technology and health care continue to attract capital because of secular trends. Simple answer is: go with a seat covering technology or health care, if the analyst diligence checks out. If that’s not an option, sectors getting disrupted are not bad places to be – think retail, auto, or casinos. But I want to reiterate: pick a better analyst over a better sector. Prioritizing on sector is futile when you churn out because of a miserable work experience.

Unless there is genuine passion for specialized sectors, if you have alternatives, I would think twice about covering sectors such as banks / insurance and biotech, because the accounting for banks / insurance (completely different from other sectors) or the technical knowledge (biotech focuses more on the science than on the finance) are too specialized that they don’t transfer well if you decide to move to another sector on the sell-side or to the buy-side as a generalist.

Firm

With analyst and sector covered, it comes down to whether you want to work in research at an investment bank (bulge bracket or middle market) or a boutique.

  • Boutique: With a boutique, there is less BS as there are no mandatory IPO initiations, no “make this company BUY-rated because we did the IPO and we (the investment bank) don’t want to lose secondary offering fees” shenanigans, and you can more objectively assess the prospects of the companies. The negative is most boutiques pay below industry average and are slightly less stable because of scale.
  • Middle market investment banks: Pay and stability are similar to boutiques but probably are slightly better because banks have other revenue streams, but I think some of the regionals and larger middle market banks are perfectly fine to work at (with very reputable research analysts in select sectors). However, some of the subscale middle market banks are poorly positioned as the industry continues to consolidate. Over the past few years, CLSA Americas and Instinet shut down their US research operations, I think some of the smaller research platforms could be heading in that direction over the next few years, so I would caution against taking your talent to those smaller platforms.
  • Bulge Bracket: Probably pay higher and more stable than middle market banks or boutiques, but comes with with more marketing BS and politics.

Compensation

The reason I list compensation last is because variance in base pay and bonus really isn’t very large for early-career associates. If you want to quibble over a $10-30k of base pay spread over 26 pay periods, ignore my article completely. Unless the hiring team is providing you a significantly above-market compensation package, you should focus on the previous three factors to evaluate your next offer. Always think about compensation, lifestyle or risk-adjusted.

That said, money becomes a much bigger factor as you become more senior on the sell-side. As you can see in my year-end bonus survey, variance of experienced associates and VP is wider than that for early-career associates (with 1-3 years of experience). So you will have to consider compensation if you are more experienced in the profession.

Conclusion

Having been in your shoes, when you are time-crunched and there are so few openings on the sell-side each year, you will have to balance what you value the most out of your next role. There is no perfect role, we all know that, but I urge you to prioritize on things that build longevity in the profession. I hope this lays out some of the key factors to think about. Of course, there are exceptions to everything I have discussed, but this is the general framework I have come up with. Finally, trust me: the money will come later if you offer value as a talent, but solving for the wrong things in the near-term (such as prioritizing pay / prestige over people) will not result in success in this profession, and frankly nor in any other profession.

As always, I am open to your feedback and will refine this article if I hear convincing arguments. Thank you for reading. Please share this with anyone who is looking to make a move across or into the profession.

 
Most Helpful

Nice write up as always Dick. I'm surprised that in your experience II ranking doesn't matter when recruiting for buyside gigs. To me, it would make sense that it does (particularly if you're looking for a MM exit or really any firm that extensively uses the sell side) as it increases the amount clients interact and rely on you and your team, giving you the chance to build rapport with clients and potentially make a name for yourself or at the very least an introduction. Could also stand to reason that if you work for a highly respected analyst that some firms will view that as a good training ground for being able to think about companies (or at least have enough familiarity with the industry/data to work to support PMs do that) to at least get a foot in the door, but to echo what you said I would imagine most shops wouldn't care about that if you can't articulate an original investment thesis. I've also heard anecdotally that some head hunters strategy for recruiting from sell side ER is to find the list of top ranked analysts and find the associates that work for that team. Curious to get your thoughts on this

 

Thanks. I think the key point here is what exit one is looking for: MM (multi-managers, ie. Citadel / Millennium / P72) / shops that use sell-side a lot vs. others. 

I really should have caveated that I was explicitly gunning for firms that don't use the sell-side a lot. Generally, working for an II-ranked analyst is a safe bet from stability and visibility standpoints. But you could get the same visibility from non-MM shops by working for II 8th ranked analyst as long as you are good intrinsically as an investor. Conversely, if a top II-ranked analyst is known for management access and can't pick stock for sht, if I am a buy-sider, I am not interested in hiring the analyst or his/her associates. It all comes back to my point on assessing the analyst first. 

So you are completely right that if you are gunning for MM exit / shops that use sell-side a lot, make sure to work for an analyst who has a lot of touchpoints with those types of clients. Because of II voting weights changed from AUM to commission, the analysts that can provide you that access to MM are highly likely to be II-rated. 

On your headhunter comment, a lot of headhunters just don't know any better - II is a safe, quantified way to source talents to feed to their buy-side clients. Not sure whether that's a good way to gauge an associate's probability of success on the buy-side. 

 

Ea officiis similique eos unde vero nam. Ut sed eum cumque ut. Numquam sit labore debitis magnam impedit. Saepe consequatur odio amet nam ut laborum unde.

Quia quo aut enim suscipit ea a ut. Suscipit vero perspiciatis illum ducimus. Eveniet quia architecto error expedita necessitatibus. Minus qui quaerat est et.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”