I’m about to graduate medical school. I have an associate offer at a BB bank (biotech IBD). Curious if I take it or try to get an ER job in biotech if my goal is a HF seat.
Any thoughts?
21Comments
Works at Barclays
2y
Most Helpful
I think ER may be better, however IBD positions you for a HF as well. Given having your MD I don’t think you will have issues at either. HF’s love PHDs and MDs especially if they are healthcare focused.
My thoughts:
Pick where you will be happy and actually enjoy doing the work. Is it doing deals, or a research role like ER?
Have you considered trying to go right to a HF after med school? Given you don’t have financial services background this may be tough, but also doable with your credentials.
Appreciate the feedback. Definitely think I’d find the ER job significantly more interesting. Big issue I have is the pay delta between IBD associate and er associate (also have to land an ER job).
But kinda dreading IB but it might be a necessary evil.
ER for sure. It’s much more relevant. Plus, depending on how well known ur Analyst is, you’ll actually chat with healthcare buyside guys vs IB u won’t. Also pay isn’t much different when you factor the hours worked. 1st year bio ER ~200k ish all in. It’s not that bad
Hey, would love to chat about your recruiting experience— I’m a medical student interested in IB / ER Too, and wanted to learn more about your experiences
Why wouldn't ER translate well for biotech? ER as an entire field might not be viewed favorably by most HFs, but biotech is by far the most prominent exception to the rule. The opinions of good analysts are highly sought after, especially when it comes to arranging meetings with management
Not the most knowledgeable person since I’ve only been in biotech ER for a few months. Based on linkedin and looking at the bios of biotech HF seats looks like most people come from ER rather than IB.
Also, agree that in ER you will have more opportunity to network with the buyside. Not sure what to make of VC/PE, but investing without having clinical data looks like throwing spaghetti against the wall.
I get that they’re deal monkeys, but you’re saying they don’t look at clinical data? How are you gonna be an “expert” on a drug company without understanding primary endpoints and the competitive landscape??
Referring more to VC, given the earlier you invest in a company the less likely phase 1 data is available. Countless drugs with good pk/pd data fail in clinical trials. You may be betting on the team, proprietary technology, etc.
Biotech ER is absolutely the better path between the two. You won't get any exposure to buysiders in IBD and won't be diving deep into science fundamentals, the latter of which is basically your entire value add as an MD at most HFs.
Source: I'm at a biotech fund and have seen maybe one IB to HF example in my three years since leaving medicine. Most are ER to HF or straight into buy side.
What would you say is better between IB and ER if you didn’t go to med school/phd? If the goal is late stage vc/crossover/ hf (aisling/ecor1/bain/casdin types) — I feel like I see more comps of people w IB sliding in as associate after a few years
Praesentium neque corrupti nulla ut distinctio. Voluptas eius omnis non.
Eius qui sint ad officia quo veritatis. Ea consequatur ab dolor debitis. Corporis necessitatibus necessitatibus provident.
Ea nesciunt dignissimos non perspiciatis quae eaque. Modi veritatis adipisci adipisci. Illo dolores officia distinctio rerum aut maiores. Corrupti sint libero sed quia. Rem ea ipsum rerum impedit ut.
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)
Sorry, you need to login or sign up in order to vote. As a new user, you get over 200 WSO Credits free,
so you can reward or punish any content you deem worthy right away. See you on the other side!
I think ER may be better, however IBD positions you for a HF as well. Given having your MD I don’t think you will have issues at either. HF’s love PHDs and MDs especially if they are healthcare focused.
My thoughts:
Pick where you will be happy and actually enjoy doing the work. Is it doing deals, or a research role like ER?
Have you considered trying to go right to a HF after med school? Given you don’t have financial services background this may be tough, but also doable with your credentials.
Appreciate the feedback. Definitely think I’d find the ER job significantly more interesting. Big issue I have is the pay delta between IBD associate and er associate (also have to land an ER job).
But kinda dreading IB but it might be a necessary evil.
So for biotech investing you think ER is better?
ER for sure. It’s much more relevant. Plus, depending on how well known ur Analyst is, you’ll actually chat with healthcare buyside guys vs IB u won’t. Also pay isn’t much different when you factor the hours worked. 1st year bio ER ~200k ish all in. It’s not that bad
Hey, would love to chat about your recruiting experience— I’m a medical student interested in IB / ER Too, and wanted to learn more about your experiences
Anyone have thoughts on VC or PE? Assuming ER doesn’t translate well for biotech
Why wouldn't ER translate well for biotech? ER as an entire field might not be viewed favorably by most HFs, but biotech is by far the most prominent exception to the rule. The opinions of good analysts are highly sought after, especially when it comes to arranging meetings with management
Not the most knowledgeable person since I’ve only been in biotech ER for a few months. Based on linkedin and looking at the bios of biotech HF seats looks like most people come from ER rather than IB.
Also, agree that in ER you will have more opportunity to network with the buyside. Not sure what to make of VC/PE, but investing without having clinical data looks like throwing spaghetti against the wall.
I get that they’re deal monkeys, but you’re saying they don’t look at clinical data? How are you gonna be an “expert” on a drug company without understanding primary endpoints and the competitive landscape??
Referring more to VC, given the earlier you invest in a company the less likely phase 1 data is available. Countless drugs with good pk/pd data fail in clinical trials. You may be betting on the team, proprietary technology, etc.
Biotech VCs are investing on TAM and management execution.
It's because biotech VCs are not experts at anything other than cutting checks and sending wires
Biotech ER is absolutely the better path between the two. You won't get any exposure to buysiders in IBD and won't be diving deep into science fundamentals, the latter of which is basically your entire value add as an MD at most HFs.
Source: I'm at a biotech fund and have seen maybe one IB to HF example in my three years since leaving medicine. Most are ER to HF or straight into buy side.
What would you say is better between IB and ER if you didn’t go to med school/phd? If the goal is late stage vc/crossover/ hf (aisling/ecor1/bain/casdin types) — I feel like I see more comps of people w IB sliding in as associate after a few years
Be don’t hi-Jack my thread
Praesentium neque corrupti nulla ut distinctio. Voluptas eius omnis non.
Eius qui sint ad officia quo veritatis. Ea consequatur ab dolor debitis. Corporis necessitatibus necessitatibus provident.
Ea nesciunt dignissimos non perspiciatis quae eaque. Modi veritatis adipisci adipisci. Illo dolores officia distinctio rerum aut maiores. Corrupti sint libero sed quia. Rem ea ipsum rerum impedit ut.
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...