- You should always do a GREAT job on 2-3 projects rather than a MEDIOCRE job on 5 projects. You will get a much better reputation and if done correctly, people will respect you for it.
- In addition, hilariously at my EB you used to pick 2-3 year-end reviewers, so once again just a giant incentive to do a great job for 2-3 people and tell the others to get lost.
- Finally, someone else wrote to give yourself a quick "sanity" buffer of some time after projects, which is a great idea. I just wrote this in another comment
I always think of it as (old EB numbers):
middle bucket $160K
bottom bucket $145K
typical CorpDev $85K
So incremental difference between middle bucket and bottom is $15K but cost of moving to CorpDev is 4-5x that. So I'd way rather give myself some buffer time and sanity than potentially burn out and quit altogether!
That doesn't even factor in:
(1) opportunity cost of leaving the preftigious IB > PE > MBA > greatness track
(2) often times I think I gained both respect and ability to do good work when I pushed back
Final note, I was top-bucket with this strategy lol
1. Agreed. Try to focus on doing great on the biggest projects you have like the sell-side you're staffed on rather than that random book you're doing.
2. I used to think this was true but at least at my group, this didn't seem to be the case as much. I was getting feedback that I know only 2 people at my group would have given me (and these were the only 2 people I specifically chose not to include).
3. Definitely provide a buffer for your sanity. No one's going to care that much. I slightly disagree with your analogy though. While bottom bucket is much higher compensation wise than CD, if you're aiming to be bottom bucket, you're going to be removed from the "preftigious track" as well by being asked to leave / not getting promoted.
Unless you are very incompetent and asked to leave immediately, even those who don't get promoted will still get to PE at the 2-year mark. It's honestly too much of an HR headache for most banks to even care (from what I've seen).
I think you are overestimating the agency juniors have when it comes to deciding staffing.
I think its is more communicating you are at capacity. Some VPs won't care and may still give you the staffing, but many would look to other analysts/associates who have a bit lighter workload at the time.
Lol I tried using this logic on my staffers numerous times when I was in banking and each time without fail I was basically told to go fuck myself. Much easier said than done.
Quae velit voluptatem et culpa quis maiores. Iusto omnis vero beatae inventore id ea illo. Fugiat placeat rerum est odit rerum deserunt tenetur qui. Totam sint rerum nisi exercitationem perspiciatis ab aut. Maxime vel repellat quod voluptas sit.
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...