Calling All Lower-Middle to Bottom Bucket Analysts: Why were you Bottom Bucket and Where are you now?
Like all social media sites, this forum highlights and glorifies success stories of those that have done particularly well in their field. What I feel doesn't get enough recognition/attention are the people that aren't (initially) necessarily made out for investment banking. It can be a depressing thing knowing that your peers had the same opportunities and seemingly the same skill set but are performing much better.
Curious to learn about other people's struggles and low points and whether they eventually found the right approach/opportunity for themselves.
The negative truth is that bad luck can quickly turn decent analysts into bad performers. Always look out for #1 (YOU). You do this by developing a fantastic, trusting relationship with the staffer. If you cannot see a situation getting better, talk to him and try to change it. Fast.
Your groups associate left and they replaced him with new MBA associate? Well now you are part of that negative transformation. He fucks you over a few times, you get sick of it and decide that a few thousand bucks isn't worth your quality of life being ruined. You are now a poor performing analyst.
Your MD is having personal problems and his attitude and track record is suffering? You are made to skip a vacation for some nonsense deck. You are rightfully pissed and your performance suffers. This is out of your control, but now you are a poor performing analyst.
This gets to a larger conversation about the politics of bucketing. This sucks, but the truth is much of it is luck whether people acknowledge it or not. Here’s a few examples for why it is luck:
You get staffed on a deal after the model has been completed and spend the remainder of the deal simply facilitating diligence questions, scheduling presentations/ meetings, and creating adhoc slides. This work only has downside—there is no “knocking it out of the park” with scheduling it’s simply you did the job and everything went according to plan, or you screwed up. As a result, this analyst doing the best possible job will end up middle bucket.
Counter scenario, you get on a transaction and 3 months in, your entire deal team quits. As a result, you are now the most informed individual and the company complements your performance to the seniors telling them it wouldn’t have happened without you and you are really quite sharp. Additionally, you inform the rest of your deal team the reminder of the process about details they missed or previous conversations that occurred because you had a 3 month head start. By doing this, you save the asses of the associate and VP multiple times. You are now top bucket.
Other scenarios people mentioned: getting on projects with generally negative people, or people who don’t have much sway in rankings—this will make you mid or below. Getting on projects with rockstars/ people who are known in the bank for being important and them complementing you/ going to bat for you—you are top bucket.
People have mentioned this, but the key really is being upper mid. You aren’t known as the analyst who has no life and who is on numerous projects, but also everyone would recommend working with you. Additionally, I’d argue the best part of being and accepting upper mid is getting to the point where there are enough people at the bank who will vouch for your performance and attitude that if one random idiot tries to claim you suck or messed something up, everyone at the bank knows they are full of shit. As upper mid, I’ve just flat out told my staffer I won’t work with some people and it’s fine because I am upper mid and a ton of people want me on their deals/ know I’m an above average analyst.