Easier to Make MD as a Big Fish in a Small Pond or Small Fish in a Big Pond
Just finished my first year as an IB analyst and can genuinely see myself staying in this career for the long haul all the way to MD. I was ranked top bucket, and my team has a high level of trust in my work and deliverables. I work at a BB bank, but on a weaker team.
Here’s my dilemma: If the goal is to eventually make MD, is it better to:
A. Stay at a weaker platform where I can continue to be a standout performer and climb quickly, or
B. Take the risk of moving to a stronger platform where I might only be middle-of-the-pack relative to “cracked” peers, but gain exposure and training in a more competitive environment?
Essentially, I’m trying to figure out which path gives me the best odds of staying power (least likely to get cut) and progression. Curious how others have thought about the trade-off between relative positioning within a firm versus the strength of the platform itself.
*I should also clarify that I have no familial connections or any sort of client relationships, so everything I have to do / personal pipeline would have to be from scratch
Based on the most helpful WSO content, your dilemma boils down to balancing personal positioning within a firm against the strength of the platform. Here are some key considerations to help you decide:
Option A: Stay at a Weaker Platform
Option B: Move to a Stronger Platform
Key Factors to Consider:
Final Thoughts:
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but many WSO threads suggest that making MD is less about the platform and more about your ability to build relationships, win business, and navigate internal politics. If you believe you can excel in a more competitive environment, moving to a stronger platform could be worth the risk. However, if you value stability and the ability to stand out, staying at your current firm might be the better option.
Sources: IB post MBA, am I missing something?, Medical School --> IBanking, Why work up to MD in Investment Banking?, Am I missing something about buyside exits?
I've seen the "small fish in a big pond" scenario play out a fair number of times. Middle-of-the-pack bankers can get stuck at VP or Director for years beyond what you'd normally expect.
The way that senior banker politics work at a lot of firms, you need an MD (or two, or three) to go to bat for you in order to get the Director and then MD promotions. It's much easier to get that kind of support when you're clearly established as a long-term top performer.
MD here. You need to be a big fish in an ocean.
To become an MD, I recommend med school
There are multiple ways to look at this - what do you mean by a stronger platform?
Honestly, a lot of it comes down to luck. For example, here are some scenarios I have seen (with some details added for fun):
My point is, there is no equation. It's not small fish in big pond= success, or big fish in small pond= success. It's an amalgamation of various factors, that could work in your favour or not.
Do you like the team or not? Do you enjoy the sort of work you are doing, and are you getting staffed on deals? That's all that should matter to you now. If in 10 years you feel you no longer enjoy the work, or are not progressing as you like, you can easily start looking elsewhere.
Worth noting that titles doesn't always come with compensation. It feels easier to make MD at a small platform, seen it done many times, but I've also seen it often come with weak compensation. Some banks will give titles to make up for their limited ability to pay market.
At a BB, there's a much wider support network, more clients, and very senior bankers who need MDs under them. I've seen many average bankers align themselves with the right people, be a safe set of hands and make MD. People who have never truly sourced their own deals or clients. Banks still need these people in droves.
Now if someone is killing it and sourcing their own deals, it's generally easy to make MD most places. The math is simple... The firm will be more profitable if they keep this person and so will do what they can to make them happy. However, there still is a risk at BBs that the system and politics slow their progression.
In terms of career planning, I generally think people are better off at a platform that fits their skill set / culture rather than trying to choose a platform solely based on the likelihood of making MD using the law of averages...
Something that tends to be forgotten is that your "platform" doesn't really matter. All your platform does is change the degree of effort required to get to a certain level. For example, Leon Black was always going to be Leon Black whether he started at Drexel, Brown Brothers Harriman, or Stephens. Where Leon started would only have changed the details of his career, not the arc of it.
If you care about making MD and having a quality book of business, being the big fish in a smaller pond is almost always the way to go.
With that being said though, you don't have to avoid a "stronger platform" to get this big fish in a smaller pond dynamic. There is a pretty interesting book that I recommend to students interested in a career in IB called the Accidental Investment Banker. The author makes a very good point: there is a very good business to be had by being the King of Shitty Little Companies. Here is a GS/MS banker who made it a point to work with what were basically a bunch of $200-500 million companies. The benefit here is that (1) they tend to be underbanked and (2) they tend to be targets of larger companies (aka you are more likely to get that sell-side fee). You can absolutely carve out a "big fish in a smaller pond" TYPE work at a larger, more established bank.
That's not accurate, though. Have you looked at an M&A pitch? You are advertising the bank's capabilities. Even if you are the next CEO of Blackstone, if you are selling a poor bank, they are not giving you a mandate. Imagine you are the client, who would you give the mandate to; the Wolf of Wall Street who sounds smart but is backed by a slow/small team that could make mistakes during execution, which could cost you millions? Or the mid banker, who is selling a team that works like a machine?
Once you get to MD, you need to bring in deals. You need a strong platform to get a 'quality book of business'. Furthermore, the bank you work in speaks strongly of the quality of your training.
(1) "Have you looked at an M&A pitch? You are advertising the bank's capabilities."
Yes. I get pitched by banks all the time. And I work at a utility, so we have a large emphasis on working with lending banks because... well, that should be obvious. Yet who is one of our most frequently used banks for M&A processes? A small, ~5 person boutique that got the in with us because of an MD's relationship with our CFO and a senior person on my corp dev team.
Banks of all sizes and scopes are capable of doing the work. The fact that you think a smaller platformis definitionally "a slow/small team that could make mistakes during execution" only demonstrates how detached from reality you are. Besides the fact that any team, whether it is at GS or some smaller platform are all as capable of making mistakes (as I have personally seen), you clearly don't believe what you said which is why I expect you'll change your tune in your next response.
(2) "Once you get to MD, you need to bring in deals."
I am glad you agree with me on this.
(3) "You need a strong platform to get a 'quality book of business'."
No, you don't. We can go through literally hundreds of examples where what you call a "strong platform" is not needed in order for an MD to get a quality book of business. But then again, you for whatever reason seem to think that the name of one's employer is the thing that determines the quality of the platform.
Wait... I think I may understand what is happening here. You do understand that "platform" and "stronger platform" were in quotes for a reason, right? I did that because the strength of the bank you work at is not necessarily tied to the way that the original poster that I was responding to was using the concept. I don't think you understand how these concepts are being used.
Black is also a very poor example. He got to the top through his association with junk bonds. Also, the 90s were a very different time compared to 2025 IB.
"Black is also a very poor example. He got to the top through his association with junk bonds."
What an outrageously slanderous thing to say. Milken moved to LA a year before Black joined Drexel. When Leon joined Drexel, the junk bond machine wasn't up and running yet.
And that's before how literally any of the Drexel bankers could have had Leon's career, but they didn't. It was Leon. Why? Because of his prodigious skillset. Yes, it is absolutely the case that having Milken's financing system made it even easier to hire Leon since many hired him for the access to Milken. But they could have gone to any Drexel banker, yet Leon was the one they often sought out. It was Leon who was Milken's right hand. There is no reason why Leon specifically had to have been the banker that rised the way he did while at Drexel. If what you said was true, they should have been able to develop a bunch of Leon's at Drexel, but they didn't. Because Leon was uniquely competent.
If Leon started at MS or GS or First Boston, he still would have been just as highly regarded of a banker with an incredibly similar book of business. It just would have had aesthetic differences. He would have "just" been a Bruce or Greenhill or Boisi. All of whom are bankers of the highest caliber.
You'd be better off saying that his PE career would have been categorically different. This is false, but at least more defensible since Apollo got its start basically off the back of the work that they did at Drexel.
The issue with doing comparatively small deals at an MS/GS is that the firm doesn't care about these transactions beyond the money it brings in. Bulge brackets tend the emphasise "landmark transactions", things that end up in newspapers that build the brand. This can result in a roadblock and limited visibility amongt the the decision makers on the promotion committee. Take that book somewhere that cares less about league tables and you're set.
I genuinely disagree that the outcome for a Leon Black would be the same regardless of where they started. Our lived experiences, including the people we meet, person we marry, the jobs we do, the lucky breaks, each impact our lives in way we'll never understand. I do think successful people tend to end up being successful, but the form and substance would be different.
(1) "The issue with doing comparatively small deals at an MS/GS... and you're set."
First, I generally agree. It is not easy to do this. There is a reason why my specific example ended up getting laid off during the tech bubble bursting.
Second, while large banks like that do absolutely care about the brand building element of doing the biggest or flashiest deals, fundamentally what matters for being an MD is the revenue you bring in. Being the king of SLCs, while no one deal is going to matter all that much, provides a far more stable revenue generation. It is the difference between swinging for a HR or striking out and hitting single after single. And, this book of business is likely to be more portable. If you are a GS banker covering a bunch of $200-500 million businesses, they are more likely to "join" you if you leave to go to Lion Tree or Harris Williams or whatever. Now if the exact same banker covered a company like Apple or IBM or Tesla, that's likely NOT the case.
Being the king of SLCs certainly wouldn't get you to be something like the head of IB or anything like that. But if you want to "merely" be "just" an MD with a long career in the business, this is one viable way to do so.
.
Isnt the bull case to be the top dawg at a small pond but then you turn that small pond into an ocean?
Okay Michael Milken. Calm your Ken Moelis ass down.
Aka yes. That is the ideal.
Possimus culpa quam hic aut qui sint officiis laboriosam. Et consequatur iste illo corporis alias aut quia perferendis.
Expedita et voluptas aut eius. Nisi eaque non earum illum. Omnis ut et ut tenetur aliquid.
Voluptatibus voluptas dolorum libero eius ipsa voluptas. Sapiente itaque velit odio dolorum debitis culpa. Corrupti voluptates hic et consequatur doloremque placeat.
Laudantium illum sit aut ad nemo ea et ut. Nemo quia nobis dicta. Qui aut in omnis ut et non est.
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...