Hey all, currently at a MM (M&A), looking to lateral and have good traction with some EBs and a top GS IBD group.
I'll join as ana associate and am looking to stay in IB through my VP years at least. I know that comp will be better at an EB, but it would be helpful to get a more holistic view of the pros/cons of doing your associate-VP years at a platform such as GS vs EBs.
| +365 | Evercore Intern Seizure | 54 | 12h |
| +70 | JPM M&A is Gone??? Purely Coverage Banking??? | 31 | 11h |
| +62 | Is DCM actually underrated ? | 24 | 22h |
| +51 | How do I understand vs. just memorizing? | 8 | 2h |
| +48 | Losing my personality in Banking | 9 | 22h |
| +47 | Are all Tech / TMT groups sweaty? | 38 | 23h |
| +42 | Associate & Above IB exits | 16 | 4d |
| +33 | Incoming IB Analyst: Best Ways to Prepare? | 11 | 2h |
| +27 | Which groups are ideal for laterals? | 12 | 22h |
| +24 | Thoughts on PEI Global Partners? | 4 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
If you sure want to hit at least VP level, go GS imo (especially if its a strong group)
Bump + Curious what VP+ exits are like?
EB significantly higher pay
EB for sure, but depends on which one. Anyone saying GS is retarded. GS is best known as a global brand to leverage for opportunities in different industries, while EB’s literal advantage is staying in banking.
Depends which group at GS, right? If you're at CMG or NRG, then those don't necessarily have an advantage over EBs. If it's GS TMT, then no EB is worth taking over that (maybe Q, but then again, for career bankers, being at a platform such as GS is just that much more advantageous)
But why??? The best thing about GS TMT is that you have your pick of exits, whereas being a VP at Q could literally mean 1M+ in TC while still working on similar size deals, and getting more hands on experience through a leaner team. You're fundamentally missing the point that this guy wants to do M&A, why would a "platform" be acknowledged in that equation?
Q is a different beast than any other boutique. They are so dominant in tech M&A that they and CVP biopharma are the rare instances where GS is beat for prestige in their respective industry. Frank Quattrone is the greatest tech banker.
Edit: Why is this being downvoted? If you do tech at any top BB or EB, you'd know Q is the best tech firm and it isn't close. Look at any leuage table ir talk to any tech banker.
Reposting previous comment because I think it's relevant. I think it's very clearly GS over any EB if your goal is to be a lifetime banker just due to the structure of these firms.
Dad is a MD at a top EB (yes I know I am a nepo baby), and I asked him this before I even started. Obviously one person’s view, but he’s been doing this for decades.
Summary of his take:
If you want the best long-term career setup, start at a big balance-sheet BB. It’s the only place you actually get full product exposure as a junior, LevFin, ECM, M&A, everything. When you’re a Director/junior MD, it’s much easier to win LevFin/ECM mandates than pure M&A. Those products get pitched more often and are a natural way to build recurring touchpoints with clients. If you’ve seen a broad mix of products as an analyst/associate, you’re way more credible in those conversations.
His main point was simple: starting at a BB gives you far more early touchpoints. You work on tons of LevFin/ECM deals, meet sponsors and corporates early, and those people rise alongside you. If you stay helpful and keep in touch, those relationships compound. And because you can bring the full BB platform: balance sheet, global reach, every product, it's much easier to always stay in front of them to keep the relationship warm.
TLDR: large BB until you are a M&A rainmaker then dip to an EB to get paid better.
So take Bofa or Citi over EBs like EVR or CVP? I mean, they are big balance sheet banks
If goal is purely for a longer-term career in IB, yes. He thinks the EB's are just terrible places to be career bankers as the business model favors hiring from outside over developing internal talent. I think the other MD's at the firm think similarily as well from what I've heard talking to his friends about what offers to take (ended up taking a top BB over a top EB one largley due these conversations). The "MD's" who are career bankers are a lot of these EB's are highly-paid ED's who are paid solely for execution not any type of relationships.
Iure quam quas autem non non itaque aut. Sed porro eius nam voluptate veritatis quidem. Hic et qui distinctio perferendis et. Voluptates illum non minima facere officiis aperiam aliquid cum. Deserunt mollitia est provident beatae quia non.
Esse rerum voluptate labore autem. Minima natus eos consectetur inventore nobis. Et at voluptatem dolores.
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...