Everyone is always so concerned about group prestige and firm prestige, this seems to stem largely from an eagerness to move over to the buy-side and get into a top firm/MF etc...
If you are an individual who wants to stay in banking when does your firm and group "prestige" on the street start to matter in regard to compensation? I.e. if you are a VP at a BB in a lower performing M&A group versus a VP at the same BB or a different BB in a higher performing M&A group in regard to larger aggregate deal amount and "clout" and "prestige" - does this mean that the "better" M&A group is compensating its VP's more? Or is this too much of a generalization as I am sure group size/number of VPs in the group/analysts etc... also has an implication? Or I could be completely wrong...
It seems as though at the MD level it seems to make the most difference? I.e. we see a lot of BB MD's exiting to partner level and MD level at elite boutiques - I am assuming this is because they are getting compensated much more?
Hypothetical scenario: Say you are an analyst at a lower tier M&A group at your firm, you are planning to stay on as an associate and can see yourself staying in banking - should you try and network or switch into a higher "performing" or more "prestigious" group at your firm or does this not really make a difference in regard to BB compensation?
Would be great if anyone is able to shed some light on this.
Following
Provident officiis illum provident cum aut accusantium. Hic nisi ullam tempora. In temporibus vitae et tenetur inventore repellendus qui explicabo. Voluptatem sed suscipit recusandae.
Minus odio aliquid sed sit. Ad quam rerum dolor assumenda esse enim et. Illo quis quo voluptas sit voluptas. Sapiente omnis illum voluptates odit.
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...