Is the IB vs. PE Debate Shifting Back Towards IB?
Been seeing increased discussion around the tradeoff between IB and PE, especially with recent elevated bonus figures from some banks. Does anyone think the tradeoff is shifting towards IB nowadays with assoc. 1 comp reaching $400k+? Seems like PE is a pretty massive pay cut (assoc 1 $250k all in I think?) without much in the way of WLB improvement. PE does appear to offer 1) more intellectually stimulating work 2) massive upside if you make it long term and 3) some element of being "in the drivers seat". Maybe PE firms have to start upping comp to match IB to attract talent?
Curious what everyone's thoughts on this are, why are you / aren't you looking at PE with recent developments?
Hahahahaha no way in hell
Care to elaborate? 10 year comp is firmly in IB’s favor and it sounds like PE is basically IB 2.0 with partners dangling carry in front of you while paying you shit up front. Appears you can really get screwed in PE and wind up way worse off than IB. Not everyone makes it, what happens to those left by the wayside in PE when they could’ve stayed in IB?
Honestly, if this trend of pay rises and management attempts to ease WLB continues, I can see myself staying in IB for the long-term. One thing that would really change my stance from 'I can see myself doing this' to 'definitely 100% doing this' is if IB brings back expense accounts and adds a bit more travel to the mix for junior bankers.
LFG
To be honest anyone making these decisions based off of comp as a first year associate does not have a long term future in either
You guys are evaluating these jobs purely on compensation.
What would you actually prefer to do day to day?
Most of you won’t make it to the senior levels of either profession with this approach.
I doubt anyone actually gets into IB just for the money. And if they do, they get weeded out mostly during recruiting, or early on the job. Anyone who is serious about IB has some underlying interest in deals and the industry. Money just ends up being a good incentive to stay and go through the BS parts. More money means more capacity to handle the BS. Which means more ppl staying longterm.
This job is all BS at the junior level and that’s as far as most people even want to go in it. Few people want to stay long term. The whole reason pay was bumped was to keep people from leaving as analysts/associates, but most juniors still look for exits after their stint. So yeah, it is for the money.
That's interesting. So it's ALL about the money huh?
If you could make $400k operating and unloading a garbage truck, would you quit banking to do it?
I mean if it's all about the money, you should have no issues quitting right now and getting that $400k guaranteed yeah?
Yeah, I would.
Yes, I would absolutely handle garbage for $400k/ year
I would never in my life consider IB if I could make 400k operating a garbage truck
hardo alert
To quote the one and only epicurean dealmaker’s rules of banking
Rule #4 — It’s all about the money.
It is absolutely, without question, unequivocally about the money. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, a regulator, an MBA career counselor, or Matt Taibbi
In all seriousness, if you’re in the deal industry, your job is maximize value for them; if it’s not a natural instinct to do that for yourself then maybe you’re in the wrong industry
I know of several PE folks who have returned to banking. I think if you want to make a career out of it, PE makes so much more sense. It's more stimulating work, you get to really be part of building a business, and there is enormous long-term comp potential.
That said, if you're like most people on this forum -- trying to make money for a decade or so and then jumping ship to a better life somewhere -- I think banking wins. So much of PE comp is tied up for such a long time. First 10-year comp between a good PE firm and a good bank, the banks are coming out on top by a pretty wide margin. Add to that an army of analysts working with (for..) you, not having to switch companies, and lower competition (no offense MBA associates..), and I think banking does make a lot of sense.
Deleted
Fair point -- I think most of the undergrads / interns on this forum (who make up the majority of the platform, let's be honest) do want to be rainmaker rich people with private jets and all that. But I think that gets beaten out pretty quickly for the smaller population here that has actually been on the desk for longer than 6 months...
Make IB MD, $7-10M bank account. Join some MM PE firm to see if you can be a good investor at the senior managing director/partner level.
Anybody too compensation-focused early in their careers is doing themselves a huge disservice. You're far better off developing skills and as many as possible. IB teaches you skills for the first 2-3 years, then it really plateaus. PE, VC, strategy/consulting coupled with IB substantially improves your prospects long term. Sorry guys/gals, when you're a 35 burnt-out VP/D, the only skills you really retain are how to make pretty slides and BS your way with clients. Your exit ops are minimal and your career is potentially fucked
Okay, I take your point in being more well rounded and pushing yourself in more engaging roles. But come on, a 35 year old who’s been in IB their whole career has not “fucked their career”. For starters if they went straight through from analyst they are probably 5 years away from retiring if they wanted to. And companies would absolutely hire someone with that background for a cfo, senior corp dev role, etc. if they had relevant industry experience. Sure, you might have a bit more relevant experience and you might have a bigger range of applicable roles if you were PE instead but let’s not pretend like IB mid level / senior level folks have no exit opps.
Hot take - having done both (IBD + PE), the work isn't really that different. Maybe it is super different if you were mostly pitching in banking - that wasn't my experience.
In PE, there's still plenty of nonsense PowerPoint formatting, overly complex (useless) analyses for the sake of optics, and fake deadlines.
Folks in PE love to play up "thinking like an investor" but IMHO, that's a bunch of bullshit. Anyone whos generally interested in business and is observing transactions is already thinking like an investor and asking smart questions. Being a PE associate / VP / principal, you're still relatively low in the ranks and have to take a bunch of shit. Same story everywhere
Am I missing something or do people really enter into an industry like IB / PE just to leave after less than 10 years? I thought the whole point of working insane hours in your 20s was to reap the benefits of comp in the latter half of your career. If immediate comp is the primary factor for your decision to go into IB, that’s shortsighted and downright dumb to waste your 20s working 80-100 hours a week and basically have nothing to show for it by the time you are a middle manager at a Fortune 500 in your 30s. Many people go into this industry for the comp progression that accelerated once you start getting into the VP+ levels whether you’re in banking or PE.
Contrary to popular belief, the grind doesn’t get “easier” as you move up. MDs work their balls off, just on different things and with more intellectually stimulating work. Lots of us realize that we don’t want to become like our MDs.
For context, if you work in IB until you’re 30 (VP) you can save up at least $1M. Far from having “nothing to show for it.” Then you can bounce to corp dev and have kids with a much chiller lifestyle.
Not trying to disparage your comment, just providing an alternative point of view
If PE goes down so goes IB as well… who do you think is buying all these companies?
I did both and transitioned out of the industry. Thoughts:
PE:
- WLB is significantly better because it technically isn't a services job. The caveat is live deals are significantly worse because you will be on every single diligence call during the day and do your modeling at night. It's also stressful if your team tries to nitpick on things like cap table, deal structure etc. because that will basically never end until the deal closes
- The pay you mentioned is about right. I think nice thing about PE is that you can reinvest or coinvest into your fund which is better than losing money in the stock market lol
- The biggest pro (IMO) is that people are more competent across the board. I found people that really shaped how I approach problems, organization, leadership. People can still be dicks in PE but the bar is significantly higher than banking
Banking
- The main pro is here is that you have a higher chance of making good money. There are more seats than in PE
- The caveat is there is really shitty WLB across the board. In PE I was able to make some plans on the weekdays but it was always up in the air in banking. Even if you're more senior things can change at a moment's notice whereas in PE you will have some visibility into issues like portfolio company performance, board meetings, or the deal timeline (because your firm is in charge of it)
- The other shitty part was the quality of people you work with. Some of these MBA associates are incompetent snakes. I also would not recommend working at a structure-heavy org like a bulge bracket because it is politics at the most extreme level. This means you can slave away on the most meaningful bullshit nonstop that no one will no or care about
All in all it is a very personal choice. If you have a good standing at your IB firm and don't hate it, there is no reason to leave. That is the minority but there are a few folks I know in that spot
Another edit: If I could do it all over again, I would have tried to work at a smaller IB firm that covers a niche industry well. Ideally a small team where you do all the M&A modeling in house (not that silly coverage vs. M&A split that a lot of firms have). Either that or equity research. Private equity is very interesting, but it's not for everyone and doesn't necessarily make you the best candidate wherever you go. As mentioned earlier about PE, the best part is that you are surrounded by very capable people, and can pick up habits that will serve you well later on.
Neither.
I would have focused more on learning how to build a business earlier on. Would have started franchising out of undergrad, done some real estate on the side, or started a DTC biz. Having seen some microcap PE deals, there are so many random business owners that have made an absolute killing (2-5 mill in ebitda) and are about to sell their companies for 6-8x. Most of these business owners are normal guys with average intelligence. Many friends from my high school have went down this path and are doing way better than the average 2+2 guy in high finance in their late 20s. Ultimately, the winner is the guy who sells the PE, not the random VP/MD who works for one. PE only makes sense if you can start your own fund the line (tough as there is way to much capital chasing to few deals) or make partner at a GOOD megafund or UMM firm. Most 2+2/HSW guys wash out and land up at unknown MM/LMM firms (which pay decently, but nothing spectacular).
But really, in an ideal world? I went to an ivy but really didn't apply myself academically. Would have done a specialized STEM PHD at H/S and created a niche company. Starting a biz in a traditional industry (DTC e-commerce, manufacturing, etc.) requires a ton of upfront capital to make 2-5 in EBITDA, maybe a 1:1 ratio. Companies in the software/tech/healthcare space don't require too much working capital, just a specialized knowledge.
Why I don't take these debates too seriously is it doesn't take into account everyone's own individual career goals. If IB or PE is what you prefer then do that
I’ve been in IB for 10+ years and am on the cusp of MD promotion (fingers crossed). My firm is a major global bank, not a boutique or MM shop.
Many of the comments disfavoring IB seem to be focused on WLB. However, I wonder how many of these observations are purely based on analyst and associate-level perspectives. In my experience, WLB dramatically improves at VP and beyond. Unlike when I was an associate, as a VP I could regularly leave the office by 6 PM to make it home for dinner with my wife and kids, without worrying about senior bankers giving me trouble over it. Sure, I’d have emails to handle and decks to review in the evening, but from the comfort of my own home and it would be unusual for there to be more than ~30-60 minutes of work. Weekend work was here and there, but not a given. From what I can tell, this is a pretty common IB VP experience.
At Director, WLB improvement seems to really depend on your personal management style and reputation. When you’re highly regarded, you get the best resources (both quantity and quality). I always have two solid VPs under me on a deal or pitch (M&A plus coverage), plus three or four associates and analysts. That means that zero grunt work and administrative tedium make it up to me. Hell, I only very rarely have to open an Excel. Powerpoint? Nope, never. I spend most of my time handling meetings, calls, emails, etc. and playing therapist for our clients. Weekend work is a rarity. The job itself has never been more enjoyable because now I get to focus on thinking through bigger picture questions and analytical frameworks. I run deals without MD involvement 90% of the time, so I also control almost all scheduling, which means I almost never miss activities and events with my kids or have to change plans on my wife. I haven’t had to alter vacation plans since I was a junior VP.
Of course, I’ve seen Directors with much worse lifestyles too. Say, you are viewed more as a workhorse than a manager / leader. Then the MDs will micro-manage you more and suddenly the scheduling advantage goes out the window. Or maybe you are competent but not top tier. In that case, you’ll get a team staffed, but maybe short a VP or associate, and the allocated talent will be weaker. Then you’ll get bogged down in more of the nitty gritty work. Maybe you just don’t know how to let go and insist on checking every cell and reading every footnote twenty times. Any of the above can make WLB considerably worse, but much of it is also determined by your specific circumstances rather than the fundamental structure of IB.
Anyway, the point is: WLB in IB gets a lot better over time! When most leave at analyst or associate to take a PE gig, they are missing out on the considerable lifestyle improvements that come with seniority.