Mid-Ranked Analyst at Top BB vs Top-Ranked Analyst at Mid BB - London
Hi all,
I wanted to get some quick advice on FT IBD options in London. Specifically, I am oscillating whether being the/among the very top Analysts at a Mid-BB (BAML/CS) would be beneficial compared to being "among the mix" at a top BB (GS/MS) for exit opportunities. For this comparison, I measure "top" not in terms of the class ranking after Y1 (although also easier at CS/BAML) but rather the attractiveness for PEs and Headhunters (Language, Previous Experience prior to FT (specifically prior PE), Education, ECs etc.).
While it is traditional wisdom to assume that being at the best bank will give you the best opportunities, I think that some people underestimate the competition at GS/MS and also within groups. Also, I would assume that this question is only relevant in London where there is more an effort to look at more banks/groups compared to NY.
An example: If a Headhunter is looking for a shortlist of 15 people for an Associate PE position at a Large Cap PE Fund, they will usually have ca. 2/3 of candidates coming from GS/MS/JPM meaning 3/4 individuals per bank plus 2/3 candidates from mid-BB (primarily CS and BAML) plus 1/2 kids from EBs (not always the case). Therefore wouldn't it be equivalent to be "the" top candidate at BAML/CS compared to maybe only in the top 10 at a GS/MS, potentially even preferable? Disclaimer: I know that some funds only recruit at Top 3 (GA, H&F, etc.) but the majority of top funds look at the mentioned 5 firms (although I recognise the overrepresentation of Top 3).
Many thanks in advance!
In addition to the above, it's also quite bold to state that it's easier to be top ranked at BofA/Citi than at GS/MS/JPM.
A rather decent part of securing a spot at a top 3 BB pours down to luck, and it may very well be the case that the best students/analysts end up at BofA/Citi, making it fairly hard to be top ranked. Don't underestimate people simply because they do not work for GS/MS/JPM
Don't get me wrong, the JP/MS/GS analyst class in London has some top talent, but the top 3 best analysts I've ever met did not come from there. A good analyst doesn't do anything wrong and works very fast, and these are the guys that you set as your target and try to work towards becoming. But there are some analysts that you work with that make you think holy crap this guy is an MD in the making, and you cannot even imagine being on his level. The kind of analyst who is so trusted, the MD's idea of a deck is to give him 50 slide titles, or an email of unordered bullet points. The kind of analyst who is three steps ahead of the MD's requests, but still doesn't do unnecessary work. A good analyst gives you a model that works perfectly, a top analyst gives you a model so clearly labelled and structured that even a 15 year old could follow it. I've seen analysts source deals, and even though they don't have the connections to make it happen, if they take the initiative, it can well evolve into something genuine.
I've seen guys like this come from Jefferies, from the specialised boutiques like LionTree, from the EBs, and the other BBs. There are enough of them that I feel both worried and inspired about being just a good analyst. I haven't actually met anyone like this from JP/MS/GS.