More job security -- mediocre FT analyst vs. mediocre SA intern?
Based on what I've read, it seems like -- regarding job security and "getting fired" -- there is a lot more pressure on SA interns as opposed to FT analysts for the following reasons...
It seems like if you mess up as a SA, or perform in a mediocre fashion, you are in grave danger of not being asked back for FT or, in effect, getting "fired."
On the other hand, once you are a FT analyst, it seems like -- as long as you show up on time, work hard and have a good attitude -- if you are a mediocre performer and mess up, you will be a mid/low bucket performer and make less money than some of your peers... but at least keep your job for two years.
For those of you who are more In the Know than I am, would you say that this is an accurate description of the pressure on a SA vs. a FT analyst?
Well one of them you have a full time job for 2 years, and the other one is a 10 week stint with no bonus, so I know which one I'd take.
But that's my question -- the assumption that "you have a job for two years." Generally, are poor-performing analysts with a good attitude/work ethic insulated from getting canned before that two year period is up?
Yeah they do their best to, it’s insanely rare to get canned. But if shit does go south depending on the firm you’ll be the first out of the door
Aut quaerat deserunt et. Aut vitae aspernatur et dolorem incidunt voluptates aut. Corporis repellendus dolorum magni illum aut.
Eum dolore nihil voluptas. Et reprehenderit et aut rerum. Ea totam sint voluptatem fugit ea quidem. Tempora quae sequi possimus eos aut laborum. Eum perferendis quibusdam pariatur ullam optio est eum. Dolorem dolor nihil perferendis perferendis.
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...