PE is the new IB - IB is the new Big4
I am shocked at the number of non-targets getting offers in IB this year. Not a single alumni from my target (or ANY target) reached out to me to network for the past 1-2 years.
My linkedin is full of people from EXTREME non targets (not even a D1 state school even), announcing they accepted a full time offer at a top BB or EB.
IB has truly developed such a bad rep through the covid era (even worse than before), I think banks really don't have a lot to choose from these days from their historical hiring practices, and ultimately just want someone that can GRIND. Memorized the technical question bank and want to work 100 hr weeks without complaining? You are hired.
PE however is where cutoffs are happening. Seeing lots of analysts struggle with recruiting. This is the level where you need the polish, pedigree, the right family background, an uncle who can rep you from the right Country Club etc. IB used to be this way.
And to be clear, I am not trying to gatekeep IB or bemoan the old days. If more people want to work 100hr weeks and develop health problems, glad nothing is holding them back anymore.
How dare kids not try to network with the all mighty baddealflow12, this industry is not what it used to be.
Back in my days you’d need his approval to even be allowed to apply. But these days? Peasants left and right are getting gigs. Truly sad times
I literally just said I don't have a problem with this.
Just an observation I am making - that frankly I think isnt a simple anecdote.
Do you disagree with my observation?
Being honest to me it seems that what really bothers you is that no one is trying to network with you. This is making you second guess yourself and wonder if people see you as a failure or not succesful.
Instead of giving 0 fs about it you have come up with this intricate theory regarding how now everybody is getting in and thus it just doesn’t hold any value at all.
Between you & me, I can guarantee you that said non D1 kid has to be extremely bright or extremely hard working to get in before not just the targets, but any major school. And yet instead of being happy about him you try to invalidate his success. Sad
Bro, drop the negativity dude. Are you mad because non-target kids are getting life changing opportunities and that’s ruining the prestige for you buddy?
they shouldve had to bust ass to get into hyp/oxbridge to get "life changing opportunities" like i did
"Oh no, My Nepotism isn't working in the way I want it too anymore. Quick degrade one of the best jobs that undergrads can get out of school"
Yeah, I'm surprised baddealflow12 didn't go all the way and throw women/minorities under the bus in this post.
In a way he's right because I'm seeing lots of minorities getting IB jobs(in the past would have been difficult)
But the megafunds and top pe shops look white as can be.
I agree, it's even worse in Europe tbh...
Lots of greasy Southerners, diversity kids and non-targets in IB nowadays
The finance scene in London is so incredibly cucked it's insane
I find it really weird how people love to assume every ethnic minority/woman/LGBT is a 'diversity' hire. Maybe they were simply hired for being good. A lot of what you guys would call 'diversity' hires at the bank i'm currently interning at are from targets/semis and are good at their job. Always insane how the same negative energy isn't directed towards nepotism hires, which is very telling of your thoughts........
Turns out the industry wants smart people and recognizes they’re not all born in country clubs
Wrong. The industry wants analysts that can grind and wont quit after 1 year or less. This is a huge problem. Analysts are quitting left and right at rates never seen before.
The smartest kids are going into tech, PE, consulting. IB wants these kids but they aren't getting them like they used to.
Sorry but its the truth.
No it's not. I'm sorry your take is just hot garbage.
Praying to god this is satire
High chance your uncle isn’t even allowed to play in his clubs money games, because he drops as many balls in the woods as he does in your mouth.
.
"Tech, though highly lucrative at 10 firms and some start ups, will never be as prestigious as high finance."
Lol what? News to me that working in a cubicle, never seeing the sun, and developing chest issues is 23, are considered "prestigious".
The only people who think it's prestige is former investment bankers, CEOs, and the admissions officers at top MBAs.
I have yet to meet a single investment banker in my life who has ever told me "I love getting ass fucked until 2AM formatting logos and moving commas"
Outside of FAANG (top 10 tech companies) most tech companies suck. Legacy software, bad culture, and loads of processes to get anything done.
Not true at all. Tons and tons of interesting startups and unicorns
To claim Consultants are smarter is laughable.
Strong disagree. MBB types are very bright.
Lastly, its universally known how bad PE hours/culture is and for many firms require a stint in IB to land a role.
Which is why its the "new IB". Sort of sucks - long hours - need a strong pedigree (with family connections and background playing a stronger role). Some people are put off by it and rather pursue something else.....sounds like IB in the past....
Many PE firms are direct hiring analysts now too from undergrad. Which (SURPRISE) are universally top target kids.
Its the new IB
Lol, you can just admit you only know 10 tech companies - that’s ok. No need to use your lack of knowledge to justify a shit take.
Also, Christ Alive, can we stop this Tech v Finance comparison at the undergrad level? Most of the roles available to new grads are for Software Engineering. The business roles that are an alternative to consulting or banking (e.g. product, product marketing, finance, strategy, BizDev, Corp Dev etc) have infinitely less headcount at the undergrad campus recruiting level. In fact, a good chunk are only really accessible via exit opps or post-MBA. Tech is not really a major competitor with finance or consulting straight out of school save for the rare few Math / CS / Eng / Physics folks who could have gone either way. Ditto Quant Finance.
As someone who graduated from an Ivy, know plenty of kids who struck out in IB recruiting. I just think now more banks would rather the smartest kid from a non-target (and this is true- all the kids I work with from non targets were near the top of their class, president of their investment club, etc) vs some kid with a 2.8 from Dartmouth who spent 4 years at frat parties.
Just be a human, it’s not hard to be a decent human , who care if non targets got it , who cares if you get into pe, itsnot gonna matter when you dead , just be a decent human and be happy for others
Very little productivity in this forum - but I’ll bite.
Graduating from a top target this spring, heading to top GE full time, interned at a BB last summer.
I will say one thing I noticed is that a ton of my peers - even those who did their SAs @ mid-low BBs - ended up jumping to very reputable buyside shops for FT like I did at the end of the summer.
I think 10 years ago, when banking paid just about the best of any field out of graduation, a lot of people were willing to suck it up.
Now, with the rise of PE + HF analyst programs, SWE, quant, VCs paying better, consulting roles offering way better W/L balance with arguably similar buyside/corp dev exit ops, etc., banking is not the only gig in town.
Top target grads have a lot of self-respect (some call this ego and rightfully so) and quite frankly the idea of working so hard to get to a school like that only to be dicked around by a client 100 hr/wk after graduation is not really worth it. My analysts and associates over the summer spent 90% of the time on formatting changes and process.
Banking itself will need to fundamentally change over the next 10 years, I’m sure of it - otherwise there will be very little quality talent left. In truth, banks all in should be paying more than every other field minus quant given how much of a sacrifice it is. Or maybe bankers should all accept less pay and better hours.
Shhhhh, he is doing PE, so that's what we need to validate, not other careers! PE is gods work.
Wtf, why are people so butthurt about OP’s take? It's a valid take. The I-banker exclusivity and polish has become vastly diluted since the GFC, and most of all in the past 3-5 years. Guarantee that 9 out of the 10 butthurts in this thread are "non-targets on the grind".
Let's be real here.
There are still FAR fewer entry level PE jobs than there are analysts entering IB every year. Of course that small group of seats goes almost exclusively to ivy kids. You don't have to be a non-retard to realize there's some supply and demand at play here. Alas, many of these PE jobs are at MM/LMM shops that offer less associate-level recruiting options than their banking counterparts are receiving.
As for consulting, which is about 50% IB rejects, they do generally see a better WLB, but not at the MBB firms that everyone seems to tout as the consulting standard. Realistically, most consultants aren't at Bain, rather Accenture or some other firm and have no ability to move into PE at all. Some might ask why they even want to move into PE given they have a better WLB. Well, the WLB of PE people (no, im not using Apollo as the standard here) improves significantly over time and your pay exponentiates past consultants or SWE. PE people also have the option to enter the start-up scene too. PE guys have been thrown buttfuck tons of money over the decades in starting capital, and that isn't going to come close to ending anytime soon. Of course, they can also just go take c-suite roles at portfolio companies too. People in PE have a higher floor and an easier to achieve ceiling in comp compared tech or consulting and the only people that try to deny this are people that can't break in anymore.
In short, sorry that you guys didn't get into MF PE or banking out of college and we got those comp bumps this past year. Good luck with PWC consulting and convincing yourself that you're better than the Jefferies analyst.
OP makes a semi-correct observation but draws the wrong conclusion. Yes, PE analyst programs are becoming more common, but this alone does not explain why you see slightly fewer target students in banking than you did 10 years ago. First off, analyst classes are still ~60% coming from the traditional target schools (Ivies, Georgetown, UMich, NYU Stern, Duke...) so there is plenty of target representation. Second, after the GFC, banks took the initiative to expand their hiring pool to lower-ranked schools and increase non-target representation. The rationale was that having too many people from the same background (WASP candidates from elite schools) had partly caused the GFC because all of these people thought the same way and were more likely to break the rules together. Another part of the argument was that banks didn't want to be labeled as too elitist given all the backlash they got post-2008 and thus made the pledge to give unconventional backgrounds a chance.
Hence, banks, not candidates, are the reason you see fewer target students. They simply gave more non-targets a chance. As a result, I know plenty of students at targets (Dartmouth, Cornell, Ross, Stern, Duke and the likes) who wanted IB but didn't get BB/EB/top MM offers simply because banks don't want to have these schools be overrepresented in their analyst classes.
Lol I’m sorry we non targets ended up at the same place you guys did while not having to take on 100-200k worth of debt. Hate to break it to ya, but most of the non target IB analysts at BB/EB firms probably could have attended a target, but chose not to for various reasons.
Lmao nah that’s what nontargets like to say to justify going to mediocre schools
Does someone want to tell OP that banking literally used to be run by a bunch of Jews and Italians where some were college educated while others weren't and they didn't even go to top schools either? Does someone want to remind OP that a whole Mortgage Bond market was practically made by a fat Italian drop out who went from back office to front office simply because he was hard working?
Lmao u obv don’t go to the top target if u think the best students choose PE over EBs out of undergrad. Heard Rutgers is fun this time of year, though.
There is a kernel of truth in here, but overall this is a strange/bad take. Take my class for example - the MBA new hires came almost exclusively from targets, including Harvard, Wharton, booth, etc. The new analysts are more of a mixed bag but the majority of them came from targets or semi-targets. Not sure where these other people are working that hires all these non-targets but it's not the case everywhere.Where I agree is that students have more optionality nowadays - tech and consulting are eating into the pie moreso than 15 years ago, but that doesn't mean there aren't talented people in IB. For PE, I find it hard to believe there are significantly more analyst roles now than there were 15 years ago. The number of firms has increased slightly, and there are more analyst programs, but the numbers aren't large enough to be significant.People who think tech and consulting are the holy grail have grass is greener syndrome. I worked in consulting - was definitely nominally in the office for fewer hours, but it's a constant stream of work that 99% of the time gets thrown into the trash right after the meeting. In IB you at least get breaks here and there, and see a deal go through once in a while - and the pay is better.With tech, yeah if you look at FAANG the pay per hour is significantly better than IB. But you're forever some developer/coding nerd, which isn't everyone's cup of tea. If you think IB is boring, imagine writing code 8 hours a day for the rest of your life. The other 99% of tech jobs suck as was previously mentioned.The grass is always greener. IB is slightly less glamorous than it used to be, but there's still a lot of upside. You do you
It's not that banks have lowered their standards, but rather that it's much easier to identify top candidates from non-traditional schools.
Simply hiring from a select few schools has always been the easy and safe way to conduct recruiting - and has yielded consistent good results, but how do you know whether or not that's the optimal way?
And, let's be honest here, classism is becoming just as uncool as sexism, racism, etc. Diversity is good.