PJT M&A vs MS

Signed an offer with PJT over a top BB due to several reasons.

Of course to each their own but I think when looking at banks/analysts stint (assuming you're not staying for IB) you should consider 3 main factors

a) PE/HF/VC...etc (Buy-side placement)

b) PPL/Learning experience

c) Brand Value/"Career Optionality" 

For a), I would say MS M&A/Menlo Tech def outweigh PJT M&A although groups like FSG/Media & Comm are on par if not slightly worse given this year's exit relative to PJT. PJT also has an environment where they help you recruit out (or in general OK with it) which I believe is crucial to being more prepared given how early PE recruiting is. Brand value really doesn't matter once interviews are given and I think this is where EB analysts are differed as opposed to the GS/MS/JP ...etc (especially GS) 

b) MS M&A group is known for terrible culture (know a close friend who is struggling in all aspects of life) let alone Menlo Tech but MS training does provided a more comprehensive learning experience (irony here is that PJT seniors are full of ex-MS bankers). The way I see it is PJT M&A will also work hard but have respectable people/tight-knit analysts class that makes staying in the office at 1am WAY more bearable than MS M&A/Menlo Tech per say. The lean deal structure/industry-agnostic experience is something that you cannot ignore especially when speaking to professionals they p much have options to learn everything from cryptocurrencies, carbon-capturing-technologies to media companies. You could potentially spread yourself too thin but given "optionality" or the types of exits, PJT M&A also has growth equity/VC-type exits solely based on this info so something to def consider. I personally haven't seen anyone from MS FSG per say go to VC or more start up role even considering the name brand. 

c) obv MS on this part but I personally feel as though if your going into banking/have a slight interest in finance, you're not likely to move to a F500 Corporate role in Texas right after ur banking stint. If you see that as a possibility, go with a BB but for me, I personally think I'll stay in finance for at least 4 years (including my banking stint) and therefore the name value debate doesn't matter as much. People say GS/MS brand value matter loads and it's true internationally (APAC) but if you're staying in the US you're most likely going to be in a "finance" position wherever you go (Corp.dev, growth equity, vc, buyout, consulting..etc) which then name value matters a little less in the PJT vs MS debate.

Lastly, this finance game is a marathon as opposed to a sprint from my perspective. As such, it's a matter of can I finish 2 years with 1) sanity 2) somewhat maintained passion in finance. If you're gonna quit at either PJT or MS after 6 months due to health concerns or people as a function of the environment, name value/banking just makes no sense in my humble opinion. The reason why I say this is just go to wherever u think you can stick out 2 years disregarding all this prestige bs. IF you are not remotely happy with the environment, you're probably going to have a negative view on finance as a whole and therefore exits will not matter to you no more. My view on the most successful investors/entrepreneurs/CEOs are that they stuck with the industry bc their first impressions of the craft were not terrible and therefore persisted through manageable challenges (I believe the chances of a GS TMT SF Analyst being the next Chase Coleman or Elon Musk substantially decreased post analyst-stint purely based on their initial view on the industry regardless of skill)

Just my 2 cents as to why I chose PJT but again to each their own.