Should I take a demotion in order to move upmarket / upstream?
Was recently promoted at a traditional MM bank and have the opportunity to move upstream/upmarket to an elite boutique (Evercore, Moelis, Greenhill, Centerview, PWP), but was told I would likely go in back at my prior level.
I have a strong desire to move upmarket and get better deal flow from where I am, but I'm concerned about going backwards in hopes of doing this. It aligns with my long-term goals, but if I leave IB in the future, will this be looked at negatively by employers?
Also, where would you draw the line for accepting a demotion to move upstream? In other words, if I decide to wait, I assume it will get more difficult, but would anything actually change?
Associate back to Analyst VP back to Associate Director back to VP
It depends on the relative ranking of your MM and the EB. You could ask the EB, when you would be up for promotion. However, it all depends on you and there are so many factors to consider, you should give more detail
EB would actually be higher in its comp set relative to MM. Was told probably a year in demoted role before a repromotion. Other factors: group at the EB is enticing vertical, would be in a major metro market, not sure what else I can provide detail on
It is something very personal. But from what you say I would take the demotion, assuming you cannot get something better.
To me, that sounds pretty standard. Especially if you are talking about moving down to third year Analyst before back up to 1st year Associate.
Also, if you're comp, exit opps, deal exposure, and preftige are all better AND it is the right move for you strategically - is it really a demotion?
Sounds like a geat opportunity and that they're looking to lower their risk. If you can't get them to offer similar level just take it
As everyone mentioned, you should take the demotion if the EB is the path you want. It's something I have done myself (associate to analyst) and it is well worth it in the long run, particularly since your added experience will contribute to you performing very strongly at your new job.
I see 3 possible paths:
1 - You're a stud and refuse to drop a level and so you put the ball in their court to accept or ding you 2 - Look at the horizon and realize it's 1 year in a long potential career in this industry and accept the challenge 3 - Not move and stay at your MM because you love your title and status.
Short term gains = long term pains
I would push to keep same title. Ultimately, if the firm wants you, then it will concede this point. Otherwise, the firm could be lukewarm on you and could be viewing you as an opportunistic hire, which might not bode well for you going forward anyways. In banking, top-tier rank / high comp earners remain top-tier rank / high comp earners.
Don't do this. We had someone we wanted to bring on, who wouldn't accept the title we wanted to give them, so we ultimately dinged them. Bringing on someone new is always a wild card, they just want to make they aren't making a mistake. If you do well you'll be promoted shortly, I imagine.
If you have the requisite skill set, they will promote you back when ready. You don't need to write you resume in a way that shows the demotion so it shouldn't be an issue going forward as long as you actually do get the promotion.
I'm guessing that you are currently at an obscure firm, and, if that is the case, this isn't all that unusual. I would go for it.
If it's associate to analyst I think it could make sense. I likely wouldn't take the demotion any higher than that. I don't think you'll be able to push hard for associate as frankly I think juniors are fairly commoditized from a hiring perspective at most shops so I'm certain their 1b is probably a good enough candidate. You could raise that it's important to you but barring that I would just want to be very specific on expectations / timeline for you to get bumped back up. Leaving it open-ended, while not necessarily a bad thing opens you up to potentially getting screwed whereas the closer you can get to a situation where they say you'll be promoted at a certain time if you do x,y and z is a fair outcome if it's a firm / sector you want to be in.
With the assumption that being a coverage banker is my long-term career dream, this is a trade I'd take ten out of ten times.
It's massively Accretive. They're essentially saying, "Hey, we like you, but we don't know how the culture and ethos of your prior employer has shaped you. We're willing to take a flier on you as an asset, but we want to make sure you fill the shoes before handing you the keys to a role with a lot of responsibility.
I actually disagree with juniormistmaker. I see this more commonly at the VP1/A3 level, where someone got the VP seat at a lower-tier firm and the prospective employer is a bit concerned about how well the product of that environment translates to their own. They then ask the candidate to 'repeat' as a senior-level Associate, eyeing them the whole time as to whether they have the qualitative, harder to judge skills that are necessary for success at the VP level.
For the OP, this ultimately boils down to career aspirations.
If this is an Analyst/Associate thing, the comp difference is meaningless in the long run (and the short run too; seriously, the post-tax delta here is minimal). If this is an Associate/VP thing, I can see how the comp hit may make this take a further moment of thought. I don't think a firm of any real caliber asks an MD to step back down from MD to ED or Director.
Regardless of the level of seniority, if banking is your long-term career interest, moving to a better shop and gaining all the measurable and intangible benefits it brings is the smart choice. - better dealflow (and thus transaction experience) - stronger comp - broader professional development resources - stronger senior bankers to learn from and mature under - more recognizable brand name - smarter coworkers (this is something people tend to undervalue) - better professional service providers (lawyers, accountants, valuation, etc.) - meatier infrastructure layer (expense accounts, admins, T&E policy, etc.) - I could go on
In short, I don't draw the line. If banking is what you want to do, you take the shot to get to the better firm. The difference based on title during your first year is nominal, and adjusted for duration, imperceptible.
Sit rerum qui excepturi consequuntur et. Tenetur molestiae esse ea autem saepe facere. Error temporibus expedita debitis omnis itaque. Aliquid distinctio quaerat tempora qui. Commodi enim unde autem at qui.
Itaque odit dolor qui exercitationem et. Tenetur temporibus molestiae mollitia enim. Nisi excepturi vitae aliquid quia accusantium molestiae.
Ullam velit inventore enim excepturi autem qui voluptatem. Iure iusto quis consectetur architecto dolorem repudiandae. Magni recusandae quam non ab possimus. Atque non reprehenderit quod minus. Alias animi asperiores eligendi rerum et minima consequatur voluptatum. Nemo rerum eum praesentium saepe porro nobis non.
Eos facere excepturi accusantium ut enim totam cum. Est dicta et consequatur. Qui sunt eos aliquid sapiente in. Dolor ratione consequatur nemo cumque sit aut accusamus.
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...