Saw these guys posting they were looking for an experienced analyst couple days back & was looking into the opportunity. Looks like a lot of the posts on them are pretty dated (2013-14).
Any recent opinions/thoughts? Seems like they do well very well in their space but analysts get absolutely worked to the bone even more so than at other places. Is that still true?
The alumni from my school that work there don't answer networking calls/emails from current students at their alma mater because they don't want them to have to work there...if that's any indication
Bunch of trolls on here; guys get real. Pound for pound this company has dominated. Do some real research other than listening to some bunk reviews from total trolls. Actually look at their deals, they are doing something very right. If you're looking for a great Analyst experience, this is the place to be. No pitching, nothing but deal work. Why don't you LinkedIn any current Analyst.
No one is denying that they're doing solid work. They dominate the fintech space and within fintech pretty much #1 aside from JPM.
That being said, they're a terrible shop culture wise + hours. I have a buddy working at FTP and absolutely hates it even with the extremely solid deal flow. And even with all that solid deal their exits aren't on par with other sweatshops.
Does anyone else find it suspicious that 100% of dontworrybehappy's comments on WSO have been about FTP, and always in unmitigated defense of it? Seems almost like there's an agenda here...
dontworrybehappy seems to have a personal attachment to the firm based on his post history about FTP so not sure how unbiased his views on FTP are. Here's my take as someone who worked in IB before transitioning to corp dev:
I didn't work in the FIG group at my firm, but my buddies in FIG know the name and worked on deals with them before and say the content FTP spits out is stellar. FTP can definitely walk the talk and reputation within fintech space is on par with BB/EB.
FTP is largely a MM shop that lands a big deal once a while that they advertise quite heavily on their homepage (note that tombstones don't include transaction dates). Seems like much of the work is capital raising with some sellside mixed in so limited modelling experience but probably better than working in a coverage group at a BB with no in-house m&a. Senior guys were all ex-GS TMT who probably went through the 90-100 hr weeks and run the place like they're still at GS.
The hours are probably a function of dealflow which really is quite strong at FTP. Strong dealflow means sweatshop wherever you go, but culture is really what makes or breaks working at a firm based on my experience, which I hear at FTP isn't the best.
Talking to alumni who worked there in the past, they say that mgt. and senior guys look down on buyside recruiting. Most guys who exit go into growth equity or Fintech space as this is all recruiters show which is quite unfortunate as the analysts are bright guys. The few who have made it into a buyout fund were through personal connections.
There have been rumors that they don't pay interns and pay below street, but don't think this is true. Believe pay should be at least street.
At the end of the day, for the amount of work the analysts are putting in working at a firm with subpar culture and limited exit opps, it would be more worth your time to work at other sweatshops like Moelis or Lazard if you can land a gig there. If its between FTP and no IB or you know that fintech or growth equity is the field for you, FTP no question.
Had a friend from school that recently joined as part of their 1st year analyst class. monkeyInSuit described it very well from the analyst perspective (I'm guessing dontworrybehappy is probably a passionate member of the firm) and I sure as hell am glad I don't work here
The deal flow and companies these guys work with sound excellent here but there doesn't seem to be any regard for the well-being / lives of employees. The way my buddy describes it, seniors put a ton of pressure on all junior employees, there's a lack of resources (in regards to human capital) to address all the live deals, and all the stress just creates a serious culture of negativity and low morale amongst the junior staff.
IB is a tough experience, but when you're culture overworks and demeans employees, IB becomes a literal living hell. My friend is 5 months in now and is actively looking to lateral as he despises the job despite the clawbacks on both his signing and performance bonuses
Hi everyone, long time lurker here. I joined FT Partners as an Analyst not too long ago and thought it’d be helpful to share a “boots on the ground” perspective with the broader community. During my IB recruiting process I quickly discovered the collection of negative remarks about FT on WSO. I chose to assume that they came from disgruntled employees and just looked past them, but they provoked some anxiety, nonetheless. Since joining, I’ve learned about several initiatives the firm has implemented to improve on its historical challenges (those highlighted here and on other threads), and I’m actually benefiting from them firsthand.
Full disclosure: My experience with FT has been very positive thus far, so this will be a generally positive post about the firm. I’m not here to sugar-coat anything, or pretend like FT is something that it’s not, but having been here for a few months now, I can say with confidence that much of the commentary on this thread is outdated (and in some cases, simply inaccurate).
The biggest knocks on FT on all relevant WSO threads are “long hours,” “no work-life balance,” and “people are unhappy.” Yes, bankers at FT Partners work very hard – they used to work really, really hard. From what I gather, 3am nights 5 or 6 days per week used to be the norm, as recently as 2018. I’m not one bit surprised there are so many complaints about it on this forum. People were getting crushed all the time and as a result, retention rates suffered.
Recently, the firm brought in / built out a People Ops team to focus on recruiting and employee experience. In addition to building out the recruiting, training and mentoring programs, they noticed the retention issue (+ realized it was almost entirely tied to people being overworked) and pushed to hire more bankers / spread out the work to a more manageable level for everyone. One big result: FT brought in a 2019 Analyst class with 2x the headcount of the original 2018 class. To be fair, the firm is growing, so some expansion is natural/necessary. However, the firm’s workload didn’t double in one year. Doubling the size of the Analyst class was a deliberate choice made primarily to improve everyone’s experience and the retention rate (and, also, keeping people around is much more efficient than constantly having to hire / ramp up new employees).
In terms of hours, I’d say the Analysts work 85/week on average. Some work more, some work less, but this all depends on the status of your deals for any given week. 85 hours is no joke, but it’s not living hell. In my experience it’s pretty normal for any reputable / hard-working investment bank.
Moreover, the Analysts who survived the hell-like hours talk all the time about how much better things have gotten. Again, I’m not here to sugar-coat, but I recommend reaching out and picking someone’s brain on this if you’re seeking additional verification.
On a separate note, some members here (and on other FT threads) have mentioned that Analysts don’t get the most valuable experience because they spend too much time on inefficient / administrative tasks. I’ll try to address both sides of the coin here.
FT takes an extremely thorough approach with clients whenever possible. The firm places extreme priority on preparedness as it enables better outcomes for clients. This means that, for any given deal, Analysts at FT will do more work than they would on any given deal at another bank, which is good or bad depending on your perspective. FT Analysts will build a deck for anything and everything and will also spend time tracking communications with potential buyers/investors.
To some, this seems unnecessary / administrative / like a waste of time, especially since modelling, analytical work and valuation work would often be considered more valuable Analyst exercises. Others see this as a great learning opportunity. Let’s use ‘tracking buyer communications’ as an example. One reason an Analyst tracks these items is to help get his/her MD back up to speed when the MD has to lead a call in 5 minutes with a potential buyer, and the MD’s been travelling in Europe for the last week. As the Analyst, you need to be certain you’re providing accurate information. Potential for situations like this force Analysts to wrap their heads around everything that’s happening on the deal, not just the workstreams they’ve been assigned. This, in my opinion, develops incredible attention to detail and Analysts are better off down the road having absorbed a greater extent of their exposure.
Putting opinions aside, the “administrative” tasks only take up a small portion of your time. In fact, I’ve spent more time modelling and running quantitative analyses than I have on anything else. The mix of quantitative/modelling work, presentations, and administrative tasks at FT seems to be on par with that of most EBs (and BBs depending on the group). Also, FT bankers don’t pitch – strictly execution – so potentially less presentations than at other banks, although this is probably offset by FT’s thorough approach.
The reason FT Bankers don’t pitch is because the firm has such a high volume of inbounds. This also improves the experience because, in those tough times when you do have to grind out that 100hr week, at least you know your work will be used and that it’s not all for nothing. And when there is a one-off case where we have to bake off, the pitches are done by FT’s research and business development group (not the investment banking team).
That’s my 2 cents. Never meant to sound like a cheerleader but hopefully this updated view helps clear the air around some of the dialogue on here. For anyone who’s seriously interested in learning more I’d recommend reaching out to one of the Analysts on LinkedIn and asking to hop on the phone for a few minutes. Not everyone will respond, but I know at least most Analysts make an effort to help where they can.
I have a friend who just summered at FTP and can confirm the above.
You've been working at the firm for less than two months as of writing this. You've technically been at the firm for less weeks than an intern. How can you have so much confidence that everything people say about this firm is outdated or inaccurate? This comes across as very arrogant (something I hope other analysts in your class don't perceive you as). You're still in the honeymoon phase of your IB career: right now, even if you were doing the same thing repeatedly every day, you'd be extremely grateful. Right now, if you hear anything negative about the firm, you'll ignore it because you'll always try to convince yourself at this point that the firm you're working at is amazing and you made the right decision choosing this firm.
While I respect the time you took to post this and that a couple of your thoughts are probably somewhat right, you need to have worked somewhere for at least 9-12 months before "saying things with confidence" about a firm, especially one that is so highly debated on this site.
Analysts and other employees at the firm are supposed to be painting a rosy picture of their firm or they'd get in trouble if people found out. It's very rare for someone to tell you the real truth. I can guarantee the other experienced analysts haven't even told you much about their actual thoughts given you've barely spent a couple months at the firm.
Just showed some of my first year and second year analyst friends who work at FT this post, and it's shocking how easily and quickly they were able to tell who wrote this post. They said this post reeks of the extreme arrogance and "positive humility" that this first year analyst behaves with. I don't know whether you care if anyone knows who you are, but it's pretty obvious that apparently many analysts can easily tell who you are considering all four of my friends quickly came to a consensus on who you are.
They also agreed that it's way too early for you to be making these statements about a firm; this especially came from second year analysts and above telling me. They said to wait until you get put on a new deal and spend your whole day doing work you never thought you would have to to do. I don't know what that means honestly.
Sounds awfully like FT Partners trying to clean up their firm image and culture on these message boards. Would be wary of such "informative posts" especially given FT's history of making up fake reviews on glassdoor. If you guys look at flyby21's profile, he just made his profile today and has been digging up old FT threads and directing everyone to his response here, which to me is a major red flag.
One thing I've realized is that the more a company tries to sell you on its great culture the worse that company's culture really is, akin to being overdefensive about things you are worried about.
Everyone I can find (on LinkedIn after 30 min of quik surfing just now) who has left has gone to a quality shop in PE (Stone Point, Blackstone, Aquiline, TA Associates, Parthenon, JC Flowers, Olyan, Accel, Accel-KKR) or elsewhere (Apple, Uber, Lending Club) but many many have stayed a long time as well it seems. So, please at least do your homework before spreading more trollisms. Plus i'm not sure why you glorify Moelis and Lazard which are just bloated bulgetiques who do not have track records of same success. Again, just did the surfing myself. Does not take long, do the work, I was surprised myself.
Give it up man. Nobody is going to actually believe what you are spewing.
@dontworrybehappy What kind of banker acts like this over some people on the internet saying they don't like their firm's culture? Are you a middle schooler? If anything you're making FTP look worse for hiring someone this immature. The firm clearly has solid dealflow and that's all you should really care about. Stop worrying about how people perceive the other issues the firm is bound to have (just like EVERY other bank) because it just makes you look like an insecure child.
Interesting that they weren’t on the Visa / Plaid deal. Looks like the hype above may have just been that,
With all due respect, FT Partners specializes in the MM space more for now and are focusing their efforts there. This whole Visa / Plaid thing was too big of a deal for them not that they couldn't do it but they just don't want to play in this area yet. The firm absolutely has enough caliber to have gotten this done but they would rather focus on dominating the space they currently play in. Seriously though, them not being on that deal has nothing to do with their skill and how good they are.