Title downgrade
Im looking to move from a no name boutique to a BB. I've got 8 years experience at this boutique and am a first year VP.
I got an offer at BB but they let me choose to be VP immediately or Sr. Associate and VP in a year. The MD hiring me highly recommended the second option, saying I should take a year to learn since at my current firm we do micro/middle market and barely any auctions. I appreciate that he is letting me choose. Many things at a BB we don't even do (like management presentations or even many pitchbooks). Pay is great with either title. What would you do?
Go with his recommendation
Junior to where you are currently at, but I was in a similar situation when I was transferring firms. Had spent some time as an analyst at one firm, transitioned to another as a senior analyst, and then was in the process of receiving an offer from a BB (chose another firm in the end). One of my conversations with the head of the group had the same advice - given option of coming in a 2nd/3rd year analyst or as an associate - and he said go with the former.
Obviously responsibilities for the positions I was considered for versus yours are different, but he told me coming in at a higher level would have increased expectations, and by coming in, getting my feet wet first, it would allow me to grow into that role more naturally without the pressure.
A little baffling, given MBA associates jump into those seats with even less experience. Do you regret this decision at all? I ask because I have a similar offer but was pretty certain of taking the associate title given the significantly higher base and all-in comp…
Perhaps this might not always be reflective of whats "best for you" but what the hiring manager can get away with in the hiring dynamics? Maybe some managers would prefer to squeeze an extra year out of their hires before having to move them up to VP or just keep them hungry for a little longer before they start looking for their next move?
I once had an MD of a prop desk brag to me how they get internal laterals to accept not one but two year demotions (effectively starting as analyst 1 all over again) as a sign of how popular the MD's team was within the bank.
If pay is higher as a VP, I’d just go with that option. Idk why you’d pick the second option unless you’re totally set on having a career here
Picking the latter option will give you a year to build goodwill with the group and learn the ropes of the things the BB does that you aren't familiar with. See if you can negotiate a higher bonus for your step-back year and be vocal about expecting the promotion at the end of the year.
Also something people don't consider but you may not be in banking all the way to the MD level, so this gives you another year of banking income that you might not otherwise get.
Didn't think of that and its a great point.. I'm not sure I want to be MD but I do want to get to SVP at least.
As someone who had to come in as a 1st year analyst again after doing a year at a no name boutique (didn't move to BB, just MM upstream), I'd take the MD's rec. It's a cliche phrase in the industry, but I'm a proponent of the "underpromise, overdeliver" concept. It might just be personal philosophy, but I think exceeding expectations right off the bat and having some more leeway to learn freely will help in the long run - though also depends on how long you see yourself at the firm. If long-term, I'd for sure take the MD's rec.
Go with what he just recommended dude
What an easy decision, number 2 obviously sets you up for success. And oh yea, your future boss already told you what he thinks is the intelligent decision. And yet you’re actually considering disregarding the first piece of advice he gives you?
You’re getting advice from a bunch of risk averse bankers here. Look man, if you’re not gonna bet on yourself then no one else will. Only you know your abilities and what you can do/time you’re willing to put in during the first year. Personally I always say go for the higher title and bet on yourself.
Lol do you know how this business works? There's no guarantee or frankly solid likelihood he becomes an MD and starts bringing in clients. The latter option gives him an extra year of banking income which at that level, sticking around to collect as many bonus checks as possible is really all that matters. This has nothing to do with "risk averse" or betting on yourself. It's fucking banking. Betting on yourself is making enough to gfto as quickly as possible from the corp world.
And he’ll make more as a VP, dipshit. Dumb analyst 1 doesn’t think I factored all that in, and if he’s only in banking for say 2-3 more years then he makes more taking the VP title.
Stick to doing some retarded dance on tiktok or whatever else you gen Z morons do.
If that's your approach you're literally the definition of "risk averse"
I'd go with his recommendation because going with the first option (VP) is a lose/lose outcome situation. On the one hand, if you underperform you fuck yourself and on the other hand if you over perform you spite the MD. I know it's unfair, but it takes a magnanimous person to really wish success for others even if they're proven wrong and banking doesn't have the highest population of magnanimous people :)
So take the SA role, but get it firmly committed that VP is in one year.
That's quite the drop...
I had a similar situation where they were considering bringing me on as an associate but suggested it would be better to come as a senior analyst (I was already an associate in another area of the bank). The biggest argument for downgrading is you will be benchmarked/ranked against those at your level. So you might get a mid or low ranking as VP but a high ranking as senior associate. For me, I wasn’t willing to take the cut and said peace.
Who knows, you may be ready to jump ship in two years. You’d land a much better spot with two years of VP on your resume vs having just made VP. Turnover is so high on Wall Street, I think it’s overrated to worry too much about the goodwill as much of the team may be gone in two years. If they’re giving you the option for VO, you’re obviously qualified. I’d take VP
Don't be a clown, take VP. Promotions aren't guaranteed and markets change. If you fuck up as a VP at this BB, you can just lateral to another BB. As a VP.
You are literally a cuck and cucking yourself if you self-demote, wtf? All these pussybois telling you to demote yourself should jump off a building.
I'm going to say take the MD's advice. I see it as the VP wanting to set you up to succeed. Success takes time and he's saying learn how we do it and run with it. On average, it takes between 3 and 6 months to settle into a new job. Obviously, you can do the work, but it gives you a chance to learn how your BB does things without as much stress as being a VP. While I don't see taking the VP role as a lose/lose situation off the bat, I do see it as the harder option because you're expected to learn the role, pick up skills you don't have, and start to bring in business all in one fell swoop. If you kick ass, fantastic! If you fail, that's going to be a strike against you. Just keep that in mind.
The fact that the MD is pushing for this says a lot of course but OP has 8 years of IB experience and is suggested to take a voluntary downgrade to a 3rd year associate position (so similar to associates with maybe 4-5 years experience) to he can have more room to succeed? It's not like OP would be expected to bring a book of business as a first year VP lateraling from a more established bank.
Personally, unless I felt completely out of my comfort zone (very different industry group or products suite?), I would take the VP title. If the job doesn't work out, you're a VP rather than a senior associate in your 10th year of banking.
If you read what the OP said, he's not coming in from another BB, he's coming in from a no-name bank that caters to micro and really tiny lower-middle markets clients. He pointed out that he lacks experience in certain areas. He outright said that there are things his current shop does not do that he's expected to do. I think that weighs more on the decision than anything else. If he was moving from an Upper Middle Markets Shop, sure, take the title, however, I think the longer-term success is more important than getting the title a year early.
Funny, I am in a similar position, but was offered VP instead of Sr. Associate.. now I feel it's a trap?
I would do senior associate for the reasons above, you state you're missing some experience and you likely wouldn't be a great VP without a year of prep work. That said I'd try to have a promote date written into your contract... Aso to VP isn't guaranteed.
MD is just trying to maintain his dominance by keeping everyone else down. Don’t let him win. Tell him you’re coming for him. Take the VP job. Overtake the MDs position. Eat his lunch. Bang his wife
Quos aut voluptatum temporibus error dicta id voluptas. In non deleniti sint et. Dolore quae soluta dicta veritatis praesentium neque. Numquam voluptatem atque quia ut. Natus natus odit commodi officia quia architecto voluptatem. Ut et soluta reprehenderit earum id itaque.
Quia debitis voluptas asperiores pariatur fugit. Harum ut repudiandae dicta occaecati pariatur. Sed qui vitae ullam quas aspernatur dolore rem nostrum. Dolores sunt facilis veritatis accusamus quia et.
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...
Dolores facilis ipsum pariatur tempora in. Aspernatur quia fugit dolorem voluptas tempora porro accusantium. Nobis explicabo natus doloremque aut rem neque ut. Soluta eveniet minima eaque.
Error dolor laudantium qui aliquid neque at et. Dolorum deserunt vel eaque repellendus nobis quam eos.