Thinking about this after observing my deal teams first-hand and reading this forum - there's some mystery around the VP role and how easy/difficult it actually is relative to other roles in the hierarchy.
Easy Case: Some folks say you can "coast" at the VP level and make a cushy salary for a few years. MDs and Directors own the relationship with the clients and are under a lot of pressure to sell, while analysts and associates need to be on call 24/7 cranking out the actual work. VPs are "in the middle" - they sometimes do a detailed review of the deck (which takes 1/100 of the time it takes to actually make it), and share their screen/occasionally speak in client calls, but it seems like the easiest job in the hierarchy.
Hard Case: VPs have the most difficult job because you need to balance managing up/building a client facing career with providing guidance to the analysts and associates on content creation. Not to mention you need to do this across several deals.
Personally, I think being a VP is easier than being an associate, or even an analyst, and is the most "replaceable" position in the hierarchy. I've already been on several deals with no VP, and it definitely sucks having to plan/create/check the content all at once, but the work still gets done and the client is happy. However, I'm surely missing something and don't want to downplay how difficult managing both up and down actually is. What does everyone else think?
My experience was that the VP level could definitely be the easiest, but it ultimately depends on the type of person.
For example, I worked predominately with 2 different VPs, 1 at a time, on a number of different deals. They were the same age, both started as analysts, and perfectly represented each side of the argument. VP1 was coasting, giving no direction, left everything to us, and then took 9 hours to review before sending comments at 1am that were always reverted when it reached the director/MD. They could have been replaced with a F7 key.
VP2 was god's gift to a junior banker. Hyper efficient, detailed, saw the bigger picture, always had a plan, and always gave clear and concise direction. We were constantly told "if this is taking you more than X hours, call me and we'll come up with a better plan", etc. They led calls, got involved with menial tasks like the data room/calendar invites, and were also staffed on twice the amount of deals. They also had ownership over non-deal related tasks like comp models, monthly sector updates, etc. etc. etc. I could go on and on, but it was truly a treat working with them.
That said, VP2 was working their balls off and was constantly under much more stress than VP1. Personal pride/ambition is a great thing but also directly impacts how "hard" your job is. The point is that these 2 were in the exact same position, one appeared to be the easiest and one seemed like the hardest...
Came here to write out an abridged version of this.
For VPs gunning for MD, it is one of the more challenging positions. On top of typical responsibilities, these VPs are also networking like mad and trying to start to establish their own relationships. The good VPs at the banks I worked at not only grinded with the Analysts and Associates as [ebitDUMBDUMB] described, but they were also OOO between 4 and 8 PM hitting networking events. To summarize, you are both trying to build out your MD-required skillset while holding all of your standard responsibilities. A good VP digs deep through models, pitch materials, the CIM, etc. A good VP feels accountable for everything, but also gets their hands dirty to clean things up last minute. A good VP is also an absolute workhorse determined to make it to the top, so their role is by no means easy.
On the other hand, a less ambitious, bad VP has it made in the shade for at least a few years. Many of the mistakes not caught can be blamed on the Assoc/Analyst, and the VP can claim they are stretched thin internally so they don't take the fall for not catching errors. If they aren't looking to build out their business development skillset and arent invested in producing the best possible models / CIMs / pitch materials, then the role probably isn't terribly challenging. I have seen some VPs leave at 5 regularly despite being on multiple deals, and still make MD.
I remember reading about a VP banker (whose now a MD/Partner) who was on I believe a list of top 40 under 40 in their industry (not some Forbes BS list). He explained how many hours he had to commit to an international deal with meetings at odd times. Works at a sweatshop but you can just tell based off his answers, he's still pulling insane hours. Was also one of those MD/Partners who started at the analyst level and never got a MBA.
Also I'm sure VPs leaving at 5pm are still working nights at home after dinner.
I would love to chat with any "less ambitious VPs" who make MD as that is my goal. Being somewhat sarcastic, I think it is important to help junior staff but at the same time I want to lead a reasonable life as time goes on.
Ironically, as the other posts point out, it's harder if you want to be a "good" VP because you're stretched so thin between being client facing and in the weeds on work product. The VP2 story is spot on. "Good" is subjective depending on the firm/team. Some want you to spend more time doing client work, others want it all.
The differentiator for me was having a rockstar associate so I could spend less time digging into numbers and such. Future VPs, be good to your juniors and take the time to train them.
Kind of the same way at the associate-level, really. If I'm on a live deal and we've got a valuation deck that needs to go up to seniors that night, the level of paranoia / dilligence you put into checking the numbers depends on what analyst I'm staffed with. If it's a beast senior analyst who I've worked with before, the tie out is less stressful since I know he / she did all the same checks I'm doing before I see it (unless I know that senior analyst is getting dicked on multiple live deals and is super gassed - then the dilligence meter cranked up a bit).
If it's a new hire who hit the desk 2 weeks ago, I'm going to have to go through every single page, trace the backup, and effectively generate model outputs on my own to confirm that the math is correct (e.g. making sure the right scenarios are toggled on, numbers were imported correctly between workbooks, etc).
Imagine VPs have a similar internal thought process with respect to the associate working below him / her (which might be negated if there's a stallion of an analyst working below the associate)
For the bank I worked at, it really depended on the VP and I feel like the VP role is where it becomes clear who actually is good at their job versus not and who understands what is going on.
A good VP has seen enough processes and has the confidence to push back and make a process have no surprises. The crap VP’s just lean on analysts and associates and have constant late nights and turns on things that aren’t value add. To some degree I agree with the posters, but to another degree I think there are some VP’s who just grind their ass off ineffectively and the good ones know how to lay out a timeline, stick to that timeline, and delegate and trust their juniors.
Well said. VP is when you need to start operating independently. Some just don't get there and get caught up in the grind. Not a good experience for the juniors.
Confused by a lot of these answers.
Ultimately, the VP is responsible for managing all parts of the process for any live deal, from content creation (i.e., these are the slides we should present, here is what should go on it, we should use these numbers, take this approach, etc.), explaining content to client, giving client advice/answering client questions and making sure everything needed is completed within the prescribed timeline.
This requires them to know the process inside and out to the degree that they can explain each step to the client without any help, know the sector /story well enough to develop appropriate content, and use judgement as to when to involve the seniors / ask for sign off on materials vs. just sending to client when they don't get a response.
As far as getting deals across the finish line and keeping clients happy, VPs arguably have the most important role.
For those saying VPs can have the easiest role, who is doing all of the above? Are you saying your VPs are just saying "hey, we need to have a draft of the business section of the S-1 by next week, can you please put a draft together" then leaving the analyst / associate to figure out what to write and then stumbling their way through the drafting sessions with the client? Just don't understand how the VP could drop the ball here consistently and not get fired by the client.
During my stint, I had VP’s who made every single deliverable a question. Example, what do you think we should put in the dataroom and how long to prep that? Any question on a call posed to them they would turn toward me. For example, “what does 2020 revenue look like?” “Great question, analyst 1, mind providing your input?”
Incompetent VP’s exist everywhere and they hide behind strong junior members. That said, everyone knows the VP is weak, but broadly most investment banks have so much bloat it’s unreal.
Point being, the VP job has a huge amount of variance in terms of work and responsibility. Personally, I’ve been on deals where VP’s have been out to lunch with associates and analysts running the whole transactions execution. I’ve also had VP’s stay up til 4am working with me through a model or traded off night shifts with them. I do think the good vps though have a solid life by the nature of understanding the process, confidence on pushing back, and ability to delegate. That frees up a ton of time and can make the job way easier.
Re: your last paragraph - that’s exactly what our VP does. Analyst/Assoc need to figure everything out with the S-1 drafting (with minimal/no guidance), and the director drives the discussions on the calls. I’ve seen some incredibly lazy VPs, and maybe they’re subject to different stressors, but this particular VP definitely adds the least value of anyone on the team.
From analyst perspective, VP is important when:
1) the associate is junior. Great resource and can be more involved. If I know associate does not know, someone else to go to
2) when there is alot of client interaction on the deal and many parties. People take him more seriously and he can push back and force other groups to work on stuff, even hold MDs accountable when needed. At the same time, if it is a big deal it leaves associate to focus on the actual work instead of scheduling calls
A good vp is also an amazing mentor for analysts (provides big picture perspective) and is senior enough to set culture in junior team. They can back analysts/associates when needed.
VPs get trimmed harder than my balls before a Hinge hookup when a recession comes.
VP is a tough job, particularly if an MD is totally hands off the deck. From an analyst perspective they might not truly appreciate the work of what a VP does but it is a stressful position albeit the hours are slightly better. Sure an analyst prob work way longer hours but their job is easier cause all they need to do is take instructions and execute - there is very little thinking required. All you need is hard work and the right attitude. Like some of my analysts put it: they are just like machine churning out things and many don’t really know what they are doing but it doesn’t matter at the end of the day
I posted this as a poll on our linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6877358638923579392
Bent over a desk
GS VP here.
you can coast for a few years but will get cut. Also if you’re in some product teams you can be mediocre for a longer while.
in high velocity groups, all jobs are hard however the stress and responsibility of being a VP in my view is materially harder than being an associate especially in the modern era of junior banking initiatives. I am not saying juniors don’t work hard because they do - incredibly hard.
a good VP drive business, drives outreach and drives execution. VPs are responsible for bad decks, lost pitches and missed business. Associates are insulated from all of that.
I work about 10 - 15 hours less weekly than I did when I was an associate however their are many weeks I would trade the hours to abate the stress.
Damn, I need to start doing some work
I will tell you my experience as I am somewhere in the middle as of now but of course I am in credit underwriting and not in pure IB doing M&As etc (sometimes I am involved in IB but mostly from debt perspective, not equity)
- VPs / mid-level guys are involved a lot in structuring (at least in my team, I do a lot of credit structuring for clients)- That includes what covenants, what kind of documentation, flow of payments from subsidiaries / groups and rating methodologies in case the client is not falling in a clear bucket. Analysts and associates are supposed to take my word and run with it
- The challenge is that while the first cut of the reports are to be done analysts and associates, if the work is not done well and it goes upwards, The mid-layer will have to take blame (of course I believe that if something has gone through my eyes, I need to own up to mistakes and not pass on the buck to analysts / associates)
- Most of the time I am being given the responsibility of the product coming out (as I am the mnager of the portfolio) but I am not given a lot of flexibility in managing the talent below me (that is despite the fact that I work with my junior colleagues and understand who should do what
- Senior managers (My MDs) are basically broad level decision makers (on underwriting side) or risk takers (MDs in business pushing for the risk to be undertaken) but as the products evolve, the oldest senior managers may not be as adept in risk matters. So VPs/Mid-level guys are also the ones who have seen a lot of new products (of course it goes to MDs for sign off but not sure at their level whether they are looking at an excel sheet or rating methodology or analytical content in detail. They are senior who are supposed to take decisions based on their prior experience / business rationale rather than hard numbers.
To summarize,
Analysts / Associates - > Hard skills
VPs / Dir /Mid levels - Hard skills with some soft skills / management experience / Client discussions (may also be tasked with training juniors)
MDs - Gut based decision makers on broad areas with high risk appetite and resposnsibility for driving team metrics (whether in underwriting or in relationship)
Of course, does vary across firms
Et recusandae qui omnis mollitia laboriosam. Quos repellat accusamus modi.
Perspiciatis voluptates eum distinctio omnis omnis maxime. Consectetur quia omnis unde consequatur ut omnis cumque deserunt. Repudiandae ut itaque officia aut hic iusto quis. In necessitatibus velit voluptatum atque. Aliquam totam tenetur dolor.
Omnis quam enim dolor sequi eum sunt. Id voluptates doloremque ut voluptates. Atque doloribus rerum id fugiat quisquam quas.
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...