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.
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.
Damn, I need to start doing some work