TS (Big4) vs. Credit Risk vs. Coverage
Hi All,
I work in transaction services (TS) in a Big4 and recently got an offer for a credit risk (CR) role in a bulge-bracket (think GS/JPM/MS) focusing on sub-IG/LBO transactions (no portfolio monitoring, only working on transactions). I plan to stay at least 3-5 more years in banking/consulting but am not certain afterwards as I would like to work in a smaller structure e.g. VC/ Growth Eq. (GE)/ Private Credit or going back to Uni for a Master's to open up opportunities towards hybrid roles between finance, IT and math (e.g. VC/GE focusing on Tech, data science focusing on start-up business/marketing strategies, hedge fund portfolios etc.). Whilst the CR role offers c.40% more than in TS (incl. bonuses), in my view it tends to offer less exit opportunities in VC/ GE/ PC because it's a MO role, but it is in a top BB and covers LevFin deals. On the other hand, TS is quite technical but I don't manage to assess whether the skills learned there would be a good fit for VC/HF.
On top of this I received another offer from a tier2 bank for a FO coverage (corporate banking) role (mainly IG deals), just mentioning it because it pays c.100% more than in TS (incl. bonuses), but in my view it'd only make sense if I wanted to go directly for the Master's and update my CV (i.e. VC/GE would be unreachable otherwise);
I am still indecisive between these three options (staying in TS vs. moving to CR or Coverage), and would quite appreciate to have your thoughts; of note, all the roles stated above are in Europe.
Thanks a lot
My gf was in CR at one of the mentioned firms, afaik CR can be somewhat different between GS/JPM/MS so will be good to know which offer you have. Overall think it would be better than TS at B4 due to higher pay and exit opps but not sure regarding comparison to coverage. Unless you have JPM CR, I would prob go with Tier 2 cov assuming you mean CS or DB as you have more modelling and client exposure.
Pros:
Lots of volume (Acquisition and Leveraged Finance deals)
Good senior exposure
Fair bit of modelling although depends on teams and it is mainly LBO
More exposure to different debt deals as you work less extensively on a single deal e.g. just parts of the credit memo and IC.
Cons:
MO role more limited exit opps compared to coverage although exit opportunities into IBD and PC are pretty good if you are at GS/JPM
Base pay can be lower than coverage if you are not at JPM where it is considered more FO than traditional MO
Less focus on commercial aspects of the deal and overall less modelling opportunities
Less or no client exposure
Ex big 4 here. If your end goal is to end up buy side take the FO role as soon as possible. If you take the MO role you likely will be shooting yourself in the foot and will lock your resume in. You can always jump from the tier2 bank to a BB after some time but you can't jump easily from MO to anywhere besides middle or back office.
Et saepe et iusto qui. Quia qui repellat facere eum optio.
Tempora nihil aliquam sunt neque. Provident natus qui ipsum aut hic laboriosam. Quibusdam id incidunt magni aut et. Non suscipit sunt consequatur aliquam consequatur.
Incidunt a eum quibusdam qui minus adipisci. Velit ipsa minima beatae voluptates doloribus. Perferendis et deserunt enim pariatur quas est est. Maiores ratione ea itaque excepturi eveniet et voluptatem corporis. Est perspiciatis ad quaerat non est quia tempore non.
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...