MIF first tier or MIF second tier + working in PE
At the moment I am facing a very hard choice. I have to decide between a MIF at a first tier university (think LSE, HEC etc.) or going to another city where I could work part time at a PE company (second tier) while doing a second tier MIF (although still target).
What do you think is the better choice for someone who wants to work in IB after university and in the long term for a PE company (although not at this fund).
1.) Check on LinkedIn to find out where this PE firm's former employees are working now. 2.) Check on LinkedIn to figure out where Oxford MFin grads are working. (Also consider putting MIT and Princeton on the list if you have the math background, as many European finance/econ majors do)
I have to say, it's difficult to break into a major PE firm without IBD/Consulting/other PE work experience. And PE does tend to be a bit of a prestige-whoring business within a prestige-whoring industry. So there may be a glass ceiling on your career without an Oxbridge or a H/P/S/M/Chi on your resume.
I think the more conservative choice here- certainly in accounting terms- is to take the offer from the PE firm and do the MFin part-time. You'll be bringing in money rather than going into debt. And now you've got an entire career for that money to generate returns on. $100K saved your first year working in the US is likely to turn into $1.5 million (inflation adjusted) over the course of 45 years.
The choice that gives you the most career options later, however, is Oxford.
I think some of this decision comes down to how hard and how long you want to work- and therefore how much you want to invest in your career as opposed to how much you want to invest in an early retirement.
I will not study part time, but work part time. So I would do a normal second tier MIF at a target university while working part time for this PE fund.
If it were a full-time gig and they were paying for a part time MFin, I'd go for it. Between the two options available, I don't think this is worth turning down a really top-notch MFin for. Remember, PE is a prestige-obsessed business.
However, I'd much rather see you try to land an IBD gig somewhere right now though. My hunch is that the major banks underhired on the intern front this Spring and may need a few more FT hires, so this could be a good time to recruit. Besides, why pay for a Master's degree right now if you don't need to? Two years in IBD and $100K of savings in your pocket sure beats two years in grad school and $100K of debt.
What is this part time work going to pay and entail?
Honestly, if IBD is your goal then do the FT MSF program and go right into banking once you graduate. Banking experience is the bigger prerequisite for getting into PE and if you want to do banking first then you should be fine. LSE is a great program and you should be pretty happy with it assuming you don't have any international student hurdles to overcome.
Thanks for the advice. I have to say that I didn't expect that kind of advice. So you basically saying that the FT MIF where you learn exactly the same as in the ST MIF is worth more for IBD and PE than actual PE work experience. Why is that exactly? Just the brand name recognition or the network? And aren't the contacts I could gain while working part time in PE as valuable (or more valuable since they would be with people who know the quality of my work) as the FT schools network?
Of course you are right that applying right now for IB would make sense. But I have certain long term plans that require a Masters degree and I also want the experience for my personal development and additionally I am planing a long term career in investments which means that I am not the guy who works like crazy and makes a lot of money in 4-5 years and than switches to a rather slow pace. I see this whole thing more as a marathon than as a sprint.
Concerning the debt it won't be the problem since I would work and I could get also some kind of scholarship which reduces the burden significantly.
Regarding the MIF in the States. It is true that MIT/Princeton etc. are top notch, but I am not looking for something extremely quantitative, since my experience does not indicate that there is actual need for those skills (in the job (which is distressed investments) I want to pursue of course) - instead of solving complex calculations I am looking for an education which is very broad but also gives a very good number understanding/intuition. Another point is that I don't think it makes sense to pay up to 4x as much for an education in the US when four of the biggest financial hubs (London, Frankfurt, Paris, Zurich) are in Europe and the quality of the education is comparable (if this is not the case please correct me).
Stadt it's not the work experience- it's the actual landing a job that counts, and that is just as much about signal value as experience.
A PT job is not really a FT job. And I am not sure the PT employees will be doing what the FT employees are doing or that they are on a track to land FT jobs. Now, they could be on that track, they could also not be on that track. We don't know. So the PT job doesn't really signal your entre into this industry. The FT job does, and once you've held a full-time job in a certain area for 18 straight months, it's easier to get similar jobs. This is simply how hiring managers work.
A hiring manager isn't going to be able to call up your current firm and get an honest answer on how you are doing on your part-time job. (1) it could get you fired (2) if it doesn't, everyone who doesn't hate your guts will go to bat for you. So the signal here is that if you've managed to hold a FT job there for 18 months without getting fired, hiring you is less likely to make them look like an idiot. You are more likely to NOT be a total bozo, but if you are, they're less likely to look clueless when they claim you had work experience and seemed to know what you were doing; this was an unlucky hiring decision, not a stupid hiring decision.
Yes, it's valuable experience.
Yes, it's money you could be earning.
Yes, it could turn into a FT job at that particular firm, if that is where you want to work FT for the next 2-3 years.
No, a PT job doesn't provide the same signal value (except within the firm you work for) that a top tier Master's degree does.
PE firms look for banking experience. Banking jobs look for brand name, school performance and internships. I'd take a top MSF and some internship experience over a PE part time job and a second tier program.
The PE part time job could be menial. They probably aren't going to staff you on important work because you aren't fully committed to them. So while you will likely gain some experience and have good résumé content I don't think it trumps the top MSF. Do LSE and find an internship in London and you will be set.
Fully agree with this.
Is money an issue at all? Is the first tier in the UK or continental Europe?
Money is an issue since I already have some student debt. What also matters is that I want to work in IBD which does not mean that I want to work for GS/MS/JPM etc. I just want to work in this field to learn how this business works and to learn how to make deals. Afterwards I want to work at a PE company but here again not Blackstone or KKR but just a PE company with a little bit of perspective and a good team were I can contribute strongly.
So it comes down to this: I am not in this for the money (in terms of excessive money) but more the pleasure of doing business, investing and creating great companies. PE seems to be a great way to do this. And I am not willing to go into any job where I have to work 80-100 hour weeks. As I said before I actually like business and investing and not the money so for me it is a lifetime career and not a sprint. I am perfectly fine with having enough money to retire when I actually want to retire and not 25 years before that.
So normally I would have chosen the ST Master and the PE part time job, but I asked this question since it seems like that the field is so competitive right now that even BB Alumni applying for MM PE funds/IBDs right now.
Considering what you just wrote, go with the first tier program and don't look back. Network hard.
What kind of ST Master you're thinking about? UK or continental Europe?
edit// or let me rephrase - what kind of Master Programme is ST (but still target) given that HEC, LSE are first tier programms?
Quod voluptas non animi. Unde officiis qui quis animi soluta accusamus itaque. Et dolorum quam temporibus velit ipsam ea eos vero. Optio doloremque quia est est. Pariatur cum officia voluptates. Magni commodi tempore et tempora unde.
Quia totam aperiam eius delectus. Praesentium ab quia corrupti delectus. Reprehenderit a quia error expedita voluptas. Quisquam doloribus quidem quam aut ut aperiam quia. Mollitia et et possimus deserunt.
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...