What would you do in my situation?
I currently am in between two offers:
Asset Management Analyst at a top 25 fund Financial Analyst at CBRE’s Financial consulting group
My ultimate goal is to work in acquisitions at a top fund (Starwood, Brookfield, Blackstone) or apply to Eastdil’s analyst program next year. Both the Asset Management role and the Financial Consulting Group (FCG) Analyst role would serve as stepping stones toward this goal.
Comparing the Two Roles
Asset Management Role
- Offers exposure to all asset types across the risk spectrum.
- Provides hands-on experience managing assets, but may not directly align with acquisitions.
- Potential concern: Moving laterally into acquisitions might be difficult since the firm has a dedicated acquisitions analyst program. It may not make sense for them to transition me after investing time in asset management training.
FCG Analyst Role (CBRE)
- Pays $10K–$15K more and is located in a cheaper city, making it more financially attractive.
- Involves financial analysis for all investment sales, giving me exposure to a variety of asset types.
- Strong modeling experience(excel and Argus all day), which is highly relevant for acquisitions and real estate investment banking.
Main Dilemma
If my end goal is acquisitions or real estate investment banking, it seems more logical to start in a role that provides directly applicable experience—which the FCG role at CBRE seems to offer. I’m uncertain whether asset management would provide a viable path to acquisitions, given the firm’s structured training programs.
Would love to hear thoughts on whether asset management could still be a viable entry point or if FCG is the more strategic choice.
Based on the most helpful WSO content, here's how you should approach this decision:
Asset Management Analyst Role:
CBRE Financial Consulting Group (FCG) Analyst Role:
Key Considerations:
End Goal Alignment:
If your ultimate goal is acquisitions at a top fund (e.g., Starwood, Brookfield, Blackstone) or Eastdil’s analyst program, the FCG role seems more aligned. The modeling and deal exposure are directly applicable to acquisitions, making it a more strategic choice.
Networking Opportunities:
Asset management roles can sometimes lead to acquisitions, but it often requires proactive networking and internal advocacy. If the firm has a rigid structure, this transition could be more difficult.
Brand and Skillset:
While the top 25 fund offers prestige, the FCG role provides a skillset (financial modeling and deal analysis) that acquisitions teams value more.
Recommendation:
The CBRE FCG Analyst Role appears to be the better choice for your goals. It offers directly relevant experience, better financial incentives, and a skillset that aligns with acquisitions and real estate investment banking. However, if you choose this path, ensure you leverage the CBRE brand and network aggressively to position yourself for top-tier acquisitions roles or Eastdil’s program.
If you’re still drawn to the asset management role, consider how you might overcome the lateral move challenge (e.g., building relationships with the acquisitions team early on).
Sources: Career advice needed: Acquisitions vs Asset Management, Q&A: Real Estate Acquisitions Analyst. Uni -> BO -> Mtg Financing -> Acquisitions, REPE Megafund Asset Management Comp, Life in Acquisitions (Analyst/Associate), Life in Acquisitions (Analyst/Associate)
If top fund is your goal, none of these paths help that. Better off targeting Eastdil. Look at the background of the people who work at those funds. That’s the blueprint
Which option would help me get to Eastdil?
Prioritizing for $10,000/yr in the early stages of your career seems penny-wise, pound-foolish. On a similar note, modeling experience is useless after the age of 30. Don't structure your career around gaining a skill which doesn't have a high value, which you will need less and less as your career progresses, and which may be obsolete in the next five years anyway thanks to generative AI.
Personally I'd advise you to take the asset management role, since the experience and knowledge you'll get there is vastly more important and more useful than churning through 300 u/w models a year. Also, I know this is something more junior WSO people are constitutionally incapable of understanding, but acquisitions is heavily reliant on AM. Acquisitions, as a standalone role, is not very important and not very difficult. Real estate acquisition deals are made or broken after the ink is dry on the paperwork, not in the Excel model. The operations is the important part. Having a deep understanding of how assets operate, and therefore how they should be underwritten, is vastly, vastly more important than being able to bang out an Excel model in an hour.
In anything, it's important to think longer term. The people in your organization/industry who make the most money, who are the most successful - what do they do? What is their day to day? What is their value add or skill set? Those are the things to focus on building yourself as you grow into your career. Jonathan Gray or Jeff Blau aren't sitting at their computer for 8 hours a day working in Excel. Even if/when they're evaluating an opportunity, their math is back of the envelope and their thoughts are focused on the bigger picture. You can't solely do that as an analyst, you gotta do the work, but you should always be attempting to also look at your investment committee memo through the eyes of the people who will eventually be reading and reacting to it.
I do both in my role…. and just simply couldn’t disagree more. It is a lot easier to be handed an asset and operate it properly versus sourcing and executing a deal at a fair basis.
We buy nasty stuff that requires a lot of operational expertise/control/navigation to execute our business plan. Does not make it any easier to find and execute deals at prices that work.
I suppose it depends on the asset you're being handed. A fully leased Class A office building is probably no sweat. A crappy MF building with a lot of deferred maintenance, a lot of arrears, and a tough tenant base is a very different story.
All of the kids I knew that did FCG role at CBRE were bored to tears by the end of their stint but all moved into Analyst/Sr Analyst roles at the companies you mentioned, so I would say go that route. I know several people personally who have done it in the last year. Get in, do your 2ish years and get out
How long ago was this?
Tempora laudantium officiis inventore et quia a deserunt. Vel commodi odio illo enim ipsa unde. Aperiam itaque praesentium expedita fuga commodi nostrum.
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...