Barclays VP vs JP Morgan Associate
Hi, I've got two offers for roles in London. One is from JPM for an associate paying ~ £105k base. The other is from Barclays for a VP paying £150k base. The JPM role is more fixed-income finance while the Barclays role is more quant analysis. I come from a derivatives quant research background. I'm trying not to focus on the £45k difference and more on what the long term payout will be, job satisfaction etc.
The attraction to the JPM role is that it is very different to what I've done in the past - hence the associate position (I would normally interview for VP and director positions). I'm willing to forego £45k to learn something new. What worries me is that £105 is quite low and I feel like I am moving from a lucrative area (quantitative research) into a less lucrative area (valuation).
Any outlook/opinion would be very appreciated. At the moment I am 50/50
Although I work at Barc I’m not bias, but I feel like 150k vs 105k is just a no brained either way. Unless you want to go through 1-2 years of comp progression. Plus assuming the VP role has higher bonus aswell
JPM:
- learn something new that combined with past knowledge = overall better banker (long-term at least).
- US bank, could advance and have more exposure to US teams and maybe lateral (salary increase); alternatively, in the following decade, maybe the UK office will lose relevance and they'll invite you to the US or Paris/Frankfurt and increase your salary to accommodate the change.
- more prestigious than Barclays; Barclays can offer you a higher role because their HQ is UK: More money, more employees, more roles locally, etc. than JPM (idea: VP in an office of 1000 employees vs. Associate in an office of 200).
if you're sticking enough in banking I think that the above is more relevant than solely monetary gains because let's be frank, in 15-20 years the FV of wht you leave on the table in the VP role wouldn't impact your day-to-day (15M vs. 10-12M, hypothetical example); but from another POV, because you'll beecome a better banker due to the exposure in a new role, you could advance faster and into better roles long-term.
and from my perspective, in this industry, you don't reach the top by staying 20 years with the same company in the same role; you reach the top by having a varied background because you become lazy when all your life you do something and you're so good at it that you're into an autopilot mode (no thinking --> intellectual laziness --> retarded --> not respected).
Thanks - very thought out comment. Do you not think that this can/does lead to becoming a "jack of all trades" rather than a rockstar/expert in a particular field? Being an expert in a field is what brings in the big bucks and high position/respect. I've personally tried to spend ~ 3-5 years in several different fields. I find after about 5 years, I've learnt 90% about the field.
could be, but your concern was that you're moving away from a lucrative area, so I just pointed out that learning > monetary gains
also, I think that people at JPM and generally the bank's quality is higher than at Barclays so that also impacts one's work style long-term.
Regardless, maybe in some years VP at JPM -> Senior VP at Barclays if you would want to change from bank, meanwhile it's harder to go from Barclays to JPM
I really think that this industry is more brand-oriented than really expertise. Maybe you can be an expert at Barclays but due to lack of exposure to more interesting transactions/people you could remain under the radar and never be seen/heard of. So JPM wins on the prestige side, which may allow you to easily transfer to other banks at higher levels or generally to have a stronger network. I'm sure ppl at Barclays look up at JPM meanwhile JPM doesn't really cares.
last but not least, if you're in some type of quant role, your skillset could be valuabe in HFs but in London HF predominantly pick among GS/JPM/MS ppl, so that is also a plus. Maybe you don't want to go into HFs but thr fact that the possibility is there if you may need it is also a good thing.
Can you expand on what the fixed income role is? “Fixed income finance” is quite vague. Are you in Fixed Income trading? That would be quite a big determiner in my thinking
Don’t turn down the higher title in a higher perceived value role (quant)
What do you mean by fixed income finance role? As above guy mentions, that could play a quite a big determiner. Is that FICC quant? Macro trader?
Excepturi ut quia error optio ut. Nostrum quos facere cumque molestiae id. Laudantium ad nemo magnam qui pariatur cumque veniam. Est itaque qui assumenda. Sit porro explicabo saepe blanditiis commodi odit.
Non tempore quidem consequatur voluptatem est. Laboriosam repellat cum sint. Ipsum voluptas blanditiis pariatur rerum laborum.
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...