How hard is it for analysts to move around among the BBs? Ex: Lehman to GS, Citi to MS, JPM to GS, etc. Will the move hurt his or her chances of getting into a PE after 2 years? and do they have to start over as first years again? thanks
| +169 | The "Not So Obvious" things that get you a return offer? | 20 | 6h | |
| +101 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 25 | 5h | |
| +65 | Best IB group on the Street | 28 | 2s | |
| +56 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 8h | |
| +49 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 7h | |
| +47 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 23 | 29m | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +34 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 6h | |
| +25 | Got RBC offer but I have cold feet accepting. | 33 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Think about it this way, there is no added value moving between any of the BBs. You work the same hours in a substantially similar environment for the exact same pay. When people do lateral in from MMs or boutiques, they generally start at the same pay level as they left. So, someone who just finished their first year at Lazard (or some such) and transferred to MS would still be a second year. They would however get they same treatment for a little while as a first year, especially if they had moved industries or products, until they got up to speed on whatever it was they were doing.
As to your chances, in situations like this, its generally assumed that if you left one place after a year, you better stick around at the next for two if you want reasonable treatment in the future. The reason being, if you left one 2 year program to what is ostensibly a new two year program (they wouldn't hire you after a year if they didn't think you were at least staying for two), then why would you finish your two years in PE pre-MBA.
The long and short of it is, you only transfer far up, or out. So, boutique or MM to a BB is all good, BB to BB is silly. Yes, it can be possible, but don't do it.
so yeah..wonder the same thing. how hard is it? say, DB or BoA to MS. More for industry/product change.
I agree with PowerMonkey -- transferring between BBs will be shooting yourself in the foot. The pay scale will be more or less identical, you'll create bad blood at your previous bank, and you'll actually be discounted when it comes to hiring in the future. While I disagree that the new bank would expect you to stay two years (they can utilize the experience you gained in your frist year), this still doesn't make it a good idea.
Should also be aware that many higher-ups know each other from different banks (especially BBs).
Burning one bridge could actually burn many.
Consider if the gains are worth the risks.
Since the experience at any of the BBs will be same, why are GS and MS alums place much better than the rest? Will a mediocre analyst at MS or GS place better than a top analysts from JPM or Citi?
I laugh when I hear of people trying to jump from CS or JPM to GS/MS. Come on guys it really doesn't matter that much... yes, ok, Silver Lake and KKR and Carlyle may recruit a bit more heavily from GS/MS but honestly does it matter? All big-name PEs are essentially the same (ok I know some will disagree but this is true generally, you work a ridiculous amount at any of these top names).
It might be worth it to transfer from a MM/boutique to a BB, but even then carefully consider it because it doesn't add much if you're going to B-school eventually anyway. And to be honest you can still get into some of the good firms if you have the right connections.
Bottom line: BB to BB = pointless, don't do it.
It's difficult to transfer from BB to BB for another reason. People will begin to wonder what your motives are. It's one thing for a 2nd year from DB or BofA to transfer into GS because they're sure they want to pursue banking long-term, and GS is where they want to become an associate (pay discrepencies get larger, etc.). But for a first year to transfer not only are they ruining their chances of recruiting for the buyside that year, virtually guaranteeing that they have to do three years as an analyst, but people will question the commitment they have to banking - either you're jumping for the name, you're jumping because you're not a good analyst and got a low bonus, or you're jumping because you don't fit well with the group or you pissed someone off. None of these three make you very desirable.
GameTheory, that's interesting. So if I understand you correctly, if your main concern is exit opps, and you're at DB/BofA/BS, it isn't worth moving to GS/MS? What if the group at GS/MS was hands down the best at what they do--couldn't you argue that you like your group and the industry but are interested in getting a better experience at GS/MS as they are the BEST at your industry, or will everyone see that as BS? Of course I assume that means you'll still have to do 3 years for your exit opps even if someone did want to hire you, though.
Look, more kids from GS and MS land at top tier buyside shops because it's only natural for the best banks to recruit great talent, and have top tier shops as clients. But that doesn't mean people from BS, BofA, or DB don't land at great places. Very few shops are stubborn (or stupid) enough to recruit from ONLY GS and MS. A few points:
1) The name of your bank can lend credibility to your experience, but it ends there. Once your foot is in the door to buyside interviews, it is PURELY the individual (not the school you went to, not the bank you worked at or the prestige of the group you worked in).
2) Every big bank has analysts that interview at all the top shops. Yes, you can argue that GS and MS do bigger deals on a more consistent basis, but the fact is, if you're at a big bank and you're a top analyst within your group, you'll get deal experience. I've also seen people get jobs without any announced transactions on their resume. Look at some of the websites out there...for example, MDP has a guy from William Blair, Bear Stearns as well as all the other banks. Yes, maybe BS or Blair is less represented on the whole, but my point is a shop like MDP won't ding you outright based on the name of the bank you worked for. 3) You'll most definitely have to do three years instead of two. If you leave after year 1, you'll miss recruiting season for the next year, and you'll have to work an additional year to be able to get the reccs for the next season.
On a side note, I cringe when I hear "my main concern is exit opps." It's probably true that a lot of people go into banking just for what they can do afterwards. I'm a big believer of what banking has to offer to someone fresh out of undergrad, it's an amazing first job to have and I feel like alot of people disregard the experience in their haste to enter the buyside (by the way, the buyside is not that much different or better if you hate what you do in banking). My advice is to concentrate on making your banking experience the best it can be, which will directly affect whatever you decide to do afterwards.
Hic veniam sunt delectus eum illo quam esse. Consequatur culpa dolor magni et dignissimos ipsam animi. Eum odit similique doloribus ad qui dolores dolor possimus. Corrupti ut quia quaerat facilis aut.
Provident velit et itaque in sed incidunt quis. Quia est laudantium itaque neque fuga. Aliquid ducimus qui reprehenderit dolorem et.
Est vel pariatur rerum rerum assumenda incidunt neque fuga. Fugit sit nisi minima qui atque. Modi ratione ipsam voluptas laudantium 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...