Very different groups, I know.

Which of these two groups (GS TMT or GS HC) would be best for a SA:

  1. with short term goals of learning as much as possible, hopefully adding value, and earning a FT offer at the end of the summer


  1. long term goals of either climbing the ranks in the bank (if I am fortunate enough to earn the FT offer obviously) OR going on to a HF after my 2-3yr analyst stint. I have no interest in PE at this point, can that change, sure... but I enjoyed my sophomore sumer with a HF (working with a research analyst originally from a BB IB) and would like to head in that direction if possible. Have a couple friends at top PE shops, and the work does not appeal to me (at this point).

Thanks Gentlemen.

Comments (5)


If the work in PE doesn't appeal to you, the work in IB definitely will not appeal to you.

Anyways, I'd go with TMT. It's generally known better than HC and quite frankly, HC is the pits. Unless you want to be involved in the HC field for the rest of your career, it is really tough to drink the kool-aid. You'll always be way behind the knowledge curve when compared to your co-workers. As such, adding value becomes that much more difficult.


Investment Banking Interview Course


"You'll always be way behind the knowledge curve when compared to your co-workers."

compbanker, can you expand on this comment a bit?

Best Response

Absolutely. Healthcare takes a significant amount of specialized knowledge in order to be successful. This is even more true when it comes to sectors such as pharmaceutical companies. I remember one of my HC VPs telling me how the only people qualified to sell pharma companies were Ph.D.s practicing IB because they were the only ones who could distinguish between the products and know which pharmaceutical companies would be the right buyers. In this particular sector the analyst would never be able to produce quality work independently without heavy input from his seniors.

The same holds true for many other sectors within healthcare, albeit to a lesser degree. I remember trying to get up to speed on a dialysis company. I spent a significant amount of time learning who all the players were, how it worked, how frequently patients visited the center, etc. etc. The senior guys already knew all of this stuff when the deal kicked off, so until I got educated, most conversations were way above my head. The deal died relatively quickly, and I never dealt with another dialysis company again. There are so many little niche sectors within healthcare that unless you stay with it for the long term, every new deal you're staffed on is likely to be a complete mystery to you.

On top of all of this, you have an industry that is very, very rapidly changing. Every single deal I worked on I needed to research how the company would be impacted by potential changes in healthcare legislation. Writing industry sections within offering memorandums was ALWAYS painful. Also, every deal you had to analyze the payer mix, which could have an impact on valuation. Too much exposure to Medicaid could be a red flag. A heavy portion of patients paying out of their own pockets was generally a good thing (lower reserves for bad debt), but oh wait -- here comes the recession and now high out of pocket expenses means lower patient volumes. It was things like these that created a 2-year rollercoaster for me... and that's definitely a ride I wouldn't want to take again.



great input compbanker, thanks.

Add a Comment