Q&A: Big 4 Consulting to Lower MM IB to MM IB (No MBA).

@BubbaBanker" - "easily" is a Big stretch. It is possible, but unlikely. I know of a few people who was able to do it, and I know of A LOT of people who tried.

First off, most groups operate as silos, so they don't share the same HR/recruiting team, so its almost as if you're applying to a completely other company. Only difference is they'll be able to access your records/reviews on the internal system.

In addition, unless you're a top performer who has a partner or two pushing for you, then you have to networking deep and hard with the targeted group. Because its separate division, you'll need support at the Partner level to push advocate and push your candidacy through. As you can imagine, getting to that level requires a lot of time and networking to develop those relationships.

But there are always exceptions, but most of the successes ive seen involved the above.

Som Tawyer - direct lateral as an Associate on both ends. Didn't gain or lose a year,

5000 Meters - it was actually not tough to get interviews at larger MM shops. The tough part was getting them to take me as a direct lateral because I was promoted early (didn't finish a full 2 years as an Analyst) and also my firm was much smaller.

I'm an Associate now and will be a direct lateral to my new company. In terms of the shop, they are in the same league as those listed. The interview process for the lateral hire was very easy in my opinion. Yes, there are technicals- there are also questions where they give you a scenario related to a deal and ask how you would approach/solve it. But none of those questions were hard considering it was the same stuff I'd been doing at my old shop. Yes, the new Company works on larger, more big name clients, but the job/function itself is pretty identical regardless of the size of the deal. Yes there will be nuances,, but I'd say 80%, if not more, of the process, milestones, deliverable are all the same.

Also, this wasn't asked but I did want to point it out: working at the smaller shop made me a better banker. The smaller shop offered smaller deal teams (typically 3 or 4). This allowed junior level staff to step-up and take on a bigger role (owning most of the CIM/MP, negotiating NDAs, leading buyer calls, etc.). All of those were very well received during my interviews as I don't believe most analysts get that level of responsibilities at other shops.

kellyt7 - "common" is an overstatement. Definitely doable but not easy. I dont know if its easier to apply to another firm or not, that depends on each person. Specifically, (1) are they a top performer? (2) do they have a good/strong network at the firm? The answer to those two questions has a strong influence on the "ease" of transferring. Again having people at the partner-level advocate for you goes a long way as its really the Partners who decide if people switch or not (they need to sign-off). HR may run the process but the Partners need to approve/sign-off.

Thus, if you're a top performer or have a strong network, you'll be better positioned to switch. If not, you'll need to network a lot to find people who like you/are willing to push for you. In which case, it may sometimes be easy to just apply to elsewhere.

alpha_q - thanks!

1. It was very unstructured. Unless you're applying as a new UG or MBA, then most of the application/interview process is very unstructured. As mentioned in a previous response, groups/firms typically put on an interview process whenever someone leaves and they need to replace or if they need a growth hire. So it only occurs "as needed." For most of the positions that I got interviews for, they were either through my network/referral, or through a headhunter who reached out to me. I've had 0 success just randomly applying for a position online without knowing someone on the other side advocating for me.

2. The one aspect that surprised me about M&A IB, is how little modeling there is. In my job, I'd say maybe 20-30% of it was "modeling" the balance was in writing, researching, project management, and creating other main deliverables (e.g. CIM, MP, etc.). Regardless, the smaller MM shop didn't have aformal training program (e.g. no TST, no 2-3 week modeling prgoram, etc.). After 2-3 days of doing firm/HR trainings and meeting people, I started working on pitches/deals immediately. The hardest part was understanding the jargon and the deliverable and how to do them properly). As with any job, learning how the Company does it, is usually the hardest part.

Doing consulting first was KEY to my success. Although the technicals aspects of consulting was not transferable, all the soft skills/project management skills were. I felt like I was way ahead of other analysts in terms of my soft skills and ability to build a rapport with the client since I was use to collaborating with clients in consulting. In addition, whenever my deals entered due diligence, I could project manage the shit out of it, since that what my responsibilities were during my IT consulting projects. Having all those skills developed allow me to just focus on developing my technical skill set, which made it much easier for me. To this day, I think IB is one of the best jobs out of UG because it requires you to be good at some many things, quickly. Personally, I don't know if I could have developed my soft skills, project mgmt. skills AND the technical abilities all at once, so am glad I did consulting first.

3. I'll answer this in two portions: the first from the perspective of the Company/interviewee and the second from my personal perspective. As the Company/interviewee, if you're an experienced hire (or anything Associate or above), you're answer should be no, unless they tell you straight up that they want you to get an MBA. The reason being, typically at the Associate level or after, you're in IB for the long-haul. Also, it costs a lot for the firm to develop Associates and above, so they don't want to invest the time and money into someone just o have them leave in a year or two. This could also be true for Analysts roles for smaller shops (like my lower MM), where they can't afford to bring in 10+ kids a year and have a formal TST program. Most smaller shops try and offer better work/life to ensure they dont have as much turnover at the analysts level because they don't want/cant afford the drastic turnover. If you have a smaller shop, then you need everyone there to be able to do the job fast and well. You can't do that if you have people leaving often.

From my personnel perspective, I dont know if I will get an MBA anymore. It was always my plan to get it 4-5 years after UG, but as I progress in my career (and my salary increases) the opportunity cost to get an MBA gets way too high and I don't see the value-add of it anymore (at least from a monetary perspective). As an Associate in my job, I'm making just as much as an MBA hire would, difference is I'm not $150k+ in debt. However, with that said, I still value the MBA. I view it as a "redo" card. If i go down a professional path I don't like, and don't want to start from the bottom, I can use my MBA to switch into something new at a post-MBA level. For me, I don't know what I'm passionate about yet, and so I waiting to play the MBA card until I find out what that is. When I do, if I cannot seem to make the jump from where I'm at, then I'll reconsider getting my MBA to help break the barrier.

allinamd - thats a tough question to answer with a general blanket statement but I'll try... I've seen a few different "structures." Generally BB and EB are the trend setters, meaning they are the ones that increase the salaries (not always but often). Then you have the larger MM that will follow them (the timing of which varies by the bank).

When you deal with smaller MM/boutiques, the compensation gap widens because they are much slower to (or can't) adopt to the new comp structure. Part of it is because they cannot afford to do so. BB/EB and even larger MMs get a lot of deal flow and/or have very large success fees (few million dollars or so). Thus, they have a large pie, which allows them to give people large slices of it. Smaller MM/boutiques however typically have much smaller success fees, so the economics arent there for them. They have a smaller pie and cannot afford to give such a large slice.

The point of that context is to show why you can't find consistent salary data for lower MM/boutiques. Some still use the old IB model (low base but high bonus) - back in the day where the base was $55k-$65k and bonus would be ~100%. Others are still in the previous comp range of 70-75-80 for analysts (the bonus range of which depends on the performance ce of the group). A lot of the lower MM/boutiques I've heard are in the 30-60%. Then you have others that have matched market with comp at 85-90-95 for base (won't comment at bonus as I've seen some major fluctuations based on group/firm).

I'm sure there could be a lot of hole in what I've stated as its only based on my experience at my bank and from conversations with connections at other banks.

Its been a few years (hopefully I remember all), but I recall I did a lot of research on this website/glassdoor to get an idea of the types of questions to expect at a given round. And also used websites like IBankingFAQs to get examples of actual technical questions.

But practicing those can only get you so far. For me, the best was actually simulating a case by doing a random DCF, or a comps/transactions approach so that I could actually apply what I was trying to memorize.

Its one thing to understand how a DCF work, but often times an interviewer may throw you a specific scenario and want to see how that affects valuation, and you can't just memorize those answers, it takes some applied knowledge.

This question can easy be a debate it itself, and I'm sure there are hundreds of topics that cover this. My personal 2 cents would be that it depends on what group you're in at the BB IBD and what M&A deals you've been on.

If PE is your end goal, I would imagine that BB IBD would position you better, UNLESS you're just in a coverage group and/or haven't head any deal exposure whatsoever.

With that said, I would say the work at the BB IBD may be the most transferable in terms of PE, but what MBB offers is a very strong/well-connected network. I can't speak for McKinsey, but know that the the "BB" in MBB will often help its candidates prepare for interviews at other companies. The reason being is that they know that % of people staying in consulting for their entire career is small, so they want to help people move to their new roles. Doing so will allow you to have another connection in that firm for future business opportunities. I don't think that mindset exists at any BB (or at least I havent heard of any).