A post in the "what makes banking so hard" thread got me thinking about what makes for a good Analyst/Associate relationship. Sounds gay, but anyone actually in banking knows that a good analyst will make an associate's life a lot easier and vice versa. Some of you who have been at it longer than I, what do you think makes a good analyst/associate?
In my (albeit limited) experience, the best analysts a good communicators and aren't scared to admit/ask for help when they aren't sure of something. I had one analyst send me a model that I could instantly tell didn't look right. It took me forever to audit the damn thing and it turned out that he didn't know (and knew that he wasn't sure) about the accounting treatment of an input. Would have been an easy fix had he just asked and admitted that he wasn't certain.
I agree with what you said, but it is up to the associate to be approachable. Some treat any question as a sign of incompetence. An analyst won't approach an associate if he thinks every word he says is reducing his bonus, or is likely to be passed up the ladder to a VP/MD.
I think a lot of the same could be said about associates. Your associate should be willing to admit he doesn't know something, rather than have you to build the model according to what he hopes is right. It ends up wasting a ton of time, especially if the analyst has experience with similar transactions.
Ultimately, the relationship should be closer to writer-editor than employee-boss. Both are entry level employees responsible for supporting the revenue generators.
"but it is up to the associate to be approachable"
what are some things (specific) that associates can do to be "approachable?"
For instance, you never want to hear from an an MD/VP "X associate mentioned you were a bit uncertain about Y." Hearing that is the sound of the associate buying insurance for himself with your bonus.
Likewise, there is often a disconnect between (usually freshly minted) associates and experienced analysts. The new associates are all optimistic about their new jobs, and want everything to be perfect so they can climb the IB ladder. The analyst wants to do the job and go to sleep. This usually resolves after a few months when the associate realizes that there is no "perfect" in banking, and turning that pitch book in really early just might mean an extra few revisions.
they can not be dicks and give the analyst shit when they ask questions..if an associate is known to be a hardass, an analyst will spend the extra time doing it themselves instead of getting ridiculed for asking questions and getting it right the 1st time
the worst is when you have an associate who never went through an analyst program, and yet thinks he/she is hot shit. knows a lot of academic hogwash from grad school but couldn't identify a comparable company if his life depended on it...you end up picking a lot of slack and still end up getting tormented from the same person. terrible.
My favourite analysts tend to be pretty creative, technically tight (with the concepts at least, Excel and PPT trickery can be learnt on the job), but most importantly, the kind of kid that doesn't need to be told to take initiative and finish things ahead of time wherever possible while taking responsibility for the product. The key role remains the same as any level in banking; make the life of the guy directly above you easier.
As an associate you have to encourage analysts to ask questions, you have to be able to answer them or follow up if you can't, you have to set reasonable deadlines and be prepared to pitch in if you're forced into unreasonable ones. Analysts will make mistakes, anyone will under time pressure. And as a banker, I have no respect for an associate who blames his analyst for something in the presence of VPs/Directors; if an analyst screwed something up and it got to that level without being checked, that's the associate's bad.
I work closely with 3-4 associates. I'll admit, I can't stand working with one of them. He has a habit of "off-loading" work, and goes out of his way as much as he can to not touch excel or powerpoint, which leaves me trying to decipher his bad handwriting late at night when instead, he could have drafted/turned his own comments in 1/5 of the time. By the way...he consistently leaves an average of 3-4 hours before I do. I also hate asking this particular associate questions because he replies with a condescending tone about 70% of the time, and gives me the "you're an idiot" look. He does this even infront of MDs which makes me look terrible. All in, the guy is super unfair about work-split and attitude towards juniors.
Now, here is where it gets fun. I am actually considered a "top" analyst by the other associates and I get along with all of them very well. I work hard, get my work done and only ask questions when I need to. It took about 6 months for the bad associate to realize that everyone else is very happy with my work -- he also now knows that I much prefer working with the other guys (I have hinted at it subtly). Given this, my work quality for him is about 50% of what I output for everyone else, and on top of that, just like how he made me "look like a fool" infront of certain MDs, I have now turned around and done the same to him, hahaha. I feel like he now regrets his previous actions because even though he may complain about my work quality / attitude towards him, he knows the more senior bankers won't pay much attention given my feedback from everyone else.
To summarize, I learned a very valuable lesson from all of this: If you ever make associate or higher in finance (IB, PE, whatever), do not follow the example of this shit associate. It will only come back to bite you in the ass.
"the worst is when you have an associate who never went through an analyst program, and yet thinks he/she is hot shit. knows a lot of academic hogwash from grad school but couldn't identify a comparable company if his life depended on it...you end up picking a lot of slack and still end up getting tormented from the same person. terrible."
acknowledging that fact that MANY associates were not analysts but that not all of these associates are "terrible," what makes them not terrible? I am sure you have worked with a non-analyst associate that was good. Is it just the attitude difference?
Saepe dolorem hic aliquid omnis perferendis id doloribus. Cum aliquid eveniet quia quia non. Qui iste accusantium natus est. Est est facere et recusandae quas. Eum sapiente sed modi doloremque.
Tempore vel repellendus quasi aut eius eos asperiores laborum. Quae ut voluptas unde recusandae.
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...