Best major for f500 finance route
Hey guys,
I am trying to decide between a double major in economics and either finance or accounting(Have to choose one of them). I eventually want to end up in corporate finance at a f500 company.
Appreciate any responses.
Accounting
For any F500 finance position accounting is the best undergrad degree by far.
Is accounting also better for fmp/fldp programs?
Whichever you prefer, that said accounting has a small edge.
Yes, accounting is favored. You can get in w/finance if you demonstrate a strong accounting proficiency.
Frankly accounting is better for everything, at least from what I've heard. Virtually everyone I've talked to (IB, PE, ER, corpfin, corpdev) says that you learn more applicable information in accounting than in finance. Accounting is the language of business, if you know it, you're set.
If possible, drop Econ and do Finance + Accounting.
Given that most peoples' complaint about corporate finance (talking non-IB corp fin btw) work is that its glorified accounting, accounting is definitely more useful IMO. I wouldn't necessarily say actg > fin for IB/PE, but accounting will definitely serve you well you well in those areas too. Understanding statements, accounts, etc. is very helpful for building accurate and useful financial models, which is a big part of an IB analysts job (same with corp dev). If you're set on industry, I definitely recommend accounting op, unless you go to Wharton or something like that.
The issue for FLDP positions is that you generally will spend at least one rotation in an accounting type of role, whether that be reporting, controlling, etc. So a candidate that knows accounting is more valuable b/c most undergrad finance students have much to learn on that side anyway.
MBA recruiting is a little different.
Thanks guys. Last question, would an econ/accounting degree be ''inferior'' to a finance/accounting degree when applying to fldp/fmp jobs?
What are the salaries for corporate finance?
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/f500-salaries . Salaries there are solid, don't entirely agree with the timing progression on the last post, but yea.
*the same one as the guy/girl interviewing you
^Don't take my word as gospel and please correct me if I'm wrong, but from people I've spoken with, you are very right that in general things are fairly meritocratic towards the bottom. What I have heard is that politics start to become more important toward the higher end of the food chain. At that point, there are lots of high performers and the difference between candidates empirically may not be as dramatic. Therefore, the VP or whoever will choose his or her successor based on less quanitfiable measures such as soft-skills, who is more personable, etc. which is where people get disappointed. Hard skills also become less important as you move up, so that's really where politics occur.
There are some exceptions (i.e. networking and shaking hands will help people break into the firm), but for those already in and looking to climb the ladder, this is the general consensus about politics and how they work. Does that sound about right in your experience as well?
In my experience, yes, but I haven't worked in a F1000 before. Most of my experience is with small/mid-sized businesses. In those types of businesses "politics" plays a role at every level. They need people that are not only capable of doing the job, but when you're in an office of 30, it's important that everyone get along too. Moving up through the ranks is also very different. Turnover was virtually nonexistent at the companies I worked for/with. Here are a couple examples:
-Company of 30, 8 in office, 17 years old. 2 founders and 3 of the office guys had been there for 10+ years and held 4/5 top spots. The other 3 had been there for 5-10 years. One of the 5-10 year group left and I was able to snag his spot (was in a blue collar position at the time) because they liked me and I learned how to do everything. When the Ops Manager smokes like a chimney, being a smoker helps heh
-Company of 60, 18(?) in office, 8 years old. Founder and the 2/4 top guys had been there since the beginning. 1 of the other top guys had been there 5 years. The other had been there for 1.5 years (fresh out of MBA). Of the other 13, 10 had been there for 4+ years. Only one person left within the last 1.5 years, despite pay cuts and the company struggling.
I imagine these are very different atmospheres to what you see in a larger corporate setting. Almost everyone got along and, while meritocratic, "politics" played a large role.
Fair points, my comments were generally regarding the lower-level. It's definitely a combination of the two (merit and politics) at any point and I agree that professional relationships become more important towards the top.
I'm somewhat hesitant to start commenting on VP to CFO hiring and such, but at every managerial level, your comp is a function of how your business performs, so you benefit from hiring the people who will do the very best in their roles. So in this sense when I say politics I'm just talking about being visible as a good and reliable employee/manager, as opposed to nepotism.
Topic got a little bit off track heh - I agree that Accounting + Finance is your best bet for majors
I like the way this forum roles, I actually learn shit in "what major" topics. Try learning something in a "what major" topic in the IB forum
Yea thanks to all for the related and unrelated(learned something new though) inputs. I want to major in econ as well since I want to keep my options open, and most of you said accounting is the more useful concentration anyway. Btw, how are Fortune Global 500 companies seen in the US? Similar ''prestige'' as F500?
Double major in finance and accounting. I've yet to see a corporate finance job posting list economics as desired undergrad major.
Ah good call, I forgot he wrote specifically for finance. It seems like most of the positions that aren't finance/accounting-focused look for a biz/econ major in general.
Well you guys said accounting is more useful anyway + lots of people get into corp. fin. just with an accounting degree from what I have read, so the economics major won't really hurt me I think, will it?
I believe the consensus is, if you want to go into finance at an F500, make sure you have an accounting or finance degree. Having looked at a shitload of finance programs at F500s, most of them really want to see those. If you have a double major in econ, that can only help.
To address a few points.
I have never seen a manager title less than 5 years. Ever. That said, there was a recent grad who was "managing" 2 employees at 4 but they still wouldn't give him anything but an SFA title. And he was the cream of the crop in the sense that not only was he extremely high performing, he's also liked by EVERYONE. The CFO spoke at his wedding (this is a 20 billion dollar company). He is now making a ~120k in year 5 working as the right hand man for one of the business sector presidents but still with an SFA title.
Secondly, politics is more important than your work product. Period. Most of you are smart enough to do as well as everyone else. But what happens is that people form an early opinion on you based on how much they like you and what they believe your aptitude is before they have a good solid understanding of your work product. Then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because the "good" roles and "good" projects go to those that the people already like. So while they are very unlikely to do a better job than the next guy, they have the opportunity to show what they can do while the next guy can't. Corporate work is a mess. I've literally seen discussions on ranking the FLDP participants where they didn't even mention their work product in the actual roles.
This brings me to my point that is more pertinent to the thread title, a trained monkey could do what we do. Corporate finance is not hard. Everything you will need to know you will learn on the job. So it doesn't really matter what you major in from a work product perspective. That said, accounting does give you the most relevant knowledge to any given role. The accounting implications are far and wide. While finance classes tend to focus more on things that you would need working in financial services, not CF. And Econ has almost nothing to do with what you would do day to day, but can help you understand the macro business implications better than others. I was an Econ major and have no less finance knowledge than anyone else 2 years in. But I do think I have a better understanding of the global business climate just because i've always been an Econ nerd.
This brings me to my final point. Most people are extremely disillusioned when they get into these programs. Everyone tells you how awesome you are and how awesome the program is coming in. They tell you that you are the future leaders of the company and that you will change the world. But you have to realize that you are still going to do mundane data aggregation on a weekly basis as an FP&A analyst. You aren't changing the world. You are just another cog in the CF machine. Maybe someday you will, but it's hard for a lot of people.
Personally, I am desperately trying to get into a role somewhere that will allow me to take more ownership of my performance and be more intellectually stimulating. Sorry for the long post, just thought i'd post my two cents since I hadn't logged in for a few months.
+1, thanks for the $.02. Would you say it's potentially more beneficial to know the ins and outs of the software (Excel, Word, Powerpoint, etc) you'll be using than something like econ? And by that I mean knowing how to automate your working using VBA and stuff?
Great write up; it's nice to hear some other points of view.
Random comments: 1. Wow, sounds like they went out of their way to avoid calling him a manager, even though he is one ( hes being paid like one and is managing people).
Definitely see where you are coming from on that. I don't really agree that all entry-levels perform equally...but perhaps that viewpoint will change with time.
Agree
Agree
What is next for you / what are you shooting for?
2) I don't mean to say that all entry levels perform equally. But I mean to say that 90% of them perform within a very close range of each other and are basically interchangeable. There are some really bright stand outs and some that fall behind. But for the type of work we do, most of them (us) could do the work and do it well. Which is why for most it comes down to politics. Obviously if you are by far and away the best, you'll be noticed for that. But MOST people fall within a range of being practically interchangeable.
5) I'm somewhat resigned to not being able to make the switch till after B school. I have a semi-target undergrad on my resume with a decent gpa and a 710 gmat so I think i'll make a good B school app. But when trying to make the switch pre b school to something I want i've really just been unable to get most of those interviews.
Personally, I really want to be somewhere that I feel is a meritocracy and that I can have a large impact. For me I think my personality (i'm much more of a people person than an excel jockey) fits with trying to get into the business/strategy side of a startup. But that has been practically impossible for now. I'm guessing the better/easier option will be to try and get consulting under my belt and then make that switch. But i'm just trying to figure it all out at the moment.
progression quickly becomes very political - it is difficult, almost impossible to distinguish through your analysis and technical understanding. but then this probably applies to most areas of professional work.
but i made my bed by doing a degree that doesn't develop any rare or hard to acquire skills...
Being good with excel will definitely get you noticed and separate you from the pack. Everyone uses it so you can make a big impact and get on everyone's good side by automating some processes and teaching some of the tricks.
It can be more beneficial to you to know and understand those programs than what you learned from your major, but not necessarily better for your résumé in terms of getting in the door. It would be rare for the employer to say "We really want an accounting major for this job and this guy studied Econ, but hey, he's good with excel so let's hire him." Just something to keep in mind.
Thanks guys! This thread was more than helpful.
Do I have to learn how to play golf? I hate golf.
Ugh yea I know, it sucks. It blows my mind how many people play, especially in business.
I have already graduated from Undergrad but still want to go this finance route. Would you guys say a Masters in Accounting would be more helpful than a Masters in Finance for a career in corporate finance? Also if I pursue a Masters in Accounting would I need to go into auditing first before jumping into corporate finance? Thanks guys.
I'm not qualified, just throwing in my $.02:
1) You can do either, but the MAcc is a lot more established than the MFin/MSF, though if you get into a program like Princeton's MSF, you won't have a problem. This also depends on what you did for undergrad, if you got a finance major, I'd switch to an accounting masters. In addition to diversifying your education, some MSF/Mfin programs won't accept people with a business undergrad and are geared towards liberal arts majors. You'll have to do the legwork on this, check out www.MSFHQ.com for more info (TNA's site). Most of the work you'll be doing (from what I've heard mostly on these boards) will be using accounting skills.
2) You could go to auditing first and that has the potential to jump-start your career in corpfin if you make it 2-3 years. That said, getting into an FLDP or similar program can also potentially jump-start your career. Some of the programs even aim to make their best FLDP graduates into Senior Financial Analysts after 2 years (though this is rare from what I've seen and you will have to be a top performer). Either way, you can't really go wrong.
Another thing to keep in mind: if you have more than 12 months of career track work experience (ie- working as a financial analyst or at Big 4), most of the FLDP programs won't take you.
Thanks for the advice!
Just to give you a bit more background: I majored in Management Science (basically a mix of Econ and business) at UC San Diego. I don't have too much relevant finance experience other than a couple internships in wealth management at UBS and Morgan Stanley and am currently working in International Trade Compliance at an aerospace company. I've been leaning towards a Masters in Accounting, however the new MSF program at Santa Clara University intrigues me, because it seems to be geared towards Corporate Finance. In terms of coursework, I've barely taken any accounting or finance courses in Undergrad.
So right now I'm having a hard time choosing between MSA or the MSF at Santa Clara, since it seems like corporate finance is often more accounting based. I'm also not interested in auditing and would ideally like to find a financial analyst job after graduating from school. So after giving more background, do you still think the Masters in Accounting degree would still be more helpful? Thanks again!
Nemo quidem voluptas quisquam cupiditate molestiae et id. Aut est veniam enim excepturi iusto mollitia minus. Dolorum accusamus a aut debitis accusantium veniam aut. Vel quidem quia doloremque quia nihil veritatis eos. Aut voluptates sequi eum vero et ut non. Accusantium voluptas quia vitae voluptatem.
Aut est explicabo eos temporibus omnis. Accusantium ratione dignissimos pariatur.
Perferendis inventore est earum ipsam mollitia quos. Nemo numquam similique dolore porro blanditiis debitis. Veritatis quasi ipsum dicta quae. Expedita tempora quia rerum voluptas voluptatem.
Soluta omnis in voluptatem aut modi qui ut enim. Quia labore ut at enim ea quia. Voluptas consectetur blanditiis necessitatibus praesentium velit sunt dolorum.
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...
Pariatur est ipsam voluptas velit laboriosam et laboriosam. Et sequi sequi aut sed accusantium consectetur. Blanditiis porro ea voluptatum sed amet recusandae iste. Autem officia voluptatibus minus ut modi. Consequatur illo excepturi soluta quos aliquid.
Non veniam porro aspernatur similique. Voluptatem qui occaecati sunt fuga enim tempore. Molestiae reprehenderit rerum repellat quibusdam. Magni vel nemo rem odio nihil.
Provident voluptas magni explicabo voluptas. Dolorem consequatur dolorem vel quo ut sint. Numquam accusantium doloribus tempore ipsum. Corrupti omnis perferendis porro qui illum.
Tempore dolor necessitatibus voluptatem eius. Rerum similique quos reiciendis id exercitationem. Recusandae architecto unde omnis laudantium odio autem inventore. Nemo aut et corporis asperiores.
Nesciunt dignissimos dolorum dolorum veniam. Accusamus voluptatem dolor id accusantium repudiandae vitae. Nesciunt itaque eaque omnis repudiandae voluptatem vitae vel.
Et soluta deleniti sit voluptatem. Et dicta esse ut labore natus enim. Tempora sint sit explicabo vero et reiciendis ex. Dicta ab eos sed reprehenderit. Earum autem esse ipsam dolore dolor ipsam ab. Iste animi voluptatem omnis autem placeat quia. Animi eius ut quis fuga.
Deleniti itaque voluptatem sit quaerat beatae esse repellat. Quis ut aliquid iure est voluptatem expedita praesentium. Voluptatem rerum sunt aut et.
Quod esse soluta eligendi alias cupiditate quod. Sed rerum doloribus aut delectus natus impedit dolores et. Voluptatem explicabo reiciendis quidem velit omnis sit officiis ut. Repellendus deleniti modi fuga.