Trending Content
| +158 | The "Not So Obvious" things that get you a return offer? | 18 | 4h | |
| +84 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 19 | 49m | |
| +60 | Best IB group on the Street | 24 | 10m | |
| +52 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 13 | 9h | |
| +46 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 23 | 6h | |
| +40 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 20 | 18h | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 21h | |
| +35 | Georgetown Placement for 2024 and 2025 | 21 | 6d | |
| +31 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 50 | 1d | |
| +30 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 2d |
Career Resources
You're right - ideally it is the best. The major centers for IB are New York, London and Hong Kong. Within the US, if you want to do energy, Houston is as good as NYC, and for tech, San Fran is the place to be.
There are definitely some opportunities in LA (Moelis is there and a lot of the big banks have small offices). Chicago has a lot of industrials teams. DC is really tough - you will not find any major banks there.
If your goal is to do investment banking and you don't want to be in New York for the long term, my advice would be to suck it up and go to NYC for 2 years as analyst. After that you may be able to transfer to another office and you'll certainly be attractive as an associate candidate at regional MM banks or as a pre-MBA PE guy.
It depends on the person. I'm not a fan of NYC myself, so I'm looking at some of the locations you mentioned. Others will do anything to live in NY, but you can definitely have a satisfying IB career outside of there.
Not necessarily JPM/GS/MS level, but Rothschild, HSBC, and HL all have offices in DC or in the suburbs.
There are other MM shops (i.e. BB&T) with a presence as well, but the talent in DC is not at the same level as NYC, Chicago, SF, LA or Houston.
Yeah, BB&T is really into niche markets -- Richmond, Winston-Salem, DC, etc. But I see where you're coming from; DC isn't a huge IB hub to begin with, so it's probably off of many top performer's radars.
Well I don't have problems with NY at all. I'm only wondering whether my options are limited based on location. I'd imagine everyone who wants to do banking is going to aim for NY and I don't want to be in a situation where it's NY or nothing if I don't get it. Basically, just wanting to be flexible about everything.
And as far as DC goes, I only mentioned it because it's the closest major city to my home. I doubt the major BB banks will be highly active there but I don't have to be at a BB to be satisfied. Plus, I'm sure all ADG groups for every bank will be in DC, and that's certainly something I want to do.
But then again, I'm only looking for an internship. Maybe full-time will be different.
Btw, I contacted Rothschild in DC, but they referred me to NY instead.
try for everything, NYC and regional. some banks don't separate recruiting for regionals, some do
Yes
I've worked in banking and at two separate PE shops (all MM). None in New York. So there are certainly other options.
I've never looked for a job in NYC, but I suspect that NYC shops prefer people who have worked in NYC in the past. Can't confirm though. I can confirm that many non-NYC banks / PE shops prefer you have ties to the area and don't give you any "credit" for having worked in NYC rather than anywhere else.
NY has the most positions in comparison to SF, LA, Chicago & Houston. From my time in IB in the past I recollect that the analyst bar for recruiting at SF, LA & Houston was a lot higher than NYC.
If you know that you want to be in Chi or SF in the future, would it be better to do your analyst stint in Chi/SF rather than NYC? Or would the NYC BB analyst stint experience more useful and a better training ground (to get more deal exposure/ broader network)?
It's much, much easier to go from SF/Chi to NYC than vice versa. There simply aren't as many buyside positions in the regional areas, and the analysts currently working in those have a pretty significant leg up. First looks from headhunters, groups that have long histories with PE offices located there, easier time interviewing due to location (I can't even imagine flying from NYC to SF multiple times a week for interviews...how would you swing that with your team?), stronger network.
I dunno where the myth that NYC gives you "street cred" in regional office came about. Presumably by NYC bankers.
Actually asked this question in a lateral interview with a BB. The director in a regional group (Houston) said that the analysts who come from NYC to other offices have an easier time making the transition from the associate to VP level because the MDs in NY know them better and are comfortable with them. As far as comp he said everyone is on an equal basis for that.
NYC is not the 'end all, be all' that many make it out to be.
There is major deal flow at both BB and MM IBD firms that goes through Chicago. As you may recall, for GS CEO and Treasury Sec Hank Paulson spent almost his entire career at the firm in the Chicago office. William Blair is a Chicago-based MM firm that is one of the classiest places to work on the Street. Robert Baird also does really well out of Milwaukee and Chicago.
LA is different depending on the firm. They obviously have media and aerospace stuff going on out there, but it really depends on whether their is a rainmaker-type MD in a particular office to justify whether it is 'good' or not.
As for Houston and the Bay Area, at any BB firm these offices are the equivalent prestige of working in NYC. The reason these offices are 'regional offices' is because of the respective industry that these offices cover. Banks have their industrials, consumer/retail, media/telecom, etc. based in NYC mostly because the clients are spread out all over the country/world. Obviously, this is not the case for Energy and Tech. The Houston and Bay Area offices are there because the center of gravity of those two particular industries pull them there, both geographically AND culturally (with the former having a large influence on the latter).
If a particular bank did not have a significant presence in H-town, they would have major issues competing for business in the energy space. Same goes for tech. The Bay Area and Houston are the Mecca for their respective industries.
Could you expand on why Blair is one of the classiest place to work on the Street?
Also, would it be better to start out in a top MM that is HQ'd in Chicago like Blair, Lincoln, or Baird (I know HQ is in Milwaukee, but large presence in Chi) rather than a BB Chi office if you want to build a career in Chicago?
There's something to be said for CA for tech, Houston for energy, maybe the Midwest for industrials.
@FormerHornetDriver is very accurate in calling LA a mixed bag. You have office presence from pretty much all the BBs (RIP UBS LA) and a fair amount of the top boutiques. However, there is definitely a lot of variance in the reputability of these offices. Some BBs have pretty strong groups out in LA while others fit the classic "satellite office" description of essentially providing a lot of support work to other offices that might be leading a transaction. I am not going to name names, but feel free to PM if you are seriously considering LA and want to know more. As far as coverage goes, MOST analyst programs in LA are considered "generalist". One notable exception is GS, who puts its FT analysts into either its "Western Regional Coverage" group (essentially generalist) or FIG in LA. For boutiques, Moelis and HL are both very strong in LA. Moelis is a generalist program, while HL has three different groups with the RX group being its most competitive. Other boutiques that are growing in LA right now include Guggenheim, Lincoln, and Imperial. I also think LAZ is finally starting to rapidly increase the size of its LA group.
As far as the actual "generalist" coverage is concerned, there is a pretty wide variety. You find groups that focus on both sides of C&R, gaming and lodging, media and telecom, and also some tech and healthcare mixed in depending on the bank.
As everyone has already stated, SF is the place to be if you're set on tech. However I would qualify that by stating HC coverage is also very strong in SF. Most BBs that have SF offices also have dedicated HC teams in addition to Tech teams that you can recruit straight into at the analyst level. NY offices do a lot of HC coverage, so I guess SF doesn't get the same "expertise" rep of covering the industry that it does with Tech. I still wouldn't discount that experience though. For instance, I have two close friends that are in their FT stints right now at HC groups in NY BBs. From my understanding, while they cover a pretty big variety of the HC space, their strongest dealflow is more on the services side (hospitals, facilities, etc.) I am not sure if that tendency is specific to their firm. I do know though that you don't really see many services deals from HC groups in SF offices. They focus a lot more on BioTech, Pharma, and MedTech mainly because so many of these companies are based on the west coast either in the Bay Area or around SD.
Since most of this thread has sung the gospel of regional offices, I'll give you my generally pro-NY perspective.
First, let's get this out of the way: regional offices will obviously have a leg up with buyside recruiting in their locale. As has been mentioned previously, regional buyside shops want to see a real connection to the area, and having spent 2 years in IB in the region is a pretty good indication of interest. Quite simply: if you know what geography you want to end up in, go there.
That said, this:
... is a myth.
Obviously, there are gating mechanisms in play here: there just are a ton fewer top-caliber buyside positions in Chi/SF than there are in NY. So, if you wanted to play with statistics, you could say P(Buyside Offer in Chi | Work in NY) analysts who work in NY have the most geographic flexibility of any IB region. Top PE firms in Houston / SF / Chicago will fly a cohort of professionals up to NY just to get access to the pool of talent. Suffice it to say, Houston PE shops aren't sending recruiting teams to Chicago or vice versa. As long as you have a compelling tie to a certain region, you will be on a virtually even playing field with analysts from any other office if you work in NY. That cannot, however, be said about several of the regional offices. I've seen this scenario play out several times with friends in Houston trying to move to buyside firms in the Northeast: try as they might, they simply don't receive nearly as many looks from NY PE funds as their same-firm peers working in NY. And when ~70%+ of the country's top PE firms are based in NY, that's a meaningful disadvantage.
Career-wise, the financial industry is just so much more substantial in NY than it is in Houston / Chicago. The value of that network, the opportunity to walk to interviews and the more ready access to all types of buyside firms makes NY pretty tough to beat at the analyst level.
Echoing Blue Shirt's comment above - For Chicago- if you plan on being there for the long run (no specific interest in PE) would it be better to start out at a strong mm chicago bank (hlhz, blair), or a regional BB office?
In general, I would advise that long-term banking career progressions look a bit better for BBs than boutiques. They have a stronger track record of developing successful MDs and, obviously, more opportunities if you ever want to shift focus.
As a recent undergrad and incoming analyst, NYC is the best bet because you have placed yourself in the center of the finance universe which potentially leads to opportunities you would never see. As a post-MBA associate or lateral analyst/associate, your priorities might be different, which means you have a number of 'better' options in smaller cities like Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, etc. That is to say, it's all relative to what you are looking for.
-Regards
Toronto for Mining
i-banking outside of NYC (Originally Posted: 02/13/2007)
Is it not worth it? reading the boards gives a mixed review..if you want to really excel as a banker, is NY the only place to work?
No, of course not. Chicago, SF Bay Area, London all have big investment banking players.
Comparing London to those regional US offices is apples and oranges.
London is the New York of Europe. Not to mention, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, more and more companies are opting to list in London rather than New York.
Actually, there was a really interesting article in WSJ about London gaining on NYC to the title of the "Financial Capital of the World". Even though New York was and still is by far ahead of other cities, a lot more companies are listing on London exchanges and seeking financial services there instead of New York. NYC has hired consultants to try to point out the problems. Some of the reasons are: 1. it's way too easy to get sued and lose in the United States, and especially in New York. 2. Sarbanes-Oxley is a major turnoff. There were others, can't remember them now. But definitely a very interesting article and thought.
A highly debatable, if not completly false, claim. If you actually look at a breakdown into different sectors in finance it reveals that New York actually only leads (in terms of global market share) in 3 or 4 areas.
Take derivatives trading for example. In exchange traded derivatives New York has the largest global market share. But in OTC derivates London leads New York by far. Then compare the size of the exchange traded and OTC markets. Intersting stuff.
New York's claim to be the financial capital of the world has been dubious for a while now. At best it operates an effective duopoly with London, at worst it is increasingly irrelevant. I think New York needs to identify its strengths and work on consolidating those rather than try to be all things to all people.
I have heard London is very close to bypassing NYC as the financial center of the world. As a result Mayor Bloomberg is shitting his pants because of the taxes the firms pay out to the city. I would not be susprised to see some changes over the next few years.
If a particular region has an industry concentration, then that's generally the same as being in NY. Houston = Energy. San Fran = Tech Chicago = Heavy Industrials Dallas/South = Retail
IB outside of NYC (Originally Posted: 08/20/2006)
I just got hired as an IB analyst for KeyBank in Cleveland. I wanted to ask all the NYC bankers what your opinion is on an analyst position in a middle market, midwestern bank like mine. Is it a respected position? Are we inferior to NYC analysts? Could I still go into PE or Hedge Funds? Don't hold back. Please be honest.
You are shit out of lock. You are definitely inferior and have no exit opportunity. j/k
It all depends how you look at it. Your chance of getting into PE wouldn't be too great. There are plenty of "top kids" who complete the 2-year analyst program. On paper they just look much better than you.
Banking in Cleveland probably won't get you exposed to any large deals. However, you will know everything about banking as you will be performing similar tasks on a smaller scale.
You might have a shot at Bulge bracket regional office or even NYC after your 1-2 years at key bank (given that the market is good and you have some backbone - family or alumni). Headhunters can help too.
You will have a shot on hedge funds. There are many hedge funds out there and many even take kids straight out of college. I'm sure after 1-2 years in an investment bank you are more marketable than a kid straight out of college.
Is it respected? It's all relative. You probably got a higher paying and better job than 90% of the kids coming out of college. However, it is no where as "cool" as a GS analyst position.
As for Cleveland, nothing against it but it really isn't a "big city interms of business or banking." Top regional cities are Boston, Chicago, LA, SF, Houston, Charlotte, Atlanta, Phily, DC-Baltimore, and nobody would ever think about Cleveland.
Bottom line is just learn as much as you can. If you want to pursue opportunity elsewhere after 2 years - you definitely can.
Quitting already, Dan?? You've only been there 6 weeks and a day!
You are only 2 weeks short of the average tenure of a KBCM Analyst. Hang in there!!!!!
Damn identity reviewed or something?
Shouldn't you be working for Morgan Stanley or UBS?
Amet et rem quod quis magni commodi eos. Asperiores esse perspiciatis sunt a incidunt sint laudantium velit. Doloremque perferendis velit sint ut consequatur voluptates provident. Aperiam sapiente aut corrupti dignissimos non et.
Nesciunt eligendi et voluptate non recusandae. Dolor fuga non pariatur sit laboriosam et deleniti quia. Sed voluptates deleniti tempora sit quaerat. Adipisci et quo sit necessitatibus ut voluptatem. Quia et rerum quia rerum atque ipsa.
Adipisci reprehenderit molestiae libero ab et vitae. Cumque perferendis voluptates quam. Dolore cupiditate ducimus qui dolore. Atque voluptas sint et nulla dolores. Earum tenetur quibusdam dolorem autem.
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...
Ea et dolor corrupti. Quo dolore ipsam odio nemo voluptatem. Occaecati et dolorem commodi ullam explicabo exercitationem minima.
Delectus consequatur vel soluta numquam nihil soluta. Eum voluptas deleniti architecto expedita quisquam non aut. Dignissimos sit soluta nulla ut eum. Ut minus asperiores soluta ut sed. Rem architecto ipsa modi eius et suscipit natus. Soluta nostrum rerum dolorem.
Adipisci repudiandae reiciendis atque ipsam quam ea in. Soluta in qui nesciunt et corrupti et commodi laboriosam. Sit quidem eius dolorem impedit illum. Qui esse ipsa est occaecati ex. Nulla consectetur ea dolor vel sed aliquam.