Really Need Help FT: EB vs BB
Have an EB offer (CVP/PWP/MOE) and a BB offer (Citi/BofA/CS), really struggling which to take full time (currently work at a smaller boutique). I’m interested in finance for now but to be honest I can completely see myself leaving the technical finance industry entirely and shifting more towards corpdev or VC. Does being at a EB really limit the diversity of my exit opps? Sure, comp and learning are important which I know EB favors, but I don’t want to get screwed if I want to maybe join Google’s bizdev team for example. Really would like to hear everyone’s thoughts, thanks so much for the help it means a lot.
IMO any EB is better than those three BBs and the three you listed are few of the better ones. I think the idea that google’s bizz dev team doesn’t know of the EBs is a bit silly and doesn’t give Corp dev guys enough credit.
For VCs, can’t imagine a world where the EBs would pose a disadvantage.
I would go with the EB with the ppl you liked the most/the one that wants you the most
Appreciate the response. Would you still recommend a EB over a MM (Jeff/HL) even if I like the MM people better? Feel like EB benefits are worth it.
That’s a personal choice. I chose EB because in my mind it preserved the most optionality.
I personally wouldn’t compromise on career mobility for social reasons, but after a certain point (like comparing great EBs) comparing mobility turns into splitting hairs and the secondary factors like vibes and people become the deciding factor because, either way, you know you’re covered on the comp/exits side of things
EB name recognition drops off pretty quickly once you leave IBD and PE. Maybe the people in Corp Dev have heard of the names in passing, but its going to take some explaining to make it sound impressive / legit. When you mention a BB, there is pretty instant recognition of the name and what the work entails.
People outside of juniors in IBD do not read this form or think about the prestige of EVR vs PWP vs CVP vs MOE. If they read anything, they probably skim the Wall Street Journal. BBs and their work are mentioned on a daily basis in the WSJ. Front page of WSJ today said something along the lines of "TPG selects Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan to lead IPO." A good portion of the BBs are mentioned in the "Business & Finance" section every day. EBs are mentioned very rarely.
Just did a quick Linkedin search of Google corporate development because I was curious. Out of 4 previous IB experiences, here's what I saw:
1 Goldman Sachs
1 JP Morgan
1 William Blair
1 BNP Paribas
-
-
I would go with BB in your case. At a BB you’d get a much more diverse experience in terms of deals (m&a, financing etc) vs at an EB, and you’d have a bigger network through your analyst class. Specific to your goals, having BB experience definitely stands out more seeing the types of work you’d be doing in corp dev + the branding definitely helps since EBs are not that well known outside of this realm of finance
Would also consider that for 2 of the EBs you mentioned, you will probably end up doing RX deals which are highly irrelevant to your VC goals
Same could be said for debt, and potentially even equity deals at BB. Those will take up >50% of your time at BB while at EB RX will take up substantially less than 50% time
Hey! I was in a similar position to you last year, and I ended up accepting an offer at Citi/CS/BofA. Here are my two cents:
I also knew I wanted to go into VC out of banking, and I can guarantee you that the BB name does have an advantage. From the people I’ve networked with in VC (those who came from startup/ops roles), the majority of them were impressed when I told them my BB. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to break into VC from a boutique, but the fact of the matter is an Evercore or CVP is only best understood by ex-bankers themselves (and you’d be surprised by how many people in VC did not come from banking).
I’ve also been able to rely on my bank’s alumni significantly more, which I knew was going to be limited at the EB I was considering given the size of the firm. I don’t think you can go wrong either way, but as someone who’s been in a similar position as you, I would strongly recommend BB.
Go to BB for a more well-rounded experience. People on this site often forget how important the financing side of the business is; most companies do M&A only once in a while but have to raise debt/equity much more frequently. The capital markets knowledge + M&A experience that you will get at a BB will take you far in corporates
BB seems like the ideal platform for someone like you. More diverse experience and better non-finance exits. If you decide to stay in banking, you can always lateral to an EB down the line. BB offers broader experience across products, which I imagine is more relevant to Corp Dev and also VC. Equity might not be the most interesting work, but it’s great for exposure to high growth and innovative companies. You still get more than enough responsibility at a BB and chance to do meaningful work. The issue is too much responsibility… You’ll also quickly realIze after working on a few M&A transactions that they’re all more or less the same. Same goes for equity and debt. BBs also have larger and more diverse alumni networks.
For what it’s worth, I have family in VC at partner level and they don’t really know what the EBs are. Maybe at the junior level there is more recognition. When you mention BB IB, they immediately know the name and what the program entailed. If you mention an EB, maybe they’ll have heard of it in passing but it takes a bit more explaining.
Disagree slightly. From what I’ve heard from friends in BB, their responsibilities are more strictly analyst level work. During post banking interviews I would argue type of work and responsibility matters just as much as amount of responsibility. More importantly, EB senior bankers generally are more willing to help analysts during post banking recruiting by making phone calls or introductions.
Also, the EBs OP mentioned are some of the heaviest hitters in banking. I don’t think he needs to worry that a VC partner has not heard of CVP.
I would suggest going to one of the EBs OP listed over the BBs listed.
Senior bankers went bat for juniors and opened their networks up to analysts at the BB I worked at. General motto is to do the job of the person above you. Analyst work is more technical and relevant for moving to PE though.
VC partner has maybe heard of CVP, but they don't know it is a legit firm and what the analyst program entails like they do for BBs. Again, people in finance outside of of IBD / PE don't really understand the EBs. The average finance person will just read WSJ to stay current. Pretty tough to make it through a week of the WSJ without seeing the BBs mentioned (JPM/GS on front page today, GS/MS for new private company marketplace, etc). EBs are not really part of the conversation. I am sure there are elite consulting firms outside of MBB or accounting firms outside of the Big 4, I just have no idea what they are because they are never in the news.
Speaking from personal experience BB is a better choice due to brand name and exposure. From personal experience the capital markets exposure is super super helpful which you’ll actually get at a BB. Moreover, industry knowledge is way more solid which seems like it would be helpful for you. Lastly, agree with all the comments on brand name where non bankers immediately are way more impressed by BBs
Delete
I’d rock with EB. There’s not any good investment firm that hasn’t heard of CVP/PWP/MOE and especially if you work on the super interesting deals that they work on and can elaborate on your responsibility. Can’t go wrong with either tho. Congrats on the offers
I don't know how true the claims about EB's not having name recognition are. I'm at an MBB and I'm generally familiar with all the banking tiers just by virtue of having gone to a decent undergrad school and having a lot of friends get into banking. To me personally, those EB's (except maybe PWP) are clearly better.
Citi, BofA, and Cs are already open for full time?
If it's CVP then you should definitely take it. They are effectively outsourced Corp Dev teams for the clients that they have on retainer. Very involved with acquisition strategy, competitive positioning, market intelligence, pipeline forming, etc. Generally treated with a different level of respect and the senior bankers have felt presence at each of the board meetings. Said differently - they are successful at positioning themselves as the "trusted advisor", which each senior banker aspires to reach.
Sint cum aut perferendis quo quis. Cupiditate velit assumenda est aut. Voluptatem ratione iure quis et tempora dolores adipisci autem. Iure aut sequi quia quidem. Ut et similique quae officia assumenda.
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...
Quas amet inventore qui. Deserunt sapiente perspiciatis laborum dolor ut. Velit consectetur impedit natus vel. Soluta consequatur libero quidem qui impedit sit reiciendis.
Velit tempora rem dicta quas cumque quod. Suscipit accusamus quae expedita architecto doloremque omnis. Ut maxime ipsum maiores accusantium voluptate. Ut voluptas ullam nemo quia. Id qui quos unde perferendis. Non unde sit voluptatem in possimus dolorum nesciunt. Minus iusto velit similique.