Torn about offers- really need advice
Guys,
Long time poster here, but under pseudonym b/c this topic is a bit too exposing.
So I am in a big predicament:
I have an Equities internship offer from a top BB (GS/MS/JPM) and it consists of a few rotations around equities desks. Top notch equities division at this bank and i really like the people.Also, will have very high up mentor at the bank. New York offer.
and
I have a rotational internship offer (with very probable rotations in Rates/FX and maybe Credit if I want) from a lower/midtier BB (BAML/Citi/Barclays). However, the macro desks at this firm are quite strong. Don't really know the people on the desks at all. London Offer.
About me:
Am American and would greatly refer to be in America for SA and then FT, but I am much more interested in Macro than I am equities. However, I have had no experience in Equities, so maybe I am just uninformed and don't know.
My question essentially boils down to this:
Great location, great firm prestige, great people, good mentoring, but am not really that interested in equities.
versus
Okay location, not great firm recognition/prestige, don't know the people, feel like a number (not much foreseeable mentoring), but interested in the products and ranked high in league tables.
Note:
*Want to go to good macro hedge fund after a few years of trading.
**I am at a top target and a graduate student.
** frankly b/c of all the bullshit from Liar's Poker and this site etc, doing equities makes me feel intellectually inferior to FICC.
What do you all think???
Purely in terms of getting a FT offer I'd go with the US one as you know people there and have a mentor. For hedge funds, I think the top tier name would help you a lot.
Take the top tier BB offer. You may learn slightly more at a mid tier BB however at the entry level you should be more focused on the long term prospects that a top tier BB can provide in terms of future placement.
This is a no brainer.....new york son!!!!
Also, is new York a significant advantage in your opinion?
Top BB in NYC... in my opinion
Tough decision. MS is very strong in equities, but if you want to do FICC, not really where you want to be. If they were both NY offers, I would choose BAML/Citi/Barcap in a hearbeat.
At the end of the day, the choice should be London v NY over Equities v FICC imo. If NY's where you wanna be, choose MS. At least you might get a chance to participate in internal mobiltiy and/or fast-track recruiting events for FICC positions at other banks.
Ignore the "better exit opps" comments above as these guys are clearly clueless about S&T. Also, hedge fund exit "in a few years" ain't happening. You need to have a long track record running a book (and hence would be at the Director+ level) to be given a shot at a reputable macro fund. PE/Fundamental HF recruiting and Macro HF recruiting are completely different from one another.
if you are clearly more clue-full then the posters above how about getting certified before running your mouth
I'm sorry, I'm getting a bit annoyed by these "top BB" vs "lower BB" nonsense posts in trading. If you're using that as your rationilsation you really have a lot to learn.
Obviously a fair point. However, wouldn't this only apply when you would be moving over directly into a PM role at a GM fund? I totally understand that alpha is alpha no matter what firm you are at, but at lower levels where you are working for a PM, wouldn't firm notoriety afford some sort of advantage?
I am not really arguing here because you know more than I. I am genuinely just asking...
^^^That is bc you are at Credit Suisse.
I have actually had numerous top HF managers say the pedigree from working at a top BB will make the transition to a good fund easier. Also, when you consider how many funds have been started by ex GS/MS guys, it seems networking would be easier and youd have a better shot.
Why the fuck would you ask a question that clearly you have already generated an answer to? If you are concerned with the name of the firm on your ID tag, you are a fool and will not last long, so just make sure where ever you work you save some money because you will be looking for another job pretty soon.
I feel Citi is coming back very strong since the crisis. Just my $0.02... For me, this is a easy decision. Citi FICC. no question about it. NY > London, but it's not nearly as important as which group you are with.
Also top/mid/lower tier thing doesn't really apply to S&T. Those things changes all the time. Just take a look at UBS FICC, Lehman, Salomon, BT... Go for one that is up-and-coming
Haha, wow, I barely know what to say to you. You're right, I work at a jub company, and don't know what I'm doing at all. Maybe after you get your offer you can hook me up. Ridiculous.
Seriously, I don't know what is with your attitude. You're the one coming here looking for advice, and I'm going to give you some right now. If you talk that way to any of the traders on any of the desks at any of those firms, they will destroy you. It behooves you to not be so arrogant from the bottom of the totem pole.
Now as Awon mentioned, at least on the global macro side no one cares where you work. It could be GS, BNP, Citi, Merrills, XYZ firm, doesn't matter, if you perform you will be recognized. The funds who matter pay attention. The street is a small place, keep that in mind. Furthermore, going to a top fund after "a few years" on a trading desk is incredibly ambitious. There are many people who don't even get to trade until a few years in, and not large size. Others get it immediately, which can be a function of skill for sure, but is also a large part circumstance and luck (getting the right opportunities and responsibilities). Most of the people at large funds (not talking execution guys) have been traders for a while and have serious track records. There are not many 2nd or 3rd year analysts who can claim that.
Now, as far as this "top tier" vs "lower tier" generalisation you have, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in trading. What you consider top tier firms have a lot of groups which are in the lower part of revenue generation amoungst their peers, and vice versa. It entirely depends on the desk/product.
Agreed...
Very True... To be a superstar, it is not enough to be on Wall Street, or to be on Wall Street at the right time—you have to be on Wall Street at the right time and in the right place when your pet financial product comes into favor. And to do that, you need some luck, some foresight and some original thinking. Follow the conventional 'wisdom' like 'top tier' & 'lower tier' generalization won't get you there.
******** Guys sorry to all about the assholish post (especially sorry to Revsly).I do not actually have that attitude, I just was in a foul mood when I wrote that and do not actually believe such things.
Sorry for being a dick, genuinely appreciate the help.
^^to the guy above: I didn't mean to say that was the answer, I was asking to test my idea. Your feedback answered. Sorry for any miscommunication there.
I suppose I was guilty of this "tiering" in my other thread, and I apologize for that. But it would be a lot more productive for us to get the details on which firms are dominant in which desk/product. We could start out with the FX Options desks, as well as any other desks you happen to have color on. I think everyone would appreciate that. Thanks.
Open a thread and ask. I opened one with the 3 products that interested me the most, said I wanted to work in London and some people were really useful and had lot of info in which were the main players in each.
As to the OP, you have only one decision to make, and that's whether you like micro and specific companies or macro events. If you like the first one, go to MS, if you prefer the latter go to Citi. That's a decision we can not make for you. If those are the banks, because you didn't actually which banks exactly. For example Barclay's rates desk in London is really top notch, and the people are awesome.
Thanks for all the input. Would we think about any of this differently if it were BAML rather than Citi or Barclays?
Also, what about the mentorship aspect? I am scared that going to a place where I know few people would decrease the likelihood of an offer relative to the 'top bb'
If you have any pretensions about working at a macro fund someday, and would seriously consider choosing the equities desk because it is at a more prestigious bank, you are a moron.
hahaha, rough but that was well put.
Just for the record, the 'prestige' of the bank was just one of the many factors I acknowledged in my list. I am considering the 'top bb' because it is in the US and not London.
Also, why is it that so many on the forum say that you can go from equities to global macro?
p.s. I actually only used the term 'top bb' bc it is so prevalent on this site. When i wrote it i genuinely was even considering the tiering. I thought that is just what you guys call them....
^^^ lol. hmm you didn't get what I was saying. I am not assuming anything. I am simply using the latest environment as an example. My point was the financial engineering and derivatives have inherently increased the systematic risk and volatility. And that is not a statement about the macro situation/trend. (risk and volatility are two different things, even tho a lot of the times people treat them like they are the same) Give you a simple example: 'delta hedging' - Black Scholes model assumes ample liquidity in the market thus buying or selling wouldn't have an significant impact on the market. The reality - Everyone follows delta hedging. It causes a turbo effect to the market volatility. Again, those are just my perception of reality.
Ahhh I see. I did misunderstand....thanks for the insight...l
Saepe eligendi laudantium eligendi qui amet in consectetur. Fugit blanditiis explicabo dolorem. Corporis voluptatibus in earum dolorem minima. Corporis necessitatibus autem unde sunt culpa.
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...
Nesciunt a in tempora sed. A sint voluptatum velit rem ut molestias dolores. Soluta cum dolorem dolorum ratione nisi et.