Opportunity cost of NOT living in NYC
Many people talk about the opportunity cost of living in NYC and how much more expensive it is than other cities. But for those in finance, can one argue that there is an opportunity cost to NOT living in NYC, in terms of money, career opportunities, networking, etc.? I bring this up because I recently talked to a guy who mentioned how once you're in the finance circle in NYC (also include connecticut hedge funds in this mix) and are good at what you do, you're able to get referrals for various jobs that people in other cities don't have access to.
I would say so.
I can't go so far as to quantify it, but generally speaking you see more (volume) work in New York... just because there's more going on, its where everyone is located etc... whats more is, based out of NY you'll still be working on deals not based out of NY... whereas based out of Houston, you'll likely be working on 99% Houston (or thereabouts) deals. This is also an opinion of mine, and I may very well be mistaken, but I'm under the impression no one works harder than bankers in NY. Which (hopefully) translates to more experience in the same window of time as your non-NY counterpart.
Secondly, from a mobility perspective, you've got much more mobility because there is much more in your immediate vicinity.
Third, there is a perception that NY is where its at for finance. So if you're in banking based out of... I dunno, Seattle, people have a certain perception of that. And that applies to adcoms, prospective employers and your peers. Its kind of like being a model based out of New York vs. being a model based out of Minneapolis. There's a connotation that since you're in investment banking and not in NY you must not have made it (not saying thats true).
I'm sure Ill get a lot of shit for these points, but they are generally based on perception... which isn't necessarily reflective of reality, but it is far more important than reality in most instances.
Interesting thread. I'm glad you brought up Houston too.
I think it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want (and are capable of having) when you are older. I'm talking about your social life, outside of work. What do you want to do outside of work when you are like 50?
If you live in an international city like NYC, even if you are 45 and making a couple of million a year at PE or BB, you might not even be in elite social circles (where Top Brass in BB, BigLaw, Politics, and Diplomats, etc, all hang out and discuss plans for world domination).
If you live in Houston (which is an excellent finance/energy city, and is definitely a cut above Seattle or Minneapolis: It has an extremely vibrant and growing economy which has the potential to rival Chicago within a few years), your MD job at a BB will probably land you in the city's most elite social circles (Where H-Town BigLaw, BigOil, and Politicians hang out and discuss Texan secession).
It depends on what you want in life, and who you want to hang with on weekends.
Of course, if you just want a good job in finance, and don't care about your social life when you are older (why you would only consider your career when considering where you want to live when you are older might be parochial), then yes, obviously you will be missing out on networking/knowing people in NYC finance.
LIBOR... while agree that each city has something unique to offer and unless you're aspiring to to be Henry Kravis or extremely unhappy its important to start steering away from the career-centric lifestyle as you grow older... I would DEFINITELY not plan where I live based on what social circles I can hob knob in. Thats a bit ridiculous.
Your train of thought seems to be: in NY, even if I'm in very wealthy, I'll be a small fish... in Houston Ill be a BSD so long as I have a 10-figure bank account, which is ridiculous.
I'll leave that sort of superficiality to my TBD cunt wife.
I'd probably be more concerned with being closer to my already established social circle, old friends and family.
No, you obviously shouldn't choose where to live based on social circles (or whether people on WSO will judge you for not living in NYC because you 'couldnt cut it' in NYC finance).
Having said that, the OP was asking about networking. In addition to people that you may meet at your workplace, an individual's social life opens up many opportunities. Going to dinners, or the country club, or the gym, whatever, can open doors cause its a great way to meet people who might know people who can land you an even bigger gig. My point is that if you want to use your social life as a means to open doors for you professionally, it might be more difficult to do so in NYC since it might be more 'exclusive' in this area.
I seriously think the whole networking aspect of Wall Street is a little overrated/hit or miss.
Networking/contacts is not overrated.
How many jobs have you landed through networking ?
Doubtful. You can do research, trading and investment banking from anywhere to some extent and I haven't gotten a single job from "networking."
The opportunity cost of not having your trading server within a millisecond ping time of the exchange might be huge- and the opportunity cost of not being within a short trip of the clients you serve might be huge- but most of the actual work can be done anywhere.
Its true that you can do any advisory-based service business (Law, Banking, Investing, Marketing, Consulting, PR, Certain Types of Medicine, Graphic Design, etc) anywhere.
However, why do BB banks have offices primarily in 5 big American cities (NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, Houston)?
The fact is a) Most of the career types listed above require learning by doing. I'm not a banker, and I don't think I can go on the internet to learn how to be one so that I can set up my own shop in Omaha. From what I gather on these forums, the best way to learn about this business is to work under those who are currently successful in this business.
b) Sure, banking, research, etc are mobile. However, why do the banks all choose to set up shop in high cost of living cities on the edge of the country. The fact of the matter is, people in these types of industries want the kinds of social activities I described in my post above.
Thus, it is possible that their might be an opportunity cost of not being in NYC (say you work for HW in Richmond) because you might not be able to learn from the top teachers (who are probably in the top cities) and you might miss out on the social life (if that is something you are interested in) that a top city could offer you.
(It is interesting to note that all the cities I mentioned are smack in the middle of a cluster of cities with big corporations... for example, NYC is smack in the middle of BosWash, allowing it to be close to clients all over the northeasy... a bank in Boston might be at a disadvantage because it is further from clients in Philadelphia than NYC)
@LIBOR:
You have a point. There's an opportunity cost in not being in a place where smart people that you can learn from want to work. That said, half of the smartest people I know like Chicago and even Wisconsin/Michigan more than they like NYC.
So yes, you have to find smart people to work for, and many of them are in NYC. Some of them are in Boston. Some of them are in Chicago. Perhaps the smartest three or four in the financial world might be in Omaha, Nebraska or at the St. Louis Fed. If you're working for smart people, it doesn't matter if you're in Alaska or NYC- the opportunity cost is in working for someone that you can't learn from.
I'd say it depends on how you look at it. I was speaking with a hedge fund manager the other day who runs a large fund outside of the tri-state area, and he specifically cited that he felt being outside of New York was one of the better moves he could have made, but it gets him away from the "conventional wisdom" and resulting cognitive biases.
On the other hand, there clearly exist advantages for an individual BANK to locate in New York - ie, external economies of scale due to the tight concentration of factor inputs (ie, lawyers, accountants, consultants, etc). To the extent this results in NYC banks having lower operating costs, it should translate in to more revenue going in to compensation, thus you would be forgoing pay by working elsewhere. However, this obviously results in increased competition, and to the extent that regional markets are more "imperfect" (as investment banking is already a decidedly oligopolistic market), I'd expect it likely nets to zero. Additionally, any pecuniary advantages you would realise from this are likely foregone due to increased cost of living.
Also, bear in mind studies show it is our relative level of income, not our absolute level, which is correlated with happiness, so chasing that million dollar bonus in New York may not be as rewarding as doing so in (for example) Omaha.
The other big advantage you alluded to is networking; while (obviously) difficult to quantify, I'll take a shot at breaking down some preliminary thoughts.
Pros: -NYC has a lot of finance types, so your network may be bigger, and there are likely to be more opportunities for said network to be of use. -If you work in NYC, you're more insulated from secular shocks, and your network will likely be more diverse - if you work in SF, and tech goes to shit, you're in trouble.
Neutral: -There is almost certainly a point at which your "network" maxes out in terms of effectiveness - you can't realistically have 1,000 people you keep in close contact with, let alone the whole NYC finance field.
Cons: -To the extent "regional" markets are smaller, it could result in a higher density of people knowing you, which could have accumulative effects.
So, I think it depends on how narrow your interests are, not just in terms of what field you want to pursue, but in terms of what you actually like to do outside of the office. The tri-state area obviously offers different options that other areas in terms of recreation, so I'd say that's the most important opportunity cost (and how it relates to your individual marginal utility). Personally, I'd prefer to be in Jackson Hole and go skiing every minute I don't have to be in the office, but I don't think the tax savings from moving to Wyoming would quite make up the foregone income.
Not yet... maybe soon
I agree wtih LIBOR. With respect to banking, I'll take the discount and live in Houston any day. We're talking probably a 40+% difference in COL and maybe a 10% discount in pay...probably less in the standardized world of banking salaries. The only disadvantage that one might garner from being at HQ in banking (or anything where your in a regional office of a large entity) is lack of exposure to internal senior management. However, I think that's more of an issue for somewhere like GE than a bank. There is also something to be said for the shielding aspect of being in Houston v. New York when the shit hits the fan. Could be the first to go because they don't know you...or they might not even think of cutting you...because they don't know you.
Granted, I am biased. I'm from Texas and I like Texas. I like New York too, but unless I was pulling in mid-7figs, I have no desire to live there. I'm much happier without half of the earth's population and disease milling around me as I eat.
There will always be a ceiling to your earning potential in IB and exit opps living in a city like Houston though.
what about tech groups at elite boutiques on either coast (sf or bos)?
How is that relevant to the question?
:O Drexel, what year?
whether it would be as good of an opportunity compared to being in nyc b/c tech is bigger on the coasts...
Yes, that's basically what I was saying - if you want to do tech, SF is probably the better choice, Houston for O+G, etc. Additionally, in towns like that you'll make up the foregone finance network by having an improved network in the industry you cover.
If you don't know what you want though, NYC probably offers the "stronger" career path.
What I objected to the relevancy of was "elite boutiques" - that distinction was not germane to the conversation.
The bank, not the school.
You think that being in a TMT group in SF is the better choice over NYC TMT, is that what you're saying?
S&T Outside of NYC (Originally Posted: 12/02/2014)
So I'm starting on a BB structured products desk next year in NYC. Not sure exactly what I'll be trading, but I know it will be in the realm of MBS/ABS. I've always sort of to live/work in a foreign country for awhile. I'm wondering: 1. What cities offer lucrative careers for a trader (specifically a structured products trader)? I know the obvious answers are London/HongKong/Tokyo but are there others and in what order?
I live in Houston and been with a BB since 2006 on the energy trading side. I love it... house is paid off, kid in best private school, etc etc... I dont know any other 20 something in nyc or chicago doing the same. I was offered a job with J. Aron in 2008 and declined after visiting NYC, I could not see myself raising a family in NYC... to me that is huge. We have a nice backyard and looking to get a dog. I dont think I could do that in NYC...yard or dog.
As well as social circles, most of my co workers and other traders in town live in same areas of town, kids go to same schools and wifes do a lot of things together. Networking is big here on the banking and trading side. The best thing for me in my career was not going to NYC but thats me. My goals were different back then and different now.
Bump - maybe this was a stupid question or too many questions at once but I would really like some insight here. The main thing I'm interested in finding out is how difficult it is to get on a trading desk on another side of the world given that I'm at a top BB.
Unless you speak a different language, I think you're going to have a hard time trading anywhere except London/Tokyo/NY. There's really no reason for a BB to xfer you to smaller trading city like frankfurt/paris/Brazil/etc, especially considering the desk you're on might not even have a presence there. Anywhere besides the big three would probably be career suicide but I'm curious if anyone else has a differing view on this.
Also, in my limited experience (so take my advice with a grain of salt), most smaller S&T cities focus more on Sales. I know a few BB's in Toronto focus on sales and use traders/run the book out of NY because it's so close.
I don't know why you're so hell bent on trading in a different city. You can always travel there on your own time. But to want to live in some obscure area without a rationale for it doesn't make any sense. Also, the need for people to trade outside the key trading hubs doesn't exist the way it used to do to advanced technology.
Ok, so maybe not an obscure city. Let's say I just wanted to do London/Tokyo/HK/Singapore. Would I be able to get moved to one of those desks without being able to speak a foreign language? I would just like to live somewhere besides NYC in my career.
Going to be hard to find much outside of HK/Tokyo, also like @"TraderDaily" said, you need some language skills if you're going to have any reasonable expectations of doing well in either place.
.
Working Outside of NYC (Originally Posted: 05/13/2007)
Any thoughts?
thoughts about what? yes, there are places to work outside of NYC.
.
What are you feelings regarding locations outside of NYC (Originally Posted: 12/01/2006)
Are there any benefits to working at a bank outside of NYC???
usually better hours, and lower cost of living(not counting cali here)
Disclaimer: The post above has been made by someone who is not currently employed in IBD, and has not had an interview yet...
Yes Houston may be be economically vibrant, a booming energy and finance mecca where the roads are paved with hand jobs.....But I've heard Houston is a shit hole? I've never been there, but my friend who lived there for a few years says its smoggy, polluted, humid, and doesn't really have much going for it outside of finance and energy.
Fixed Income Research outside of NYC? (Originally Posted: 07/10/2011)
I assume most of the Fixed Income jobs are in NYC, but are there other cities that generally have a strong presence in Fixed Income Research? (Chicago, LA, Houston, etc?)
like any city it can be all you make of it. or not.
I would imagine Chicago being a good city for FI.
Well if you would like to go abroad London has an exceptionally large exposure for fixed income. Just need to get that tier 2 visa.
Interesting...London would actually be a pretty cool place to live for a while. I'd probably spend every other weekend visiting Barcelona or Monaco or Interlaken :)
Opportunities Outside NYC? (Originally Posted: 12/15/2010)
What's the trick to getting a position outside of NYC? Is it absolutely necessary to start in NYC as a first year analyst and move on afterward? What about interning? Can you intern outside NYC effectively?
Should I expect a significantly lower all-in comp? Lower salary vs. lower bonus? Compensation isn't as important to me but it'd be nice to compare.
I'm torn between trading and IB overall. I don't want to be in NYC regardless. For trading, I'm pretty much exclusively looking at Chicago. But for IB, I'm mostly lost.
Any suggestions overall?
Hot girls. Something NY severely lacks.
yeah, a city with 8 million residents does not have hot girls. god, so many trolls on this board.
Here's a good thread...
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/new-york-vs-houston
After you read that, use the search funtion and you will get a ton of info.
Your profile says you're a 1st year analyst in S&T right? :]
Trading offers a lot more opportunities outside of New York in terms of prop trading. Chi-town is arguably the prop trading mecca of the country, but then again, I have my Midwestern biases. (Though I've spent the last three years in NYC).
I think Boston and Cali are also good for asset management (CC: PIMCO and FIDO)
Deleted by author
For IB, look to Boston, Chicago, and I believe San Fran. Obviously probably not as big as NYC, but many firms have some type of operation in those areas.
As for S&T, there's Connecticut.
Reading comprehension much? Severely lacks based on the size of the population. Not doesn't have any. God, so many idiots on this board.
Locations other than NY (Originally Posted: 08/02/2009)
Hey guys,
I was wondering how the interview/screening process works for candidates who want to work in locations other than New York? Do they choose you for interviews without regard to location, or does it play a big part? For instance, if your GPA is low at a target, would they interview you if you're willing to work in cities that aren't NY? Thanks!
maybe you should go to places besides times square the next time you're in NYC.
bump
I think it applies more specifically to certain schools. I go to a school in Texas and the banks pretty much only recruit for their Texas locations. I am pretty sure it is the same for the California schools unless you go to Stanford which recruits for NY. Since the regional offices tend to be focused on certain industries, I bet you can say I am interested in energy IB for example and then you would be interviewing against primarily Texas schools.
"I go to a school in Texas and the banks pretty much only recruit for their Texas locations."
Almost as many NYC positions as Texas-based positions are recruited for at the University of Texas.
"Almost as many NYC positions as Texas-based positions are recruited for at the University of Texas."
Not really. I did SA recruiting last winter, and the only NYC IBD positions that came was GHL, Imperial Capial, Jefferies, and Citi.
All the other big banks, however, strictly come from Houston.
Is not living in NYC killing my chances? (Originally Posted: 04/29/2013)
Currently: 3rd Yr analyst at family office (a lot of time on individual equities, not well known) Ivy, gpa: 3.3, major: 3.5 CFA Level 3 Candidate
Looking for FO equity analysis position. For some reason the interview/app ratio is basically 0 and I can't really explain it besides the fact that I'm located in the midwest. I know my gpa isn't the strongest but I'd still figure that I would get at least a 10% hit rate when applying for HF, AM, and SS ER.
The only headhunter that would talk to me said that companies aren't interested in covering relocation expenses anymore (post 2008). Am I basically stuck to moving to NYC myself and looking on the ground floor if so? Am I approaching this wrong by not cold connecting with as many PMs as possible? I've already reached out to a lot of friends/classmates whom are currently associates. Should I be posting a writeup on SumZero?
Have you applied to any sell side or buy side positions in Chicago?
Depends on where in the midwest. Some parts are close to NYC, some to Texas, some to Chicago. Chicago is right in the midwest. Echo what peinvestor2012 said, check out Chicago.
A buy side shop in Chicago (I'm closer to here) had enough interest to at least contact me for further information (not too long ago, seemed like their process is very slow). I'm really looking to move out to the east or west coast though. If I had a location decision preference it would be like:
Boston >= NYC = SF > LA >>> Chicago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything else (Only firm that I would be interested enough within this category would be T. Rowe, at least that I can think of atm).
"Boston >= NYC = SF > LA >>> Chicago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything else "
I recommend getting an MBA at Harvard. Shouldn't be hard to get in with your prior Ivy education and a good GMAT.
Banking outside NYC (Originally Posted: 12/18/2008)
What are the other major banking hubs in the US that are outside NYC? I know NY is the mecca of finance, but I am starting to think lower pay in a lower tax/lower cost of living area with more room/real estate might be better life in general for someone starting at age 30 and not into the models and bottles way of life, especially if one was thinking of starting a family. I don't know much about this, any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
GG
chicago is big (hank paulson started and spent most of his early career becoming a star at goldman chicago), and apparently a fantastic lifestyle city
if you're into tech, then san fran/menlo park is also big.
couple big ibanking groups in la, charlotte - nc. also toronto (but not us obvi). houston is big for oil/gas/energy
also boston
and there are pe shops pretty much all over.
chicago - similar makeup to nyc as far as opportunities(just less of them) san fran - similar makeup to nyc as far as opportunities(just less of them) boston - lots of PE/VC/HF, banking is mostly boutiques but some are elite level charlotte - less pe/vc/hf, BofA rules the city LA - less pe/vc/hf, good for ent. banking houston - less pe/vc/hf, good for oil & gas banking
I agree that Charlotte has less PE/VC/HF than a lot of people expect. Almost all of the finance presence has been from Wachovia and Bank of America (although there are some reputable boutiques and middle market banks there like McColl Partners and Edgeview).
I'm from Charlotte, so I'm interested to see how it holds up over the next few years. I want it to do really well because I love it there and plan to move back eventually. I think it'll be hit hard by Wells Fargo decisions and Bank of America moving more positions to NYC, but I expect it to fare better than a lot of people are predicting. There will be a lot of senior bankers laid off in the not so distant future, and I can't imagine they'll all want to just up and leave with their families. I imagine a lot of ex-WB and BofA bankers will somehow continue there in middle market banks in the next few years. Just my two cents.
alright who's facebook pic did the admins put up this time?
fricken' hilarious.
We're about to enter a Great Depression. Don't you want a president who's already dressed for it?
A few comments -
-LA offices have been ravaged pretty hard by the layoffs -I would say that Chicago is the best overall value when it comes to cost-of-living vs. lifestyle/urban environment -Regional offices have an obvious industry focus, SF is Tech, Chicago is Industrials, Houston is Energy, Boston is Healthcare -Expect regional offices to have a very high concentration of people from a few schools -Hours really just depend on the individual office, hard to make generalizations based on location
NYC vs other cities (Originally Posted: 03/07/2010)
I was wondering as to what the advantages are of working in New York as opposed to Los Angeles or San Francisco. Just from skimming around, I got the impression that New York is superior, but how and for who e.g better exit opportunities etc.?
I think it's because most banks have their headquarters in New York, and the headquarters always gets the best dealfow/work? Financial capital of America (not saying World anymore.....) It's also just the awesomest out of all of those in terms of an all-around city. Granted, I think San Fran would be really cool.
That's all I have heard. But bankers in LA work like 80-100 hour weeks too, and see the deal from start to end. They work you like crazy anywhere. NY is the financial capital etc.etc., but what realized benefit can one gain from going there?
I really don't want to leave friends and family here in LA just because NY is 'closer to headquarters'. Are there any benefits at all for me personally?
Eh, it depends on the office. UBS, Moelis - their headquarters is LA. GS/MS/other BBs/good boutiques are headquartered in NY. Even if the offices in NY aren't inherently "better", they are still looked more highly open for exit opps. The fact that you have friends and family on the west coast is a big reason to stay, as long as you get into an office that will give you good work. That's the most important part of the job - getting good work/figuring out it will be good ahead of time.
la
Don't forget about networking.
I think staying in LA would be fine, assuming you will be somewhere with good deal flow, but keep in mind that NY is the financial capital and the opportunities to network would be endless.
Other things to consider would be where you intend to live/work later on in life. If you intend to stay on the west coast then taking a position there might be better than moving all the way to NY, as you will have more contacts in the region you plan on settling down in.
Focus on which office will give you the best experience, then from there...think about networking, then work/life balance (since you probably wont have much free time). Make the decision that will make your life easier in the future, not right now, unless you intend on leaving the industry after your stint.
Regards
I'm sure GS TMT in SF aren't complaining. Where else would you go for VC's? SF has better ratio of bankers to PE too.
Thanks for the advice everyone!
@ cphbravo96 I think all the BBs in LA have good deal flow. I personally have met bankers who work 100 hour weeks, so to me it looks like all the offices are pretty much the same. I don't know why there is the implicit assumption that New York bankers work more than others.
How can I, prior to joining, know which gives me the best opportunities? I finally want to settle in California without a doubt. Personally, I am considering private equity/ hedge fund after 2 years or associate position after MBA. I think LA banks have placements into megafunds in California, and you can pretty much get into top MBA schools after an analyst stint at almost any BB anywhere.
So I don't think going to NY would benefit me in the slightest. Is there anything faulty about that train of thought?
I'm certainly no authority on this, most of the advice I give is based on what I have read here on WSO and on what I have learned from friends in the finance industry.
Please note there is a difference between working a lot of hours and deal flow. All (or nearly all) investment bankers work long hours regardless of which coast or which firm or which industry group, etc. (so don't think one banker is likely better than another because they averaged 120 hour weeks vs another who averaged 100) however, not all bankers get access to good deal flow during their stints and that experience is what gives you credibility during future endeavors (b-school, another job, etc).
Your objective is to work on deals that get done. The best way to figure out where to work is to apply everywhere, get offers first and compare them to one another by checking out league tables and asking WSO members about their thoughts and perspectives on those offers.
Personally, I think going to NY could benefit you professionally, however, that doesn't mean not going to NY is going to harm you either.
Regards
There is very little banking on the west coast, but there are a lot of buyside firms especially in tech. This leads to generally good placement for analysts at reputable banks (even relative to nyc).
A major consideration should be where you see yourself long term, and what you happen to get. It can be difficult/require luck to get a good position on the west coast since each BB takes 5-10 analysts per year. If you don't get into a reputable place west coast, but a reputable place in nyc, you should take that and try to jump to the west coast after the analyst stint.
Would you say that making the jump from NYC to the west coast is relatively easy? Or would it be better to simply start off your career on the west coast? (given that you work for one of the top BB's)
From what I have seen, if you are at a top bank on the west coast, you will get into a reputable buy side firm on the west coast (assuming you are not horribly incompetent).
Some people from NYC do jump to the west coast, but the numbers aren't very high, so you would need a bit of luck and you would have to make a very long commute during work hours. Likewise, it is probably quite difficult to jump from west coast to nyc, so you have to think about where you want to be longer term.
I would guess that it's easier to go from NYC to the west coast than the other way around though.
Also, if you can get better deal flow from the NYC office / if you get a better group in NYC than in SF or LA, then it would probably be better to just stay in NYC I would assume?
The following was posted on an older thread and is accurate from what I have seen.
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/best-la-bank
"probably about 50 total analysts in LA, so about 25 second years. Of those 25 second years, below are where some of them are going next year...
2 to KKR 2 to TPG 1 to Silver Lake 2 to Ares 1 to Carlyle 2 to LGP"
Placement for SF top banks is likely even better. Megafund placement (almost entirely in nyc) for nyc GS analysts is probably around 20%. So I think that if you want to stay on west coast, west coast banking is likely your best bet.
. . start in NYC, then move back to WC. No place to know banking, other than NYC (or another financial center).
Thanks for the advice guys! A couple more questions:
1) How do I guesstimate the deal flow prior to joining? Needless to see inquiries will get biased responses from employees.
2) Is it easier to get into NYC BB than West Coast BB if you go to a good school i.e UCLA for undegrad in the West Coast? I always thought that for those on the West Coast it would be easier to get into BB in the West Coast than NYC. UCLA is a target for LA BBs, hence wouldn't it be easier?
I am aware that LA/SF has less analyst spots open, but the fact that West Coast Unis are not targets for NYC, and that there is a lot more competition in NYC, I would presume its easier to get into West Coast Banking.
Targeted schools on the WC from Cali:
Stanford Cal-Tech Berkeley UCLA USC Claremont McKenna *note that there are other schools targeted as well that are outside CA, such as BYU
Please note that UCLA is the 4th best school in California. It is still competitive for a bruin to get into a WC. But you are correct, NY BB do not recruit directly out of UCLA., so it would be easier to go to a LA/SF group.
And not all WC groups have good deal flow... your logic is not good. Lots of work hours =/ good deal flow.
Just talk with some analysts from the group and ask them deals that they're staffed on and time spent pitching-vs-execution.
Last thing you want to do is pitch and get owned.
SF is great for placement, only 5-10 analysts a year and probably half the ny buyside exits like PE and VC. Much better than 1000 analysts in nyc fighting for the spots.
Many of the LA spots are taken by students from Wharton, Ivey, and east coast schools.
Keep that in mind. Local students are at a disadvantage.
What about all the SF spots? I'm going to be working in the NYC office, so since I'd be internal, I would assume that it's a little easier for me to secure a spot there?
SF is a mix of berkeley, stanford, usc/ucla, and east coast.
Location Location Location (Originally Posted: 05/11/2014)
Boys & Girls,
as it is the key factor in real estate prices I am wondering how critical is location for your uprise? Just a naive thought: Working on the street is not the best idea financially. You either take ages to get to your workplace every day or end up passing your paycheck right into your apartment rental contract. So as for the discussion: Do you believe that working in another major city hinders your success and makes it less probable that you will get into senior roles? If you believe that it differs in different functional areas or companies, please feel free to state that out.
Note: I am not talking about other financial capitals like London. More like Chicago kind of cities.
interested as well
City Prestige (Originally Posted: 02/21/2008)
When it comes down to it, is NYC more prestigious to do banking, even if it's with a lower-tier firm? Say, Lehman/Goldman/Merrill SF vs. something like BoA IBD?
Would you rather start your career in SF or NYC if you were going into banking?
I'd join Goldman Moscow before BofA NYC.
bump
location is extremely important but brand name is more i would take goldman and lehman ibd in another location rather than BOA but id take BOA over Merill
but if it was between goldman chicago or lehman nyc i would go to nyc
lehman is so overrated simply because they occupy #4 or something on Vault... not better than Merrill imo
to answer your question, it honestly depends on how much you want to stay in NYC. i have a friend who does BoA ibd and some of their groups such as m&a are decent
Really depends on the group you're going into. Some people would opt to take UBS LA over UBS NY. Others might want to take CS LA/Houston over CS NY. Many people would love to take GS NY over any other Goldman location.
Generally speaking, its better to be in New York than not in NY. However, the group that you're in matters more than anything. I would even venture out to say that the group you're in matters moreso than the bank that you're at.
Lehman is so ridiculously overrated. people from my school who got offers at Lehman were rejected by all the other BBs. scrapping the bottom of the barrel really.
whats with the lehman trashing here just because you have friends who got rejected by other BBs with offers from LEH does not mean much. what are u guys looking at to determine that they are overrated?
i trust pe recruiters more when looking at which banks and groups are better and lehman is right up there behind BX, GS, ms, laz Citi and cs usually come after that in terms of exit opps
Prestige Of NYC (Originally Posted: 12/08/2012)
I'm wondering how your career can be affected by starting in NYC versus starting elsewhere in the country.
Say you are given an internship offer at the firm level and can choose your office. Will being in New York be a huge advantage for your career? (whether staying in banking or exiting) Additionally, is it plausible that a MM in NYC could be more prestigious than a BB elsewhere?
Pshhhhh...Cali for life.
But in all seriousness, there are considerably less finance opportunities in SF, LA, Seattle, Dallas, etc., but also considerably less competition. So take it as you will. I wouldn't stress the "prestige" of the location, go where you feel you would be happy and what aligns with your end goals. You can always transfer offices as well.
If you want to be in NY then go to NY. If you want to be in Chicago go to Chicago. New York offices/firms are generally larger and more well known around the country and will have stronger exit opps (both locally and in other cities) then working in another city. But the exit opps in Chicago will be strongest if you are working in Chicago, and same for other cities. Additionally, the other cities (for regional BB offices) tend to be focused on certain industries. For example Tech on West coast, Energy in Texas, Industrials/Manufacturing (sometimes not always) in Chicago. There is no real 'right answer' to your question.
delete
The work you do and the deals you are on will always be more important than the city...especially as an analyst or intern. Go where you will get the best experience. NYC is typically the best choice because that's generally where the best banks are and the most amount of opportunities reside.
You can be successful in any city, but your network will be more wrapped around that city, which might be less useful later in life.
The best answer is always going to be 'just depends'. It's truly impossible to give accurate advice when you are just comparing hypotheticals. If you have a few offers or a few firms to compare, then the folks here can be of much greater help. Also, most people on this forum live and breath NYC finance, so most people will tell you that NYC is the only place to be. Obviously that's not entirely true, but it's unlikely you will run into too many people that regret choosing NYC over a Houston/Charlotte/LA/SF, etc.
Regards
Prestige comes at a +50% tax rate bro. If you get a job in NYC fine, but don't think it makes you something special. We are in this business to make money and if that is somewhere outside of NYC who cares.
It depends on where the top groups are. I'd much rather go to CS LA than CS NY. But more often than not NYC will provide a better networking experience, and you honestly can't beat living in the city for 2 years.
Is it worth going to a tiny regional office for IB at a large MM bank in Charlotte over small boutiques in New York City?
what a better career move for someone who wants/plans to end up living in New York City?
I would take Jefferies/Baird/Sagent/LazardMM in Charlotte over a small no-name boutique in NYC hands down in a heartbeat. But that is because I want a good career trajectory in ib/pe/hf or high finance in general. I've seen TONS of people make the move from clt to nyc. I've also seen clt to sf/la, chicago, atl, and dc.
Charlotte isn't too far away from NYC anyway and a lot of times analysts/associates end up traveling to NYC for pitches and other client engagements. Lots of NYC guys also come down the clt as well for work related travel. I'm in charlotte and meet bankers/pegs traveling from nyc or fly over the nyc myself for work almost on a daily basis.
The general thought is you pick the firm with the better name, assuming you are going to get real work. That should be the case for any of the Charlotte offices of the bigger MM banks, but that is something you should definitely check into.
I agree with OMS that being in Charlotte isn't the end of the world and isn't a dead end, especially if you choose a decent firm. Your best bet is to go with the firm that will open the most doors. Not too many people are going to look at your resume and say, "Sweet this guy worked at Baird, he will be a good candidate...oh wait, it was in Charlotte, he must suck."
Also consider that being the smaller officer might expose you to more senior level stuff since the organization will likely be a bit more flat...for that particular office.
And lastly, Charlotte is a great city, especially for IB analysts. Yeah, if you are from NYC or think that's the only place you can live, then maybe you will be disappointed, but I haven't met too many people working in Charlotte that haven't enjoyed their time there...maybe that's causation vs correlation. For $1k-$1.5k a month, you can live just a few blocks from your office, which is great when you are working late. The entertainment options are limited relative to NYC, but so is your time to enjoy them. Again, for most it can't hold a light to a big city...Charlotte is much more of a very large town...but you have professional basketball and football, they are breaking ground on a new uptown minor league baseball field, people in the city tend to be pretty active with 5k runs for most of the holidays and adult sports leagues, etc. You can go boating on the weekend with just a short 30 minute drive and the mountains are close.
Regards
Wow that's good to know about Charlotte. Thank you for your advice.
OMS, I know it varies by bank and by group, would you say the hours are better in Charlotte? 70-80 vs. 100-130
hours may be slightly better. I know Wells, McColl Partners, Jefferies, Sagent, and BAML are pretty busy 80-90 hours a week. I know an analyst at Edgeview (which is a great firm btw, places 95% of their analyst in PE) and he almost never has to work past 12am, gets out around 8-10pm most days. Guaranteed placement into PE and working 60-70 hours a week? That's a pretty good fucking deal to me.
Honestly if anyone is telling you they work 100 hours a week anywhere they are lying. Average is about 70-80 hours a week anywhere, even NYC. Banking is chill and way less intense in Charlotte though, so your days will feel a lot lighter and less stressful than NYC. There are some days you will get out at 6-7pm and some days where you will still be in the office at 2am, but that's how banking is in general.
Hours will be a little better but not as good as 70-80.
NYC is in demand and expensive for good reason. Ultimately its personal choice, if you won't take advantage of the city (i.e. you like going to college football games not watching the Knicks) and use it to further your career (you prefer to get ahead by working hard not networking a lot) then no real reason to be here. But if you think you can, its an excellent opportunity.
Working in NYC allows you to say you've competed in the Hunger Games at whichever desk you land at in NYC. Meabric is right. If your not looking to aggressively further your career or would rather work harder than network you should work in another state. NYC is good to start out but once you have a good grasp of the business you can really work anywhere.
Working in NYC allows you to say you've competed in the Hunger Games at whichever desk you land at in NYC. Meabric is right. If your not looking to aggressively further your career or would rather work harder than network you should work in another state. NYC is good to start out but once you have a good grasp of the business you can really work anywhere.
Working in NYC allows you to say you've competed in the Hunger Games at whichever desk you land at in NYC. Meabric is right. If your not looking to aggressively further your career or would rather work harder than network you should work in another state. NYC is good to start out but once you have a good grasp of the business you can really work anywhere.
what's definitely true is that it's far easier to start out in NYC and move to other cities/countries afterwards than the other way around.
whether that's a function of prestige or the perceived superiority of NYC banking skills/experience, i don't know.
Banking in the middle of NOWHERE?? (Originally Posted: 07/05/2011)
Well not exactly...
What are all your thoughts on working in the M&A group of a top tier boutique (think Greenhill, Evercore, Lazard) in an office that is not in a major city, but rather in a suburb outside of Boston? Although a better position than I currently have, it would require relocation from NYC to said location.
Are positions at smaller offices discounted or does experience and firm name trump location?
you know how much money you could save? No brainer...IP will be sure to point this out
Qui dolor expedita unde est. Similique et at repudiandae et illum. Dolores voluptas ut possimus earum et minus nesciunt. Molestiae dolorem aliquam id sed sint temporibus voluptatem. Ipsam assumenda vel illo.
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...
Aut debitis praesentium sit enim at facilis quas sint. Quia architecto ipsum nesciunt consequatur occaecati non qui. Consectetur accusantium vel autem neque voluptas impedit vel. Et voluptas velit rem. Voluptatem quas commodi voluptates natus rerum.
Enim aliquam dolorum repellat officia. Ea officiis at voluptas accusamus.
Eaque quia neque maiores voluptates molestias amet. Quidem accusantium quidem corrupti. Itaque iure reprehenderit voluptatem voluptates magni autem.
Aut vitae et non sed. Aut vitae iure esse id aliquam. Nobis et voluptatem est blanditiis perspiciatis aut aut laboriosam. Modi neque aut minima magnam. Sapiente iure molestias atque aut.
Expedita nulla eum tenetur eius temporibus sit enim. Perferendis sit repudiandae aut qui a et vel magni. Expedita et quia est cumque dolore neque. Odio debitis distinctio consequatur consequatur minima et. Voluptatum omnis nisi reiciendis.
Ut accusantium et est possimus illo alias veniam. Sed illum molestiae odio asperiores maiores totam velit ducimus. Rerum repellat repellendus rerum. Nihil facilis pariatur ipsa minus. Magni enim error enim sunt repudiandae.
Omnis et fuga quis quis. In pariatur a ea numquam vero accusantium. Quia reiciendis qui tempora quasi quod consequatur et impedit. Facilis mollitia illum aliquid rerum officia asperiores.
Dolore asperiores quis aliquam numquam veniam id. Officiis natus id doloremque neque. Delectus voluptate enim ex. Inventore reiciendis ut ut autem autem. Accusamus esse est laboriosam debitis minus. Eum asperiores est amet in quis eligendi quia.
Ut id porro esse sit. Placeat nulla qui est delectus. Id dolorem consequatur quod praesentium. Pariatur aut aut optio modi asperiores expedita autem. Enim et placeat quod nostrum similique rerum delectus. Soluta non et quisquam enim qui.
Provident ratione magnam incidunt aut sunt. Sint sequi beatae odit aspernatur fugiat odio repudiandae reprehenderit. Aspernatur voluptatem quo laborum eius magnam.