Why all the Career Banker Hate?

As I understand, most people use banking as a stepping stone to either business school or private equity. Meanwhile, banking at the senior levels at a BB pays quite handsomely with MDs & senior VPs doing very well. MDs work less "office hours", so the physical load is not as strenuous, and their job is more sales based. In PE, the work is no less demanding / taxing, as you must source and execute investments successfully. This also requires tremendous effort, skill, and a good bit of luck. And in order to earn carry, one must put in as much "career time" as one would to become an MD.

Obviously senior PE executives make more money. Is the anti-banker bias on WSO simply a fiscal one? PE 5mm > IB 2mm? To me, it seems rather sophomoric.

There is a much higher probability of "crash and burn" on the buyside if you are not a successful investor, while career bankers are relatively secure and have transferable skills.

Can someone explain this peculiarity, or can I just discount the bias as a byproduct of delusional college kids having no idea about the real world? Discuss.

Hi Anonymous Monkey, upload your resume and land a job

Members that upload a resume get 2.3x the number of interview invites through the Talent Oasis. Learn more.

Comments (76)

Feb 12, 2015

Career bankers may not visit WSO as often as people looking for exit opportunities on first day.

I'm not serious

Learn More

7,548 questions across 469 investment banks. The WSO Investment Banking Interview Prep Course has everything you'll ever need to start your career on Wall Street. Technical, Behavioral and Networking Courses + 2 Bonus Modules. Learn more.

Feb 12, 2015

Funny.
Finish up your first year as a FT analyst then revisit the topic. You'll see very quickly where the hate is coming from.

    • 1
Feb 12, 2015
Whiskey5:

Finish up your first year as a FT analyst then revisit the topic. You'll see very quickly where the hate is coming from.

Seeing too many BSDs in the office shrivel into little midget dicks in front of clients?

Feb 12, 2015
SSits:
Whiskey5:

Finish up your first year as a FT analyst then revisit the topic. You'll see very quickly where the hate is coming from.

Seeing too many BSDs in the office shrivel into little midget dicks in front of clients?

Spot on

    • 1
Feb 14, 2015
Whiskey5:

Funny.

Finish up your first year as a FT analyst then revisit the topic. You'll see very quickly where the hate is coming from.

Enjoy the next sick round of diligence you do only to have a Managing Partner torpedo the 'investment'.

Feb 12, 2015

Obviously senior PE executives make more money. Is the anti-banker bias on WSO simply a fiscal one? PE 5mm > IB 2mm? To me, it seems rather sophmoric.

Just like your arbitrary numbers here ...

Feb 12, 2015

Most IB bankers at the director level (ie career bankers) make their money more off deal flow, less of the quality of the deal for the person funding it.

The resulting incentive effect makes them - consciously or subconsciously - more salesman like, more cheerleading for the deal to close. Then they can collect their fee and move to the next deal. After all, they have budgets to make and near term bonuses to maximise.

What will a banker do if he's been working 3 months on a deal that will deliver $10-20m of fees (which may be 25 - 100% of the banker's annual budget) and he discovers a deal killing issue at the 11th hour? In many cases, he'll downplay the issue, sometimes creatively (eg finding a real solution), sometimes deceptively (eg sweeping it under the carpet).

This incentive effect can be mitigated to some degree by incentives to play long term greedy (eg maintaining good reputation), but usually the short term incentives dominate heavily.

What makes it more frustrating is that the incentive effect usually seems to operate at a subconscious level. That is, often the directors are salesmen who believe their own bullshit.

    • 3
Feb 12, 2015

You can see the short term focus in how banks work as well. In downturns, I've seen investment banks drop entire teams because there is a need to cut costs at a headline level and the cut teams' near term profits aren't strong enough.

This occurs even when it's clear to everyone that the cut teams would add value later in the business cycle. IBs commonly take the view that they can hire a replacement team at a later time, rather than keeping a low performing team through the cycle. The market for talent is pretty liquid and an IB can let some other bank keep an out-of-cycle team on its books for a few years, then make an attractive sign on offer for the team's directors to come across when the market for their services picks up.

Bankers are well aware of management's short term focus and this reinforces their desperation to hit near term revenue goals. This reinforces bankers' incentives to cheerlead a client to financial close regardless of the quality of a deal. The desperation is more acute the more out-of-cycle the director's business is.

Feb 12, 2015

i love finding pictures for these threads

WSO's COO (Chief Operating Orangutan) | My Linkedin

    • 2
Feb 12, 2015

HE HATE ME! love it.

Feb 12, 2015

this post reads like a Northsider original

Best Response
Feb 12, 2015

Nothing wrong with being a career banker. I almost went that route (i.e., was a VP at a BB) and love banking work. Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy having clients, seeing deals through, and getting paid a pretty penny to do it.

It's important to note a few things. Not many high performing analysts possess the skill-set to succeed as a senior banker. Your responsibilities change meaningfully once you get to the VP/Director level. Gone are the days at plugging in and updating decks and models. You now need to manage transactions, source business, and keep the junior bankers in check. There's a huge difference between these skills. Also, many kids see banking as a stepping stone and nothing will get them to stay. They are chasing a shadow (i.e., some vague image of prestige) and will find themselves chasing their tails at the mid-senior levels of their careers. Reality is a bitch in that regard.

Not everyone who gets into banking out of undergrad has the interest or skill-set to do well with a different mandate (i.e., less analytical and doing what you're told to do). I have had some great analysts (technical skills) who went on to the buy-side, which was a better fit long-term for their careers. It's hard to progress beyond the associate level with technical skills alone, whereas you can become a PM at a fund if you have great technical and domain expertise.

There's a reason why there is such a high fallout rate among junior bankers. The lifestyle blows for the first 5-10 years and it takes a very unique skill-set to succeed as a senior banker... just as it takes a very unique skill-set to succeed as a key decision maker on the buy side. Very few people have what it takes to progress on either side. Accept this. It's the absolute truth.

Be open minded. Do what you enjoy. Don't be afraid to travel a path that others feel is unorthodox. This path is often times the best path for both career and general happiness.

    • 12
Feb 12, 2015

1. PE is a much tougher game than most here anticipate it to be (try fundraising if your TR isn't great or you don't have a brand...) - after all you need money clip fees and then invest it so you can try to make carry, right? Plus carry is back-ended so it takes you a while to get that money (hopefully you've invested in the fund that you're running and/or in specific deals to get the capital gains)... People need to realise that there are lots of podunk, not so good pe funds out there and so that it's not the be all and end all. Plus, the big shops/good shops? Moving up aint going to be easy (there are threads about this) because it's an established game and if the fund size is big enough, people are making millions just on management fees (life is good).

Ok so number one was a bit of a tangent. More specifically.

2. Banking as a career. Some have made the point about relying on clients, sweeping issues under the rug, cyclicatlity, blah blah blah. All true. Kudos. I think what people have neglected to mention and often do not talk about on this board (since it is geared to the junior end) is POLITICS.

Banks are large organizations are inherently political and often a true minefield to navigate. See all those guys at the top of the banks (Dimon, Lloyd etc, not to mention their liutenants and the Senior MDs)? All of those guys had to dodge mines, pick sides, backstab (or be part of a backstabbing crew) etc in addition to trying to bring home the bacon by closing deals, selling product, lending money, or trading stuff. This is like a full time job. Who do you suck up to? Who do you help out? Who do you backstab or not help? When do you shut up? Remember that this is all in addition to your day job (which is not a 9-5 and has its own pressures).

This stuff is tiring/draining/morale sapping and plenty of people hate that as well. Of course if you are happy to be a VP/Director/middle management and not gunning for anyone's seat, you may be ok as long as markets don't tank and/or people like you...

Whereas in PE, once you are there, you've got fee income. The capital is locked up and if you do well you can make a TON of money that's in your control (ie. you invested it etc), whereas pay is bank determined (your unit might do great but if the bank as a crappy year...). I'm over-simplifying a bit but hopefully you get the drift.

A bit of a ramble, but younger folks would do well to at least be aware of the enormous role of politics at any of these big organizations. It's one of the reasons people aren't thrilled about being career bankers etc, in addition to a million other things.

    • 4
Feb 13, 2015

@devoutCapitalist - great points. I suffered through the career inflection point where you go from being praised for great execution in one performance review to being hassled for not bringing new business the next year. I clung on for a few more bonus cycles than normal, then jumped out of front office.

I often wonder if some of the gender discrimination cases brought against IBs in banking may be more about this standard struggle, less about gender discrimination (eg "Leading female banker suddenly told she is underperforming", "Top client accounts transferred to male bankers [maybe just transferred to better relationship people?]"). However, there's so much gender discrimination in the world, this the ability of women bankers to bring these actions where I can't doesn't make my top 1000 injustices requiring correction.

@Jamoldo - great point re: politics. I'll get self-referential to a post I put up early last year which tangentially touches on this topic: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/why-do-ib-di...

    • 1
Feb 15, 2015
SSits:

@devoutCapitalist - great points. I suffered through the career inflection point where you go from being praised for great execution in one performance review to being hassled for not bringing new business the next year. I clung on for a few more bonus cycles than normal, then jumped out of front office.

I often wonder if some of the gender discrimination cases brought against IBs in banking may be more about this standard struggle, less about gender discrimination (eg "Leading female banker suddenly told she is underperforming", "Top client accounts transferred to male bankers [maybe just transferred to better relationship people?]"). However, there's so much gender discrimination in the world, this the ability of women bankers to bring these actions where I can't doesn't make my top 1000 injustices requiring correction.

@Jamoldo - great point re: politics. I'll get self-referential to a post I put up early last year which tangentially touches on this topic: //www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/why-do-ib-di...

@"SSits" - I just went and read the link. It's a timeless one that should be required reading for anyone on this board...

Feb 13, 2015

SSits, where did you transition to from your FO position if you don't mind me asking.

Feb 13, 2015

Look at his tag. It's literally in front of your eyes. And he is a verified WSO poster.

Feb 13, 2015

just curious: how does one move straight up in one institution, as in what do you have to do so well that warrants such promotion? What activities, skills must constantly be better than others? How often does this happen for people who really want it? Is it at all meritocratic, or is it really about knowing the right people?

    • 1
Feb 13, 2015
JohnBrohan:

just curious: how does one move straight up in one institution, as in what do you have to do so well that warrants such promotion? What activities, skills must constantly be better than others? How often does this happen for people who really want it? Is it at all meritocratic, or is it really about knowing the right people?

Do you really think there is a "one answer fits all" response to this question, or do you think that it might literally change from employee to employee, boss to boss, industry to industry, and company to company?

    • 2
Feb 13, 2015
CRE:
JohnBrohan:

just curious: how does one move straight up in one institution, as in what do you have to do so well that warrants such promotion? What activities, skills must constantly be better than others? How often does this happen for people who really want it? Is it at all meritocratic, or is it really about knowing the right people?

Do you really think there is a "one answer fits all" response to this question, or do you think that it might literally change from employee to employee, boss to boss, industry to industry, and company to company?

I meant in the investment banking division.

Feb 13, 2015
JohnBrohan:
CRE:
JohnBrohan:

just curious: how does one move straight up in one institution, as in what do you have to do so well that warrants such promotion? What activities, skills must constantly be better than others? How often does this happen for people who really want it? Is it at all meritocratic, or is it really about knowing the right people?

Do you really think there is a "one answer fits all" response to this question, or do you think that it might literally change from employee to employee, boss to boss, industry to industry, and company to company?

I meant in the investment banking division.

Still a shit-ton of variables

Feb 13, 2015
CRE:
JohnBrohan:
CRE:
JohnBrohan:

just curious: how does one move straight up in one institution, as in what do you have to do so well that warrants such promotion? What activities, skills must constantly be better than others? How often does this happen for people who really want it? Is it at all meritocratic, or is it really about knowing the right people?

Do you really think there is a "one answer fits all" response to this question, or do you think that it might literally change from employee to employee, boss to boss, industry to industry, and company to company?

I meant in the investment banking division.

Still a shit-ton of variables

well for a lawyer, its billable hours, for a doctor its admits and/or referrals, and while those may have some office politics involved, what is it for investment banking division analysts and associates?? Its a question worth having at least a stated answer to. How is performance measured? After all, we mostly are interested in IBD, right? Or is this all really just a casino?

    • 1
Feb 13, 2015
JohnBrohan:

well for a lawyer, its billable hours, for a doctor its admits and/or referrals, and while those may have some office politics involved, what is it for investment banking division analysts and associates?? Its a question worth having at least a stated answer to. How is performance measured? After all, we mostly are interested in IBD, right? Or is this all really just a casino?

Performance is measured in many ways and differs from one institution to the next. Here are some variables at the more junior levels (i.e., promotion to associate):

- likability (this can be political)
- other people on the team and groups respect you
- worth ethic & attitude
- quality of work
- clear they possess a genuine interest in staying in banking
- can this person become a more independent contributor on pitches/deal teams/etc.
- communication skills / ability to interact with clients

You don't have clients, so you are judged in a more subjective manner and on how your current development might carry over to the next level.

We can discuss Associate --> VP and VP --- Director as well if you want to... but you don't get to point to concrete data points until you have a book of business and you can point to what you brought in. Moreover, clients' perception of you will play a large role in the more senior promotions (e.g., to MD). Eat what you kill at the senior level.

In a nutshell, promotions on the street - especially on the banking side - can be incredibly political and subjective. I have seen plenty of promotions that didn't sit well with other people. You will see them too. No shortage of "wtf dirt does (s)he have" moments if you hang around long enough.

But, it's important to note that your revenues can't be viewed in isolation. Often times deals - depending on your product/coverage space - are sourced using the balance sheet (i.e., deal wouldn't have happened had the bank not committed capital).

    • 3
Learn More

7,548 questions across 469 investment banks. The WSO Investment Banking Interview Prep Course has everything you'll ever need to start your career on Wall Street. Technical, Behavioral and Networking Courses + 2 Bonus Modules. Learn more.

Feb 14, 2015

A lot of people simply don't know about the functions provided by the industry to the rest of the market. Hence the reasons I think they criticise/hate this industry are (in order):
1. Ignorance
2. Ruing the fact that they couldn't get into this industry themselves because of ignorance above about the industry or not having the skillsets to get in this industry.
3. Envy
4. Some recent stories of dishonest practices by some industry players.

This question is almost a troll.

    • 1
Feb 14, 2015

Meh. I left banking because I saw how MDs in my team were still subject to the beck and call of clients, working past midnight and working on weekends when a big deal was on. It'd be alright if the work was inspiring, but M&A process simply isn't. I couldn't stand the idea of having to do that when I was in my forties, so, might as well back yourself to succeed on the buyside. In any case, once you make the jump, you can always go back to the sellside if things don't work out, so, why not?

Feb 15, 2015

can't tell if humour or failed all buyside interviews

The way Ah see it, is that it took a revolution f a bihllion people for your darn short to work out!

Feb 15, 2015

Believe it or not, there is a world outside of the office. And no, not everybody wants to work for TPG.

Feb 15, 2015

This concept is obviously something everyone who considers entering the field has to wrestle with and ultimately reconcile to their perceptions of what truly comprises leading an edifying existence in the short time we have.

For some, wasting the duration of your 20's, the "golden years" of your life, trapped behind a desk on Saturday nights agonizing over some comps while your friends are out havinging a ball, bonding through defining experiences they will remember for the rest of their lives, might just not add up at the end of the day.

My best friend's older brother was a Wharton undergrad, HBS MBA educated, 28 year old VP at Lehman, when he decided that being able to be with his wife and family, to raise his children, to coach his son's t-ball team, the value of these experiences and relationships were ultimately something that transcended any number his bank account could ever reflect, so he left IB and says it was the best decision he's ever made.

It's ultimately a matter of reconciling what opportunities you have and what means the most to you. Look around at kids in your classes; many aren't very personable,they don't have many friends, don't go out on weekends, no girl-friend, probably haven't been laid in years (or ever!), etc. so spedning New Year's Eve locked up in an office vs. watching a re-run of Battle Star Galactica by themselves in their apartment isn't that much of a sacrifice. For others, it certainly is.

    • 3
Feb 15, 2015

I agree with both of the above statements. It is all about finding a balance, and I agree that banking is definitely not balance conducive. But the crux of my real post is "are a lot of the coveted alternatives". Do you really work a lot less at KKR, TPG etc? I know you work less at HF's but not at PE, where most people want to move to. In fact, many of the successful people I know still work a lot, even on weekends, yet have managed to successfully raise children, families etc. One of professors was an economist for BB and later had his own company and he told us how they did a lot of work over the weekend in preparation for Monday's markets.

So, what I am asking is this. If most banking alternatives are equally, or insignificantly less time-consuming than banking, why do so few people want to choose banking?

This is not a life vs. career thread. It is a why one time-consuming career over the other?

Feb 15, 2015
Salam Shpekov:

This is not a life vs. career thread. It is a why one time-consuming career over the other?

Oh that one's easy: because of the upside (astronomical earning potential) and the more interesting work (in IB you are constantly selling).

Feb 15, 2015

The former head of investment banking and COO of Lehman Brothers retired in his 40s to pursue family life and charitable causes.

It shows even those that reach the top, understand that there is life beyond the office....and it's definetely true, there is.

Look at Hank Paulson now working for the government as the Treasury Secretary.

Feb 15, 2015

Hank Paulson is not a good example. You would be a complete fool not to make the jump from CEO of GS to Treasury Secretary.

Feb 15, 2015

I guess, but then the COO and global head of investment banking at Lehman shows that even those that reach the top realize life outside of work is extremely important.

Feb 15, 2015
Roller4Life:

I guess, but then the COO and global head of investment banking at Lehman shows that even those that reach the top realize life outside of work is extremely important.

For every one person you can point to that quit their job after "reaching the top", there are 100s more that keep at it because they enjoy the work they do, and don't want to give it up. Do you really think Henry Kravis, or Stan O'Neill or any of those guys are still in it purely for the money?

    • 1
Feb 15, 2015

I agree. Once you have a couple of mil. in a bank account, another mil. in a reteriment account, a house, and a copule of cars, you don't stay in it for the money. You stay in it because you love your job and you are too young to retire

Feb 15, 2015

PE sounds sexy until you make your first fundraising trip to Little Rock, Arkansas, to kiss the ring of the head of the investment committee of the IBEW Local 169 pension fund. The North Dakota Retirement and Investment Board runs $10B, and you better believe you're gonna be making a trip to Bismarck when they say so.

Feb 15, 2015

That would sound bad to someone who thinks CalPERS is going to come throw 100m at them as soon as they drop the PPM off. Personally a cross country fund raise sounds fun to me

Feb 15, 2015

Perhaps it does, but if you actually go through and still have the same thought, well you'd be in the minority of people I've spoken with. I'm not saying PE is bad, but to the person posting about client service - you think PE firms don't have clients? Once you get the money from CalPERS, the client service part is just getting started. And as I noted above, you take union pension money, that's its own separate animal entirely. Again, different strokes, but PE isn't all waving your BSD in front of stupid bankers.

Feb 15, 2015

Being in client services gets tiring, tedious and old. And it's not all about the megafunds either. Senior people at good MM funds are making millions and millions off their carry and are able to enjoy their lives.

Feb 15, 2015

Banking's appeal is much larger than banking itself.

Feb 15, 2015

Well the 100 hr work week for two years usually crushes your social life, sleeping pattern, and soul. So majority of people want to get out of it and live a normal 40-60 hour work week in the buyside of the business and have a balanced life.

Feb 15, 2015

but aren't hours at top pe shops similar to BBs.

Feb 15, 2015
risingsun:

but aren't hours at top pe shops similar to BBs.

yes, but not a lot of people go to top PE shops.

Feb 15, 2015

...majority of people want to get out of it and live a normal 40-60 hour work week in the buyside of the business and have a balanced life.

Unless you're talking admin jobs, 40 hour work weeks don't exist on the buyside.

Feb 15, 2015

Wingman, how many hours do you work at your HF?

Is this average among most HF jobs?

Feb 15, 2015
streetluck:

Wingman, how many hours do you work at your HF?

Is this average among most HF jobs?

Depends. Most funds have no hard deadlines or schedules so you have a lot of control in your hours. Hours can really fluctuate based on investment strategy and market environment. With that in mind, you should expect 12 hour days. I put in about 15-17 hours, but I enjoy my work.

Keep in mind that if you work at a good shop, you'll be surrounded by people who love what they do and put in a lot of hours. It's not a job for these people.

Feb 15, 2015

I m not ruling it out as a possibility, but all I have been is a summer analyst, so I don't know. I think that it is definitely something I would be interested in, but things change

Feb 15, 2015

Wingman, do you mind describing what kind of HF it is ?

Feb 15, 2015
Seanc:

Wingman, do you mind describing what kind of HF it is ?

It's an event-driven value fund that manages a few billion dollars.

Feb 15, 2015

You can go directly from KPMG to a BB IB analyst level position since its Big 4 Accounting

Feb 15, 2015

Up and out just refers to the structured progression in a banking career ie. 2/3 years as analyst > 3.5 years associate > 3 years as vp > 2/3+ years as director then MD. Generally speaking this means that you cant stay as an analyst or associate role for 5 years or something. You either move up and are ready for the next level or you have to leave/are laid off to make room for the classes below you. There is a constant influx of new MBA/undergrad hires in banking, and everyone is gunning for that bonus or promotion etc. That being said when certain groups or banks get crowded at the top, you'll start seeing vps or directors doing an extra fourth or fifth year before being promoted (if ever). MDs stay MDs for as long as they can bring in fees, if they don't produce then they get let go.

I think a big five Canadian bank MD can be a stable good gig if that's your long term goal, although you cant really predict if you would make a good MD until youre in that role and are asked to generate business.. It's a tough transition to go from a execution guy (VP/Junior director and below) to salesman (directors/MDs). The main downside to a long term career IMO at a Canadian bank is that it isn't quite New York bulge bracket banking. You'll never have quite the same upside comp in good years, or prestige or marquee transactions on your deal sheet. It can be a comfortable lifestyle though without some of the negatives like massive layoff periods or amped up stress that are common in NY.

.

Feb 15, 2015

Firstly, just focus on getting a return offer first. Thinking ahead isn't bad but you should focus on these intermediate steps first.

Second, nobody really cares about your educational background once you start. As a banker, your deal experience (i.e. what you've done, what deals you've closed) are the most important. If you do get an A2A promotion, going for it trumps the MBA route purely for building a career in IB.

Sure, the MBA route may help you build a network and pedigree, but so does working for 2 years -- you build relationships with your clients (sponsors, corporates) and other banks you work alongside a deal.

    • 4
Feb 15, 2015

But, but, but...HBS...:(

Feb 15, 2015

What do ppl do who dont get A2A?

Feb 15, 2015

"I don't need the prestige of a buyside to mask my insecurities, but rather that of an elite MBA." Maybe you should just experience IB this summer to decide if you like it or not and go from there.

Feb 15, 2015

Plenty of people are career bankers. Less are career investment bankers. I suggest you start and then decide. Banking is transactional and relationship based. There is also a skill set switch that many people cannot make. A lot of people get tired of the dog and pony show and want to make the investment decisions (which can bring significantly more compensation). That being said, not everyone is interested in analyzing SKU level data and macro economic impacts of a number of MM industries and companies.

Realize this. A good foundation in IB can transfer to any number of product groups within a bank or other related careers. Once you start working you will realize that the "path" commonly talked about on this site isn't the only way to succeed and that there are many more routes in and out.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 2
Feb 15, 2015

How common is the A2A promotion?

Is it something that is almost guaranteed as long as you don't suck?

Feb 15, 2015

PWP really focuses on keeping their analysts and is a great firm for getting into HBS as well. Moelis and Lazard both offer associate opportunities to analysts and do promotions after two years. Greenhill has fewer associate promotions. Blackstone didn't really do promotions and it remains to be seen if PJT will change that. Don't know much about Evercore.

I wouldn't say BBs are all about the 2 and out. From firsthand experience, I know GS tries very hard to make analysts stay on as associates. Believe JPM has also been trying the same recently. If anything, I would argue that boutiques are more so the 2 and out system. Do think that boutiques are better for being a career banker when you're starting out because of the faster promotions (2 years vs 3 years at BBs) but have heard that it's better to jump to a BB after hitting VP for better client relationship building opportunities.

Feb 15, 2015

Evercore - heard that it's alright for A to A promotions. Not sure if that applies for non-NY offices.

Feb 15, 2015

Interesting post actually,
Is it easier to get Mandates while being a VP at MS vs Being VP at a boutique ?

Feb 15, 2015
dick_fluid:

Interesting post actually,Is it easier to get Mandates while being a VP at MS vs Being VP at a boutique ?

If you do a search for threads relating to MBAs choosing between BBs and EBs, you will see that this has been discussed many times. The consensus tends to be that EBs are a better choice for analysts because of the lean deal teams, greater responsibility, etc., but at the associate and above level, BBs are a better choice because of the resources they provide.

    • 1
Feb 15, 2015

Solid 2nd year GS analyst = 1st year solid associate at any other bank.

The HBS guys have MAD SWAGGER. They frequently wear their class jackets to boston bars, strutting and acting like they own the joint. They just ooze success, confidence, swagger, basically attributes of alpha males.

    • 3
Feb 15, 2015

LOL trolling at its finest.

Actually no, the correct statement = "Solid 2nd year analyst at bank j = 1st year "average" associate at bank i, for i,j from 1 to n"

Feb 15, 2015

GS tries very hard to keep people from recruiting/retain top analysts, but I'm not sure how successful they actually are in doing so.

Feb 15, 2015

Depends entirely on the group. A surprising number of FIG analysts take them (GS FIG has stellar PE placement too) while pretty much everyone in CRHG peaces

    • 1
Feb 15, 2015

I'm a bit out of the loop on IB these days, but I recall reading something about GS doing away with the contract based approach, so IB analysts are now (or are going to be) considered true full-time hires. I want to say it was either a Forbes or WSJ article and the backdrop was on GS (and other BBs) being annoyed with their best people being trained via the program only to leave for PE. And then secondly, how a lot of top talent are now being lured away by Google and Silicon Valley.

So if that's the case, I'd imagine all the banks are trying to do a better job retaining (promoting) good talent. But whether it has been a meaningful change, that I'm not sure.

Feb 15, 2015
Feb 15, 2015
Feb 15, 2015
Feb 15, 2015