I've secured an S&T role at a BB in NYC, but when I was applying last year, I was flirting with the prospect of living in London - I grew up there and it's my favorite city in the world. I was able to get this position in NYC by heavily using my alumni network (The University of Chicago), and ended up securing the role. There were two primary reasons why I didn't want to work in London - I heard from a lot of people that the comp was much lower because UK comp is generalized to be lower than that of the U.S., they're the most generous with bonuses in NYC especially considering that's where HQ is, Brexit might've had an impact on the headcount, and Wallstreet is competing with Silicon Valley for the best talent. Tied with that was me thinking that the living cost of London was much higher, as well as the taxes, but after some research, I find that, and a lot of the other reasons to be in NYC over London not to be true.
I'd appreciate it if anyone can offer input on whether they frown upon or like the fact that someone interned in the U.S. for UK recruiting (as compared to getting a job in the States), whether The University of Chicago is a big enough name for the U.K. (because I know a lot of people there who haven't even heard of it), and whether the differences between NYC and London (with the comp + taxes + living cost) is true, as well as your opinions on London vs NYC for job growth in S&T, and the overall lifestyle.
Investment Banking Interview Course
- 7,548 questions across 469 investment banks. Crowdsourced from over 500,000 members.
- Technical, behavioral, networking, case videos, templates. All included.
- Most comprehensive IB interview course in the world.