Hey guys,
I'm an senior undergrad and would really appreciate some opinions/advice. Recruiting season for the I-banks is starting on campus, and everyone is clamoring for the coveted corporate finance jobs. I'm one of the few non-business/econ majors applying and I don't even know a lot of the guys, but after talking to people at mixers and stuff this is what 90% of my peers hope to do:
1. 2 year stint in IB to get it on their resume and gain skills
2. Move to PE, VC, or Hedge Fund for a better lifestyle, still good money, and perhaps a bit more friendly atmosphere
I have no doubt that things will not work out this way for most of them/us because as I understand it you have to be very good to move to PE and the like. Ignoring that, though, it seems like the only reason people (myself included) want to do banking (save the 10% that think they are going to become MDs) is because it sets them up to move to the buy side.
Given this, I'm considering hitting the buy-side firms hard to try to get hired straight out of undergrad as a Research Associate. My ideal job has always been working at a Mutual Fund or as a Research Analyst. However, I'm 21 years old and recognize that it's quite possible that 5 years from now I will want to do something completely different: working in industry, IB, etc...
So my question is as follows: The reason kids my age do IB is because it sets them up for lots of exit opps: buy side, moving up the ranks in the investment bank, entering industry in a management position, wealth management, etc. Are the opportunities comparable for a Research Associate on the buy side if he/she decides to move on, or is he pretty much confined to Investment Management? Should I focus on IB if I'm not 100% sure I want to stay on the buy side for the rest of my career, or will I have the same opps as a Research Associate? Also, how about opportunities to move from a Mutual Fund to Hedge Fund or VC - do they exist? The RA position would be at a firm like Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.
Thanks very much.
Luke
I'm an senior undergrad and would really appreciate some opinions/advice. Recruiting season for the I-banks is starting on campus, and everyone is clamoring for the coveted corporate finance jobs. I'm one of the few non-business/econ majors applying and I don't even know a lot of the guys, but after talking to people at mixers and stuff this is what 90% of my peers hope to do:
1. 2 year stint in IB to get it on their resume and gain skills
2. Move to PE, VC, or Hedge Fund for a better lifestyle, still good money, and perhaps a bit more friendly atmosphere
I have no doubt that things will not work out this way for most of them/us because as I understand it you have to be very good to move to PE and the like. Ignoring that, though, it seems like the only reason people (myself included) want to do banking (save the 10% that think they are going to become MDs) is because it sets them up to move to the buy side.
Given this, I'm considering hitting the buy-side firms hard to try to get hired straight out of undergrad as a Research Associate. My ideal job has always been working at a Mutual Fund or as a Research Analyst. However, I'm 21 years old and recognize that it's quite possible that 5 years from now I will want to do something completely different: working in industry, IB, etc...
So my question is as follows: The reason kids my age do IB is because it sets them up for lots of exit opps: buy side, moving up the ranks in the investment bank, entering industry in a management position, wealth management, etc. Are the opportunities comparable for a Research Associate on the buy side if he/she decides to move on, or is he pretty much confined to Investment Management? Should I focus on IB if I'm not 100% sure I want to stay on the buy side for the rest of my career, or will I have the same opps as a Research Associate? Also, how about opportunities to move from a Mutual Fund to Hedge Fund or VC - do they exist? The RA position would be at a firm like Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.
Thanks very much.
Luke