What will you choose…1 or 2 1. Research analyst with an independent investment bank. The investment bank is new (2.5 years of existence) but very innovative and dynamic, has launched 6 funds (5 of them having returns 5-7% and outperforming the underlying index) and has been awarded recently for innovation. Also has devised its own indices, very good quality research reports and very aggressive. I banks are risky now a days, but the region has good regulations and there is no exposure to structured products. Mainly into advisory, fund raising, sales and trading and research. Headcount of the firm is around 200, so might be more responsibilities. 2. Research analyst with the research division of the investment arm of a bank conglomerate with 20% salary increment over the offer from investment bank. The bank is one of the biggest retail and commercial banks in the region, but the financial services vertical is not very dynamic and strong (as per the website and analyst reports), also they don’t have any specific company coverage but cover the market in general. Have 16 funds but not very strong. The bank is big and has large headcount, so might be lack of recognition. Please suggest, I am in a dilemma. I am inclined towards choice 1, because I always want to work with an investment bank which is more dynamic, challenging and innovative. Though 20% increment is a good amount, and am not able to judge the opportunity cost for accepting it. Any comments and suggestions will be highly appreciated.
I’d go for Harvard MBA…CFA charter is harder to get but won’t land you the job you want. although it will cost you $200,000 and 2 years it’s still worth it.
Are you sure, you intended to reply to this post? Your response is quite tangential…
I have to agree 100% with itstoohot! Harvard MBA can do wonders. CFA is just a lot of effort with no fruit at the end.
ok, got it. Thanks for your responses.
I dont get it. But in relation to your post no 1, sounds better to me. DOnt have time to list my reasons and opinions, but either way its a good dilemma to have mate
gauravku, what exactly does role #2 entail? That doesn’t sound like traditional sell-side. Are you just putting out reports to retail investors or something? Normally I’d say to go with the bigger bank, as cachet is always good for an entry level job. However, I’d like more details on #2. And for what it’s worth, there are a lot of firms that like to call themselves “innovative” and “entrepreneurial,” but based on my experiences working at investment banks that ranged from middle-market to bulge bracket, I’d say that those terms are all just lip service and clever advertising. There is very little that’s innovative about the research job, simply because you are trying to satisfy too many parties (e.g. clients, lawyers, compliance people, your own mental sanity, etc.). Having to deal with so many people per se prevents you from doing something truly entrepreneurial.
Do you want to work in a small firm and develop a bigger role in the future? Do you want to work for a big name company and move on to another job later in life?
For me personally brand always matters. I would be 2.
My vote is #2. Assuming you get credit for essentially the same job, I’d take firm name recognition and 20% salary increase. Doubtful you’ll remain at either company for more than 2 years.
Thanks a lot for all the insightful and sensible responses. My second post was a sarcastic comment to the first two responses as I the intention behind those responses (as I believe) was actually to discourage such oppion-based threads. I hope all of must be able to recall a thread on “harvard MBA” vs “CFA” and similar such posts. Anyways, I am happy to see other responses. Kkent - Though I have plans to go for MBA after 2-3 years (currently June 2009 level 3 candidate with 1.5 years of experience after undergrad), I plan to spend all the time in the firm I join now, also, I don’t have cash to support my MBA (from top 10 B schools) as I come from a middle class family in India and my current job was not paying me a fat salary (one reason can be that they had hired me just after undergraduation and I did not have much credentials then), so if a firm that can pay me well or support my MBA will be the place I want to be in. @numi - The position at both the firm is research analyst. Though when I asked the second firm about how many companies they cover, then he said that we cover the entire market in general. But certainly they are not putting out reports to retail investors, because they are big and have a number of big clients (UHNIs and corporates). Also, the 2nd bank has a division called research and advisory and the head of both the division is the same, and they do corporate finance work for their commercial bank as well (which might be a violation of china wall, though in #1 they have everything in place). Another point of interest is that the head of research of the I bank #1 was previously the head of research and advisory of bank #2, so what I eblieve there must had been reasons for him as well for moving. Also, I had contacted him to have an opinion and he said that its totally my decision and he doesn’t want to have liability in it, also, he said that he has worked with both the banks and that #2 is old and #1 is new and is performing well (with 4 awards in a year). The region for both the banks is middle east. Here is the link for two banks. I belive its ok to share. #1 - http://www.falcom.com.sa/index_en.htm #2 - http://www.alrajhibank.com.sa/arfs/Pages/default.aspx Please provide/revise your comments after this additional information. I don’t have much time to decide, may be 2-3 days. Please help. Thanks in advance.
@dinesh - I believe #1 also has recognition. It is been awarded four times in 2008. 1. Arabian Business Award - Best new investment bank 2. Best new investment bank (worldwide) - Global finance award 3. Best investment bank - World finance awards 4. Best new investment bank - EMEA award Also, it’s name has been included in the list of investment banks on wiki (its not a big deal) but the other bank doesn’t feature in the list of conglomerate banks. Its difficult for me to decide and am confused, may be am a bit biased towards #1, but then its based on facts. Though the valuations for #2 are very strong and most of the analysts covering the bank have provided buy recommendation.
Hey gauravku, I have sent an email to a person who might know the in’s and out of the firms above. Have CC’ied you too. Let’s hope she gets back and makes it easy for you to decide. But if she is not aware of the firms then AF is the best place to “debate” on the pros and cons
Thanks a lot Dinesh.