Okay…after reading some of the responses from my previous post I realized that I should have used a less hypothetical example - so here goes. You’ve worked hard over the past two years as a junior research analyst at a large asset management firm. You’ve done a good job at your current firm – so much so that they want you to sign a 2-year contract. At the same time, you feel like you’re being restricted from learning more; furthermore, you’ve made a ton of contacts who think you are talented (enough) and want to help you out. Path 1 You sign the contract. The pay is extremely good for someone with your experience, especially considering the current job market. However, you continue to have a limited role (i.e., you cover few names and aren’t learning a lot from the people around you). The job isn’t terrible, but you know you’ll be bored. Worse, you won’t learn anything new and will likely be hurting yourself from a long-term career perspective. Path 2 You reject the contract. Because of past networking, it is very likely that you will have a couple of interviews during the next few of months at prominent hedge funds where you’ll be doing exactly what you want to do. You will be learning a ton and never bored. Nothing is certain, however. The job market is terrible and those interviews may lead to nothing. Also, there is a small chance that your rejection doesn’t go over well with your boss and you get fired.
First of all, how did you become an analyst all of a sudden?? Secondly, it depends which “large asset management firm” you’re referring to. If it begins with an F and ends with a Y, you would be a flaming idiot to jump to a sh!t hedge fund like Paulson, Lone Pine, or Maverick.
Anyway you can delay sigining the contract until after your interviews? If you land a great job by all means take it. If you are pressured into signing and do so. . . Will you really be constrained to such a limited role? Couldn’t you accept under the condition that you need to be involved more and progressing professionally. If yes, I think I’d take the more “sure thing” of the 2-year contract w/ good relative pay and after the 2 years is up (which is not a long-time) test the market again.
Well, this seems less risky than the previous trader question, since the job market for research analysts seems more liquid than the job market for traders. (I might be wrong about this).
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > since the job market for research > analysts seems more liquid than the job market for > traders. (I might be wrong about this). You are right.