Comp in top HFs vs top BBs
Hi,
I'm looking at an offer in rates trading at a top BB (think GS/MS) and a junior distressed debt trading offer from a top HF (think Citadel, DE Shaw, Fortress). Both positions are Associate-level and based in London.
Since I cannot figure out where I want to go based on the people/culture/job content (great at both places), I think I'm going to make my decision based simply on comp. Where should I expect to make more money down the road? I hear that HF's generally offer significantly better comp prospects, but was surprised to find that my first-year comp offer at the HF is actually less than at the BB.
Would appreciate your thoughts.
Can't offer you any advice here, but congrats on the very enviable offers. The most I can say, comp-wise, is that the HFs will probably pay you more for at least the first few years.
However, you do say that you can't decide where to go based on culture -- but I know people who worked at Shaw and people who worked at other banks and HFs, and Shaw's culture is just completely amazing (hours are more or less 8-5, bosses are very accommodating, work is relatively laid-back -- one trader tells me on slow days he'd put his feet up on his desk and watch Office reruns).
Certainly a much better culture than Citadel's, which is a very cutthroat place. Dunno about Fortress though.
If you're assuming that Shaw, Fortress and Citadel are equally desirable, you'd get some strong opinions against this from industry folks.
So it's indeed shaw I'm looking at. I know the culture is amazing, but same is true (to an extent) for the BB trading desk I'm looking at.
Brisbane: so are you saying that after a few years banks pay more than hf's? If anything, I had expected the exact opposite.
No, I'm saying that the extent of my knowledge about pay doesn't go further than the first few years.
Thx - anyone knows how comp evolves after the 1st few years?
One thing I'd consider is the exact nature of the role at Shaw. That fund is known to be a fairly model-driven shop, and that being said, many of their traders may be execution traders (making their trades according to the models) rather than discretionary traders.
Hopefully they've clarified what kind of trading you'd be doing. If this distinction between these two job functions matters to you, it should definitely play into your decision.
distressed debt trading sounds a hell of a lot more interesting to me than making markets in rates
I actually really like rates as an asset class, and i also consider myself more of a macro than a micro guy.
Rickets: thx, that's a good point. This one fortunately is a real trading position involving judgment and instinct rather than pure model-following (it's part of their qualitative strategies).
if the BB jobs aren't prop.
Comp will be less at MS/GS, but you'll develop more contacts, and see how the other half works.
True, but how valuable do you think these contacts really are? I mean, it's nice and fun to have a network in the finance community, but what sort of opportunities would it ultimately open up? Prolly going to the buy-side, right? So I guess I might as well do that right away. Or are there other advantages of the broader network I'd develop on the sell-side?
dont you mean start on the buy side. and unless you work at a BB for awhile, no way are you going to be trading prop for them.
Why does everyone on this board assume you have to trade flow first to make it to a prop desk at a sell-side firm? My bank, and at least a few others hire analysts to credit, rates, stat arb, securitized products, etc. proprietary trading desks through the rotational program. Additionally, this is not always as sexy as it seems since you are much more likely to be someone's lackee on these desk, than a flow desk. On a flow desk, the senior trader, WILL be on vacation, and some day you will have to be making prices. They have an incentive to teach you everything so you do not lose them money while they are gone. On a prop desk, they can just not trade while on vacation.
DE Shaw is so amazing... I don't see how this is even close.
DE Shaw is clearly a fantastic firm, but dont forget that this is for their London office, which is only like 35 people or so including support staff. Pretty limited exposure, don't you think? Especially compared with a huge sell-side firm with excellent training programs etc.
Also Shaw's famous quant strategies are all run from NY, so i wont see any of that. They do seem to have the great Shaw culture going though (good hours, relaxed atmosphere, nice people).
What are your thoughts on this? Think I should nevertheless still definitely go with Shaw?
Not sure, but whenever I hear about someone who works at Shaw I'm like WOW. I would give a finger to be in your position though. Congrats on both offers.
Est aperiam eius ad facere ab numquam totam. Sed vero repudiandae distinctio et excepturi eligendi. Natus modi debitis dignissimos non ut quaerat consequuntur.
Corrupti debitis ut animi tempore ratione. Labore nam aut deleniti dolores. Harum sunt tempora numquam id expedita ab qui aut.
Et omnis corrupti accusantium sit. Commodi quia doloribus eaque ducimus excepturi voluptatibus. Neque dolor autem voluptates. Ipsam sed ratione animi et ad itaque ut est. Qui sit velit earum vitae.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...