Evaluating Competing LO Offers for Senior Analyst
Calling experienced folks for any and all input. Assume you are an experience senior analyst facing this choice:
-
firm 1 long only offers good comp, wlb, firm stability but your strategy is shrinking to the point where it could be phased out in a few years even if not explicitly stated and 0 chance of making PM (non zero chance you’d be allowed to take a different role at firm but would likely be in something with less interest/ability)
-
firm 2 long only with similar prestige, firm stability, WLB, but a stable/larger allocation to your strategy and potential to make PM medium term
How much of a comp discount would you take to move from firm 1 to 2 and how much deferred would you leave on the table?
When faced with such a decision, it's crucial to weigh both the immediate and long-term implications of each offer. Here's a breakdown of factors to consider based on the most helpful WSO content:
Compensation: While Firm 1 offers good compensation, it's important to consider the long-term earning potential. If the strategy is shrinking, this could impact future bonuses and raises. Firm 2, while not specified, seems to offer a stable or potentially growing strategy which could mean better compensation growth over time.
Career Progression: The potential to become a PM at Firm 2 is a significant opportunity. It's not just about the title, but also the experience, responsibility, and compensation that come with it. If Firm 1 offers little to no chance of becoming a PM, this could be a major factor in favor of Firm 2.
Deferred Compensation: Leaving deferred compensation on the table is a cost that needs to be factored into the decision. However, the potential for higher future earnings and career growth at Firm 2 might offset this initial loss.
Interest and Ability: If Firm 1's alternative roles are less interesting or don't align with your abilities, this could lead to dissatisfaction and underperformance. Being in a role that excites you and matches your skill set at Firm 2 could lead to better performance and job satisfaction.
Long-Term Stability: Even if Firm 1 is stable now, a shrinking strategy could mean less stability in the future. Firm 2 offers stability within your strategy, which could translate to more security in the long run.
Based on previous WSO threads, it's often recommended to prioritize long-term career growth and job satisfaction over short-term compensation. However, the exact "discount" in compensation one might accept can vary greatly depending on personal circumstances, market conditions, and individual risk tolerance. It's a personal decision that should be carefully considered with all these factors in mind.
Sources: Very Tough Decision - Short-term Comp vs. Long-term job, PE associate comp, Accepting TWO offers (one SA, one FT) during same year; date clash! Help!, Is this associate compensation competitive?, Would you move to a 'tier-2' city?
Probs firm 1. I have taken a job which underpaid me once in my career and greatly regretted it
Thanks for the input- you mind elaborating why beyond the obvious less comp?
Bump
Mind if I ask specifics on comp?
I am happy to answer thematically but unfortunately not specifics
Range ?
Nihil recusandae consequatur magnam. Velit ut provident vero nihil consequuntur. Repellendus numquam facere ducimus beatae vel. Delectus a et fuga quia veniam.
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...