<p>Everytime I hear someone say one of the best things, besides the pay, about Ibanking is the exit oppotunities. What does this mean exactly? I know it means they move on to do something else like PE or HF, but what else could someone do to make these exit opportunites so much more "lucrative" than some other industry or profession?</p>
<p>Can anyone give examples of someone they know or through their own experiences?</p>
<p>It seems to me that you already pretty much know what exit ops are.</p>
<p>These are opportunities open to people who have completed a 2-3 year stint in banking. Consultants also have similar exit ops.</p>
<p>PE - Private Equity
Why it's good: you're on the buyside instead of the sell side, your company is acquiring firms/making firms go private, usually this job is harder to get so it's more 'prestigious', the work is more interesting , pay is usually better than banking.
Why it's bad: sometimes hours can actually be worse than banking, really depends on the shop though. Small shops may experience low pay.</p>
<p>HF - Hedge Funds
Why it's good: low hours, high pay. work is pretty fun and exciting since your fun is challenging the market every day.
Why it's bad: trading can be risky, if your HF goes belly up you'll be out of a job. </p>
<p>Corporate Dev/Business Dev
Why it's good: very low hours (40-60 a week), the work you do is very exciting and impacts how the fortune 500 company you work at will operate.
Why it's bad: haircut in pay, you'd be making lower than your banking peers, think 110K or so in total comp while your banking peers might be making 150-200k. Bonuses never go up as exponentially as they do in banking.</p>
<p>Obviously the reason that people choose to use exit ops instead of trying to stick in banking is that there's soemthing they don't like about banking. </p>
<p>The guys who love following mergers and acquisitions would probably cream their pants at the prospect of joining a leading PE firm because it lets them shift from ADVISING to actually ACQUIRING.</p>
<p>The guys who like following the market, maybe they're wanting lower hours and more excitement would probably want to go with a hedge fund.</p>
<p>The guys who absolutely hated the hours, hated doing work that they felt contributed to nothing (putting together pitch books, etc), but enjoyed working in their industry group would probably want to work for a Fortune 500 company that's operating in their industry of expertise.</p>
<p>You forgot venture capital.</p>
<p>i beg to differ on the comment for low hours at hedge funds. I can name several people that go to work at 7 and leave at 10. Less than ibanking possibly, never actually talked to an ibanker before, but nonetheless 15 hours is by no means a short day.</p>
<p>And why is it that exit ops always have to do specifically with "hedge" funds? Are there no other money managerial positions available? There are so many other ops such as working at reits, mutual funds, bonds funds, stock exchanges etc etc.</p>
<p>Compared to banking hours thats short (although for a HF thats long). Most that I have seen work ~12 hour days with no weekends. But typically their work is usually it depends on the fund itself. If for example there is a major launch deadline for a particular strategy then hours may spike up. However, if there are not that many new areas to research or take care of hours may be market hours+1-2 more for setup/after hour cleanup. </p>
<p>In essense, unlike ibanking which for the most part is similar across a wide spectrum of banks, HFs/PEs/VCs differ in their cultures drastically from one another.</p>
<p>South> He did note a few more of the most popular ones. I would classify REITs, bond/stock funds together as investment management in which case hedge funds, PEs would fall under this category as well. </p>
<p>So in a sentence, exit ops refer to moving over to the other side of the table-the "buy side".</p>
<p>
[quote]
i beg to differ on the comment for low hours at hedge funds. I can name several people that go to work at 7 and leave at 10. Less than ibanking possibly, never actually talked to an ibanker before, but nonetheless 15 hours is by no means a short day.</p>
<p>And why is it that exit ops always have to do specifically with "hedge" funds? Are there no other money managerial positions available? There are so many other ops such as working at reits, mutual funds, bonds funds, stock exchanges etc etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So why don't you take the time to provide brief descriptions of pro's and con's for everything. Sorry, I don't have the time to do that kind of thing and chose to name the three that I hear talked about the most. I'm not going to waste my time naming every possible opportunity that could arise from banking.</p>
<p>isnt going for MBA an another option?</p>
<p>i didnt list every possible opportunity either, its just so repetitive to hear the same thing over and over again in 90% of the threads. I understand a lot of time would be wasted comparing so many variables when it comes to the opportunities you list, and you went a step further than i would ever have be listing pros and cons in your manner. </p>
<p>The main fault comes from the fact that i have gotten tired of seeing the same things repeated so very often. Nothing against you.</p>
<p>I get everyones points and they are all well taken. But I guess my real question is why is it so easy to jump from banking to something else? It seems like anyone can switch jobs if they want to, but what makes banking so valued?</p>
<p>The answer should be pretty obvious. Everyone complains how banking is hard to get into and it's a hard job.</p>
<p>Let's think. You've spent the last 2-3 years working 90-120 hours a week for companies that are notorious for being extremely difficut to be hired from. This means not only are you a pretty bright person, but you're capable of working hard and under insane hours. If you're put in a setting/environment where things are easier, one could imagine that you'd excel even more!</p>
<p>Not only that but the skills you learn in banking can be used in these 'exit ops'.</p>
<p>When you're doing PE/VC/HF/Corporate Dev you need a very specific valuation knowledge which you have the potential to possess from a 2-3 year stint in banking. For other careers it's mainly the fact that you've already proven yourself to be bright, hard working, and you've worked on transactions that are in the high millions/possible billions of dollars, plus you may have specific industry contacts which could help the business down the line.</p>
<p>How does the pay of someone in VC compare to ibanking? Also, is there any disadvantage if one goes directly into PE/VC/HF directly out of undergrad as opposed to doing ibanking first? Thank you.</p>
<p>I'd say there's not too much downside to going in directly. The fact of the matter is that it's incredibly difficult to get into PE and VC directly out of undergrad. HFs are hiring more and more out of undergrads but PE and VC's aren't. </p>
<p>I think that a person should be careful though because sometimes you can end up with a very small PE/VC/HF shop which may not serve you well in terms of experience. </p>
<p>VC pay is very good if you're with a top shop, better than banking, especially when you get to put your own money into the businesses. I was looking at something and Vinod Khosla makes on average 197x his intial investment when it was less than 1 million dollars. But like everything there are going to be small/mid-market PE and VC firms sprouting up that probably wont pay as well or just on par.</p>