• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Analyst vs Associate Positions

Joined
7/25/10
Messages
862
Points
38
Hey everybody, long time no talk!

My dilemma is as follows: although I am technically an undergraduate, I will be receiving a Masters simultaneously along with my Bachelors next school year.

So far I've been applying for Summer -Analyst- positions, but would it be a good idea to apply to associate positions? Is there a difference in interview difficulty? Selectivity? Pay grade?

Thanks again everyone.
 
What is your undergrad/masters degree in? Financial engineering? Here is my thought on Analyst vs Associate Level positions: Analyst positions are meant for people straight out of school, and gives you the training to make use of what you learn in school (which is useless by the way because it is too theoretical to work properly). If you don't have practical experience, then you need to take an analyst level position. An associate level position is one where you are actually given responsibility over others. You will learn a lot, but you are also expected to teach others. Not everyone has the capability or the know-how to do this. Given that you are in a combines program, I'm guessing you don't have that much work experience, so an analyst position is right for you. Analysts in New York get around 60 - 80K base pay, and associates can make 80K - 100K base pay. Bonuses are around 5 - 20K. Obviously, if you are interviewing for an associate level role, they are going to see if you have the capability to teach others, and if they can rely on you for quick, and confident answers. It's a lot of pressure for someone with no practical experience.
 
The degree is in math. Unless you count internships, no, I don't have any practical experience.

Thanks for the advice!
 
It sounds like you'd qualify for an analyst role. Base salary for a first year analyst at bulge brackets is 70k for S&T, which goes up 10k for the next 2 years as you go from first year to second year to third. Associates that get hired out of school into S&T roles at bulge brackets are either from MBA or PhD programs. Frankly, a lot of the banks in recent years have drastically cut back in hiring associates out of school in favor of retaining more experienced analysts. If you were to get one of the few first year associate jobs out of school, the base is 100k, but it really sounds like your profile is analyst track. There is actually a difference between analysts who get promoted to first year associate and first year associate hired out of school. Straight out of school gets 100k base salary while the promoted analysts get 120k as first year associates. So that's the scoop. The numbers are subject to a bit of variability between firms, but these days the bulge bracket banks are pretty much right in line with one another.
 
Hey Euroazn. Having started as an Analyst (like many others) and progressed to a senior position, I could say first hand the Associates that were promoted after 2-3 years as analysts in S&T were definitely more knowledgeable and skilled than the ones which came out directly from school. In banking, the feeling is also the same, where many analysts feel they can do more than the MBA associates.

That being said, as a practical advice you should apply to both and try to get Associate positions because frankly the base is significantly higher, which then also drives your bonus; if you can impress the interviewer's, why not try to go for Associate positions? I have known some Master's students with no experience but really sharp guys who started as associates; but as well, have some friends who graduated in a "bridge" program integrated Bachelor's and Master's who only started off as Analysts. Also, you should probably consider jobs other than in Investment Banks, I can't say that enough as there are a lot of terrific funds, trading firms, insurance companies, etc.
 
Yeah I mean I agree with C.Y. that you should of course try to get as much money as possible, but you'll only be allowed to apply to either analyst or associate roles at each bank. HR will most likely guide you to the appropriate track, but if you do end up in the associate applicant pool, your chances of being hired will obviously be lower - because (1) there are fewer associates hired out of schools than analysts, and (2) you have less experience and are younger / perceived as less mature than the average associate (right or wrong, perceptions matter). Furthermore, if you do get hired, you will be held to a higher standard and will be - all things equal - first on the chopping block if the bank chooses to cut junior people on the floor. So you have less of a safety net than if you had started as an analyst. But then again it is 30k more in base salary, and potentially another 20-30k higher bonus. So it's just a trade off.
 
Furthermore, if you do get hired, you will be held to a higher standard and will be - all things equal - first on the chopping block if the bank chooses to cut junior people on the floor. So you have less of a safety net than But then again it is 30k more in base salary, and potentially another 20-30k higher bonus. So it's just a trade off.
While I agree on the point you make about a higher standard, you'll find comp levels are generally within 10k or so at the entry level. Also, when firms cut heads, titles often don't matter. An underperforming MD is as likely to be cut as an underperforming first-year analyst.
 
While I agree on the point you make about a higher standard, you'll find comp levels are generally within 10k or so at the entry level. Also, when firms cut heads, titles often don't matter. An underperforming MD is as likely to be cut as an underperforming first-year analyst.

Hmm I really disagree here. On the comp side for salespeople, traders, and structurers at bulge bracket banks, first year analyst base salary is 70k, bonus on average between 30k-50k. First year associate hired from school base is 100k, bonus between 40k-60k. So on average I'd expect to earn ~40k more as a first year associate hired from school than a first year analyst. That's the case unless the two banks I worked at as an analyst and associate are different from all the others. Also on cutting heads, sure in one-off firings someone who is underperforming will get sacked, but riff rounds generally target a specific headcount reduction regardless of each individual's performance, and that headcount can't just be reduced in one title area. You can't leave a sales team staffed only with analysts-VPs, for instance. Furthermore, when axe day comes, I believe - as you probably do - that most entry level people are judged along pretty similar standards, though the associates hired out of school come with a slightly higher price tag. So logically, if a desk were to cut one out of two junior people, one being a first year analyst and another being a first year associate, and they both performed at the same level, the associate would get cut.
 
Furthermore, when axe day comes, I believe - as you probably do - that most entry level people are judged along pretty similar standards, though the associates hired out of school come with a slightly higher price tag. So logically, if a desk were to cut one out of two junior people, one being a first year analyst and another being a first year associate, and they both performed at the same level, the associate would get cut.
My trading experience was many years ago. My management experience is in risk, where many quants go. I've been through the headcount reduction exercise many times. If analysts have an advantage, it's because people think they have no basis for judgement. Once you're in a job for a year, you'd be fair game. The objective function is usually heads, not necessarily dollars. When the firm involved makes a press release, it will refer to heads.
 
I agree with Ken on comp for quants. Bonuses are not so big these days all around, especially for entry level. If you're in sales/trading and your bonus is performance based, then maybe it's different. As with headcount reduction, agree with financeguy that if two people that have the same value are compared, the higher salary is more likely to get cut. However, this varies greatly between banks, esp. European vs. American banks, and there are a lot more standards and reasons to go through before you can reasonably say that the axe landed on the associate just because of money. I do agree however, that the objective function tends to be heads, and when it comes to analyst vs associate, it's much easier to let go of analysts since the company has probably invested less in them.
 
Ah sorry guys, for some reason I had it in my head we were discussing S&T roles which doesn't seem to be what the original thread was about. I'll defer to you guys for risk management / quant roles. Also agreed number of heads is the primary objective during riff rounds - but doesn't mean there's not a second consideration! Also want to be clear here I was comparing analysts to associates who came directly from school without analyst experience on the same desk. Comparing a first year analyst to an associate who came up from 2-3 years as an analyst beforehand is a different ballgame.
 
Ah sorry guys, for some reason I had it in my head we were discussing S&T roles which doesn't seem to be what the original thread was about. I'll defer to you guys for risk management / quant roles. Also agreed number of heads is the primary objective during riff rounds - but doesn't mean there's not a second consideration! Also want to be clear here I was comparing analysts to associates who came directly from school without analyst experience on the same desk. Comparing a first year analyst to an associate who came up from 2-3 years as an analyst beforehand is a different ballgame.
I'm actually pretty interested in S&T roles as well, so your feedback was appreciated!
 
it's much easier to let go of analysts since the company has probably invested less in them.
Not necessarily. First, analyst programs often the flagship of the recruiting effort. They are expensive and create a key pipeline of badly needed people. Second, franchise/reputational risk is a consideration. If you fired first year analysts, you may have a difficult time recruiting the following year.
 
I agree with Ken here. More importantly, Associates are more expensive than Analysts and don't necessarily produce more. Having survived six rounds of layoffs between 2007 and 2012 before grad school, analysts tend to be the last people on the team to get laid off.

@OP, traditionally, people with masters' degrees and no prior work experience tend to get hired in as second year analysts, with one year of seniority in terms of pay and progress towards the associate rank. The people without prior work experience who get hired out of an MS program tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Last year, we had a kid from Polytechnique who did his master's here get placed as an Associate at Citigroup. Why?

-You graduate polytechnique with 6 years of postsecondary education; then he came here and got another year.
-The guy was truly an expert at stochal.

If you have a traditional four year Bachelor's degree, and no prior industry experience, expect to get hired as a 2nd year analyst.
 
You guys make more sense than me, and I haven't personally experienced a layoff myself. I will concede on this point. ^
 
Back
Top