Finance or M&A if given option?
Related Posts
How is the EAD department at Bosch?
More Posts
How to get into IBM ISL from GBS
Bain & Company Contemplating a move from Accenture Strategy to Strategy&, or Monitor Deloitte. Part of my consideration is the assumption that WLB is likely to be better than at McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, or Bain & Company. Could any of you fellow European fishies shed some light on the validity of this assumption? Sharing experiences would be highly appreciated.
Anyone joined NatWest recently..?
Additional Posts in Corporate Transactional Law
Does anyone want to be my M&A coach? Will pay.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Depends on the company, but in most firms I would go with M&A as a strategic function that has strong market intersections and viability. Finance, depending on the company, can be reduced to an accounting function.
No worries (truly). Drinking to justify my career choices rn anyway so pretty much unscathed (truly).
Easily M&A, if you don’t like it, you can move to finance from M&A but not the other way around
Not sure that’s true in this market. Get recruiter overtures all the time. People are just looking for transactional + (maybe) a pulse. Depends on firm and year but just saying, broad strokes never helped anyone who should do their own thinking.
M&A. Better exit options.
M&A has better exits and most people exit so that's probably the right paradigm but finance is VASTLY more interesting, if id spent years doing diligence and herding specialists like an M&A junior it would've sucked...
Yea then def M&A. I’m no senior but from my POV, it’s in-house for private equity and a handful of other clients (or departments therein) but M&A would give you a line in with most employers. I dig finance but it is undoubtedly more specialized.
M&A
If you want to be in a law firm for a bit then go in house M&A, if you’re looking to be at a law firm for a while finance is more sustainable
I should clarify I am part of an entertainment transactions group so work with partners that have speciality in film finance and also media M&A but the partners want me to start being more focused (I was kind of in an an all hands on deck support role)
M&A.
The type of finance matters. I am in structured finance and securitization. This is a type of practice that most of the major firms have and will translate well into most other types of finance practice. I think exit location may be difficult but as long as you’re in a big market (NY, ATL, TX, Chicago and. maybe Charlotte) you will have great exit options. And all the major banks, hedge funds, wealth management etc firms have structured finance and securitization teams.
M&A
There is also a big variety in the kind of finance you do within traditional finance i.e. lender side v. borrower side, sponsor deals v. distressed deals, syndicated deals v. direct lending, etc. as well as a lot of different categories of finance work like cap markets, real estate finance, project finance, securitizations, etc. Each of these has their own pros and cons and different exit options.
mostly film finance investor side but sometimes it’s a hybrid where the investor is also financing on lender side. never Bank side
What do you actually prefer?
Assuming you want to keep going and be a partner, I’d think more about the clients. Does that make you lean more one way than another?
Dumb question
It’s dumb because without you offering more about your particular situation and circumstances, these “Pick A” or “Pick B” posts just tend to generate a bunch of recycled conventional wisdom from associates, in my opinion. If that’s how you want to make your career decisions, you do you I guess.
M&A
Finance