Associates who “Do” vs. “Review”
Through my analyst stint, have encountered many different types of associates, broadly those who "Do" versus those who "Review".
associates who "Do" have no problem taking on modeling, turning difficult comments, building pages, etc.. In my experience more A2As are like this (who would've thought). Most of the time when they're "doing", it's because they can do it 4x faster than an analyst (because they're essentially a super analyst).
还有同事“审查”,那谁t's really it. They never really take initiative on doing things in the weeds, so will often let you fly on your own when modeling, building complicated slides, and just be there to review and answer questions while they handle behind the scenes deal process stuff (e.g. KYC). They often won't make direct edits (even if small) but will instead chalk you up a comment like they're an MD. They also assume that any asks from seniors will fall to the analyst
What is the "right" way to approach being an associate? Maybe I'm being naive and the answer is clearly the "doers", but I also feel like it can vary group-to-group culture-to-culture how responsibilities are divided between anl and aso.
Comments (48)
Following
Doers.
Can an Associate who only 'reviews' make it to VP? How can you properly "review" if you never "do"
Would imagine so. Good at internal politics, great with clients, astute high-level observations with not knowing how to model. Probably happens a lot, know of one in my group
As anMBAassociate I made a point of doing a lot in the first year. After that, the review part is actually much more important to your promotion to VP - you are the set of eyes that doesn't just pay attention to detail but also sees that everything falls into place. I make for a pretty mediocreIBanalyst (except CIMs), but I am great at client relationships, strategic positioning and wordsmithingCIMsand emails, which is what your MDs want to see in you as an up-and-coming banker. It seems that I get the big picture of what being an investment banker is all about.
This is me, if anything, becauseWSOstories of these slapdick associates who couldn't investment bank their way out of a brown paper bag.
Honestly, the seniors know which associates know what they're doing (e.g. can jump in the model and not just review but fix things and make edits if you're dealing with a brand new analyst on the desk) vs the associates who don't (e.g. tying out mults between pages but aren't checking to make sure they're calc'ing correctly).
Those associates end up with shitty staffings when the times are bad, and, when the times are good, those shitty associates are staffed with beast analysts who generally just discuss model / page changes with the VP directly and effectively take the associate out of the deal.
Might seem like the easy life for lazy associates, but they end up not really learning anything from this job or taking any valuable skills away.
他们最终发展和成长为超级垃圾advisors (w/r/t earning the client's trust) as senior associates and young VPs, which has to be a massive red flag to senior MDs.
Those guys make up 90% of MDs. The ones who can "do" usually go nuts in banking and head elsewhere.
Do post-MBA associates have modeling training? I'm not in banking - sort of am wondering what skills anMBAassociate has to learn / catch up on
的y have firm-wide training along with incoming analysts. But this doesn't mean a ton. Because new analysts just get so many more modeling reps (it's their job) they quickly diverge from the skill level of associates, with analyst 2s and 3s often being far superior to associates (this is the post-MBA stigma)
Gotcha. Is the associate then like the middle man between the analyst and VP? Ik that's where they fall in the hierarchy but sounds like they review everything the analyst does before handing it up the chain.
的best way to for post-MBA associate to get model training is by being staffed as analysts for the first 4 - 6 months that they're on the job. It's the least palatable method, I get that, but it's the quickest and most efficient way to get up to speed with the senior analysts and A2As.
I mean, fuck, even most of the junior analysts that interned (that I've worked with) were working on muscle memory in their hands/fingers before they hit the deskFT. Probably why most of those types of junior analysts got auto-staffed on live deals the second they hit the desk (which isn't always the case)
Deleted
Following. I'm buried here because of those type of associates.
A few random thoughts, which may or may not be helpful.
的truth is past your first year as an associate, you don't really get any credit for either building out a model or reviewing it. This seems to only look at the associate job through the analysts viewpoint which kind of misses the point.
Your job as an associate is "idea generation", talking to clients, proactively managing the process, and making sure everything gets done on time and 100% correct.
If you spend most of your day making pages, you'll look bad because the assumption is you're not correctly allocating your time to the items listed above. You're also seen as incapable of training analysts if you're constantly doing the analyst job for them.
That being said, it's absolutely critical that you're able to jump in if the timeline is very tight. You look terrible if you miss a deadline or send something that's filled with mistakes to a client, particularly if you're just giving out orders and not helping to get things across the finish line. In a firedrill, you also look bad if you're not holding the pen and building out the model or whatever so that it gets done as quickly as possible.
You look a bit foolish at times if the analyst is quicker at building slides or building a model than you are, though this is really secondary to everything listed above and not a critical aspect to doing your job well.
Increasingly, you also get in trouble if analysts are routinely working late on your projects or on weekends, so after midnight there's a lot of pressure to jump in.
Don't think that the correct answer fits nicely into either the "doer" or "reviewer" category, but will say that doer is not the right way to approach it. I had a very difficult time when I first became an associate being comfortable not doing everything and delegating to the analyst because I had more faith in my ability to do the deliverable 100% correctly than to review the analyst's work and catch a minor mistake. However, the truly good senior associates that I've worked w/ erred more towards the reviewer side, although not as described in the OP. They were comfortable delegating, but were highly aware of each moving piece of a given deliverable to the point that their review was high level but very effective and they were able to clearly articulate what points a given ask should hit before having the analyst get started on it. This approach is also obviously much better for analyst development because they need the reps to get to the point that the associate is w/in the next couple of years. These associates also handled client communication and expectation management very well and were on the analysts' side in terms of having an open line of communication to discuss/clarify questions on deliverables. The only time that these associates really jumped into the "doing" part of the job were on text-heavy thematic pages (exec summaries, process considerations (more complex inRXthan M&A), etc.) that they could knock out better and in 1/10 the time that the analyst could, or if there was a complex deliverable on a very compressed timeline. If you trust the analyst, this doesn't mean taking over the2ManBetX登陆 , but it does mean having them walk you through it in detail. No decent analyst wants to waste time walking through an a simple operating model w/ their associate, but if you're putting together something complex that you don't regularly have to do that's critically important to a live deal, it is helpful to walk/talk through it w/ a senior associate before it goes out to the broader group.
的hard part about doing the above is that you have to be highly competent, but the secondary part which is also very important is putting yourself in the analyst's shoes (obviously while being highly aware of timeline & process management). Most A2As have a pretty good intuition of when their analyst could use some guidance on something or when they know what they're doing and would rather you fuck off and let them grind. In terms of idea generation and content creation, they also have a good sense of what's important and what is a gigantic waste of time that only MD would think important. They tend not to have analysts createBScontent that is in no way important because they've been in the analyst's spot, don't want to create unnecessary work for them, and know what should actually be prioritized.
I used to do a lot of "doing", as you've noted it was much quicker for me to do it than it was for me to instruct the analyst, have them do it slowly, and then go through 1-2 further iterations of comments until it's in the shape I want it. I was told by my MD that I need to do a lot less "doing" and focus on more important tasks, it wasn't an efficient use of my time and it was delaying the analyst's development.
的re's several angles to view this from, and "reviewers" aren't necessarily lazy associates not willing to do the hard work. I don't send my comments to an analyst because I'm too lazy to go into the deck and make the changes myself (which in a lot of cases would be quicker to do), I send them so they can see what the changes are so they can hopefully pick them up in the first draft next time. That said, associates should still be pulling their weight on deliverables rather than downstreaming all comments. I liked to divide up the deck with what I thought the analyst was capable of taking on and what I was better suited to doing, giving them more responsibility as time went on.
的se associates are unfortunately promoted to VP more often and quickly because they can take on more staffings since they don't actually do anything
Why does this forum swear VP promotions are automatic?
Can you elaborate I'm interested to hear how the path is
Its not
我们的第三年联系类4人,2l definitely get promoted, 1 is TBD and 1 is a no
You are viewing from a narrow analyst perspective, demanding equal contribution from your associate who u see as equal.. the truth is that their KPI is not the same as urs and they don't get rewarded for doing analyst work once they are associate 2 and up. I used to do the modeling entirely when I have time becuz reviewing an analyst model takes way more/equal effort to me. Not sure why analysts here always think that associates have it easy. Every time u guys are done with your slides at midnight I have to stay up even later to check your work too. Our roles are clearly different which are reflected on our performance review so not sure the hate. If associates' bonus is based on our ability to model and build slides you think we wouldn't be doing it?
一个好的助理将两者平衡。也取决于s on if they're working with a first year analyst or more experienced 2nd or 3rd year. If the latter they should let do more review than do. If the former they should probably be more hands on but at the same time realize that analysts won't develop if they're not being thrown in the fire. And why that looks like may be getting a model started with clear presents or instructions for the first year to reference. If it's a complicated slide maybe the associate should spend 30 minutes sketching out exactly what it looks like. Ideally more experienced associates are getting paired with more experienced associates so both can play up a level and vice versa.
100% agree. Doers are by far the better of the two and improve the deal process a ton. I also find myself working harder for associates that are in the weeds with me vs some guy giving bs comments
Radical answer-reviewers are way better if they used to be doers and aren't lazy. These people usually used to be doers and also can be doers, but instead choose to be reviewers and just know processes enough and trust analysts enough to utilize analysts properly. Weird distinction, but I think associates that understand higher level what is going on lean to the reviewer side because the whole process is just more efficient and they are better at leveraging analysts.
Best associate I ever had would provide very clear timelines, comfort where I felt I could ask any question, and numerous examples to reference for every task they assigned. There are certainly circumstances where he would step in and do some work, but barring a divide and conquer situation in like a urgent pitch or something, I think the best associates are just baller teachers that you want to run through a wall for because they protect you from senior individuals and make you learn so much about M&A and your bank.
This is just leadership 101 for me. I haveneverlet an analyst take the fall for a task, even if he/she f'ed up. It is alwaysweon failures (and it is the associate's failure when an analyst fucks up), andhe/sheon a successful task that was singlehandedly done by the analyst without much feedback from me. You get plenty of credit for being the sounding board and pushing back / "just asking questions" from the senior bankers, and, again, that's the high-level thinking they are looking for when considering promotion. You should be an ok+ modeler / slide jockey, but MDs recognize that, at its core, its an analyst job. 2021 was sweaty enough in my shop to see senior bankers (D/MD) get their hands dirty in my previous shop, and they certainly did not think less of themselves just because they suck / are rusty at XLS/PPT
Analysts create the material (product XYZ - model, decks,CIMsetc.)
Associates review for accuracy and step in to "do" when analysts need the uplift (is XYZ accurate- model ties out, #s on theCIMare correct, etc. + formatting stuff)
VPs review for content (client asked for XYZ, do we actually have XYZ in this deck/model + final check on formatting)
MDs review for messaging (does XYZ align with the value proposition or other message that we want to get across via XYZ)
That's how I was taught the order of operations and roles/hierarchy and that's how it has more or less played out in practice thus far. May be different across firms and groups so take that as you will.
Side note- in my personal opinion/experience associates who lean heavy on the "do" versus "review" are doing their analysts and themselves a disfavor. Sure it might be quicker for all involved if the associate steps in and builds out a portion of the model, but the short term benefit of going to sleep at 1 am vs. 3 am is marginal compared to the lack of development the analyst gets at modeling and the lack of development the associate gets at reviewing and managing the deal process. My two cents.
I think the "issue" is that some associates refuse to do. I could be in 5 things and they will wait log off for 2 hours them chase me until 11pm instead of turning 15 min of comments
I think an Associate certainly needs to know how to do everything and have done it at least once before (when I was in banking, I encouraged new Associates to learn the Analyst role as well), but you shouldn't be the primary "doer" on the deal. You should be pulling together some work, along with reviewing the work of those below you but it shouldn't be a 50 / 50 split. In short, it's a blend of reviewing and doing, in my opinion, along with the many other tasks you need to handle.
Also, it's good to know how to do shit in case your Analyst decides to drop the ball. I have had it happen plenty of times and it's nice to be able to say fuck it, I'll do it myself (I was an A2A so that helped though).
Deleted
It's not what we think it is what the firm wants us to do and what our performance review is based on. We don't get credit by doing some analysts stuff except credit from you guys on WSO
.
Doers. You should also still be "doing" certain things (e.g., complex slides) as a VP. -A2A2VP
God bless you because 90% of the associates in my review deleted PPT
I don't consider this a doer.. some stuff needs to be done by associates and vps because analysts doesn't have the knowledge to do so - for example populating buyers list and rationale.
Im高级副总裁,我仍然做大便。很多。我画out the slides, and I often do a lot of them myself. I get in the model and change stuff. Sometimes I build the framework and let others fill in the rest.I prefer that analysts and associates do most of the work but if others are busy I see no point in waiting for them and making all of us work until 3am-I just get started myself until others free up. I dislike associates who only check things - they need to be more proactive...otherwise I see zero point in their existence and just work direct with the analyst. i dont docompsor anyof that shit though. But I know when things are wrong and when they are right. Personally, this is how I operate. I know the people who work with me like working with me, because I know precisely what the fuck I am doing. We do shit once and get it right. this can only happen if you are a doer, not a reviewer.
Damn boi spitting that fire
What concert costs 45 cents? 50 Cent feat. Nickelback.
Obviously don't know the specifics of your team/situation, but as a first year associate, the VPs I worked with would answer questions, but rarely gave guidance/reviewed until we had a "final" product.
More painful at the time, but now when I don't VPs on transactions, it's a lot easier and smoother working directly with seniors who don't have time to give specific guidance. Might be the minority but for those who would like to stay on medium-long term, would imagine most would prefer to take the first stab at things.
I agree with your sentiment. I was more trying to make the point, perhaps too bluntly, that if you want to be a VP who knows what he / she is doing and that people therefore want to work with, it is much better to be an associate who does rather than reviews. Time permitting it's good for an associate to take the first stab (which is doing not reviewing)
This is a great question. I used to be a former analyst and then post-mba associate. When I was an analyst, I only respected the associates (usually the A2As) who were able to "do" as you described. I hated the associates that only "reviewed" and seemed to only provide dumb, high-level comments which I ascribed to them not knowing anything.
所以当我成为助理,我是一个“实干家”。的reason is that I wanted to pitch in as a team member. But more importantly, it was because I knew that I could do whatever the task at hand was in half time and get it right the first time around. Because of this, the analysts all thought highly of me and liked me.
So I thought I was doing an awesome job. I couldn't have been more wrong. In my review, the people above me said that I was too in the weeds and couldn't get out of the analyst work. They thought I was just a super senior analyst, and not leadership material. Meanwhile, I was just dumbfounded. I thought I was going above and beyond to help out the analysts and getting faster, higher-quality work to people above me.
Following that review, I did a complete 180. I dumped all work on the analysts. If it smelled even remotely like something an analysts should do, I didn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Instead, I sat there in my office and twiddled my thumbs while the analysts pulled all nighters. I went to the gym and became the associate I hated. Since I had all this time on my hands, I spent time doing "VP-level" level work, like talking to clients, going to client meetings, and having lunches with my the MDs and Directors on my teams. In my next review, I got top bucket. They all said that they thought I was doing a fantastic job being a leader, learning how to delegate work and stepping up.
What I realized is that what analyst respect in an associate is not what MD/Directors/VPs respect in an associate. Everything is about perception management. And, frankly, the only perception that matters is from the people who determine your bonus. I'm still dumbfounded by that experience, because I thought I was just being lazy. Maybe it's different for you.
Sounds fun. Where were you an associate at? Seems like a dream gig, especially with new associate pay
Lol I hope this is satire but the takeaway is 100% true
Former doer, now reviewer..here's why..
Honestly,used to help the analyst "doer style", so they know I can fill in when deadlines are tight.. but with more experience.. I prefer to be available for questions and let them make mistake and learn..Usually the same question isn't repeated
At the Mid management level, my EVP will not value my modeling/monkey skills, they want me to do business dev, legal, nego and challenge the analysts ..
Thx
D
Quidem doloribus officiis voluptatem dolores doloremque nihil doloribus. Fugit qui ut magni architecto. Doloribus rerum sit magni et. Odio aut nisi voluptatibus rerum. Totam rerum nulla voluptatem aut et. Voluptates similique dolore debitis dolorum est officia nostrum.
Rerum vitae provident labore ut amet ut. Voluptate necessitatibus nobis molestias est aliquid libero quo exercitationem. Et ea delectus omnis mollitia pariatur laborum. Nesciunt consequuntur nam sunt. Fugiat aliquid voluptatum sit laborum sint et harum. Rerum reiciendis ut voluptate dolorum reprehenderit animi nihil.
Laudantium autem ipsa et. Sunt rerum aliquid voluptas mollitia hic. At veniam velit corporis nihil voluptates.
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)
orWant toUnlockby signing in with your social account?
Non voluptatibus aut aut incidunt maiores. Blanditiis et nihil quod molestiae. Non libero optio sapiente veniam non exercitationem. Voluptatem odit provident voluptatibus necessitatibus facilis quos.
Exercitationem quas aliquid facere iure et facilis ut qui. Sit enim nesciunt tempora delectus eveniet. Fugiat amet numquam debitis iste et. Dolor fuga inventore aut in nihil. Voluptas aut quia quia sunt doloribus eveniet. Repellendus nulla sit fuga.
Consequatur natus iure laboriosam recusandae. Soluta consectetur et aut ut dolorem.
Nulla omnis tempora ut non dolorem aliquid. Rem eos ipsa distinctio vero.
Et recusandae et ea aut. Asperiores et consequatur assumenda adipisci voluptatem consequatur saepe. Ex et blanditiis porro culpa quia. Veniam voluptates nemo autem doloribus excepturi deleniti molestiae.
Rerum enim sint odit quis iusto temporibus. Provident delectus nisi et qui id placeat. Id corrupti ut impedit facere voluptatem voluptatum maxime. Sint fugit dolor vel placeat saepe totam dignissimos nostrum. Quis et error rerum et debitis atque inventore.