From the viewpoint of career prospectives what do you find more important? The place where you work or the work you do? Pushing the question to the extreme, which is better as a stage in the career: very good employer (with whome one may be doing reasonably simple stuff) or very successful projet with people who are less famous? Which do you think may bring more money and which looks better on the CV?Thanks and regards,CF

If this is your first job, then choose a big name. From my experience, people who used to make Power Point presentations at a big I-bank tend to be hired easier than people with lot of hand-on experience from no-name companies.In no way I am saying this is fair, but this is observation.As you career progresses what you actually do becomes more important.

probably depends on the job.a lot of (most?) good traders started at no-name funds or partnerships.for investment banking however...

You should make this decision the same way as any trading or corporate finance decision. i.e. by maximising the PV ... A top bank may offer a smaller starting salary but an opportunity to earn substantial bonuses in later years whereas a smaller institution may have to pay higher starting salaries but may not offer the same opportunity to earn huge bonuses. The difference in starting salaries between two institutions is absolutely dwarfed by the differences in opportunities to make substantial bonuses.Another thing to take into account is that it's very difficult to climb up the pecking order of banks during your career. The big exception to this rule is where you can join a team that is well regarded throughout the industry even though the institution is less well regarded.These two things mean that it's often (but not always) a good idea to try to start your career at a top bank which presents great bonus opportunities and opportunities to build up your CV. This positions you well for high paying jobs either at your original institution or at less well regarded institutions later in your career.

As far as I know, many quants find a job because the new employer wants to price a product the quant used to work with elsewhere. And during downturn years such cases multiply. You can find even very clear advertisement like this on the jobs board.CV obviously benefits from a highly regarded name. But doesn't it benefit from the work you have done?Johnny, is the fact that you priced a derivative yourself from a scratch less recognised than that you sat in the office by people who are known to price such a derivative?Aika, you are absolutely right about the presentations! The mastery of doing presentations is much less specialised than quantitative research (or any research at all). And a person who doesn't have a particular specialisation is much easier to find a job than that narrowly specialised.

Employers are looking for signals. If you have worked with a well-regarded team or at a well-regarded institution for a decent length of time, then that's a good credible signal. If you say that you have priced a certain derivative from scratch, you may or may not have done.But that's not really my point. My point is not to decide on short term salary criteria; criterion should be the opportunity to position yourself for a stream of big bonuses.

My vote would be for the place with the better reputation.Many job specs received by agencies/headhunters actually specify that you must show history at big firm.

I think I will weigh in with Aika on this. Big brand names in the early portion of your career tend to place you in people pools with a higher probability of larger payoffs in the future, and a nearer future as well. I had the opposite experience. I first worked for an obscure firm with lots of responsibility (an econometrician!) and even with an outrageously high GMAT got into zip-o top MBA programs (back when that was what I wanted)...while in comparison my starting salary and newly graduated peers were pushing the "advance" button on PowerPoint presentations as associates at a big i-banks. They all went to Harvard and Tuck and Wharton for MBAs, and VP slots. Some of them are retired now, while I, with my MScF am still working. Their advice, then and now was "James, you just think too much!" I admit I have had a better psychological income career track with more intellectual fun, but they def got more money and an easier liestyle in the end. I vote top bank. JMO- james

Furthermore, working in a non brand name firm the risk of being trapped into a financial fraud gets higher

Anthis,is that true??ALL of the trading related scandals i have heard of havebeen by brand name firms.barings, drexel, salomon, enron...

James,Do you find it important just that the name of company is well-known? Or is it important that it is really good in the norrow area one wants to specialise in. There are big companies, which everyone knows, that during recent years had a policy not to pay much in bonuses (or not to pay at all). (Often due to big losses during the stock market downturn.) Or those that have not developed a particular area of interest (and, may be, now actively developing).Thanks,CF

Originally posted by: PatI've worked in several industries and in several companies ...The most important criterion I've found is whether the industry & company are expanding or contracting.Expanding industries, companies, desks, etc naturally create opportunities, which have to be filled, and if seeing how you're on the spot, promotions happen regularly, and sometimes too fast.---------------------------------------------------------------------------Pat is right. Fast growing industry (or company, or both) gives the best opportunities for career progress. And, anyway, very few compnies find it usual to pay extraodinary bunuses to those only beginning there career path.Good luck!

CF98Please do not read my posting literally. I did not mean to say that people who can make PP presentations find jobs faster (which also holds). What I meant that for a junior a big name adds more weight to a cv than a level of responsibility. Say, for an Associate position, an analyst with a couple of years experience from a big bank (mainly PP presentations) will get more interviews than somebody more senior from a no name.

filthy,QuoteALL of the trading related scandals i have heard of have...Who ever heard of LTM until everyone had heard of LTM?CreativeFramework98"Do you find it important just that the name of company is well-known? Or is it important that it is really good in the norrow area one wants to specialise in."Try to get both. Prop trading at JP Morgan = bright future.But if you are at obscure bank with narrow specialty "Brahmin Bros. of Boston" "Dispersion Trading" it is okay.Also, lets say Marco Avellaneda at Gargoyle thinks you are fab-o. My advice would not be to push advance buttons supporting stupider people's road shows and go clean his office if he asks you to."There are big companies, which everyone knows, that during recent years had a policy not to pay much in bonuses (or not to pay at all)."Big cos maybe, but a bank's assets takes the elevator home every night. There is nothing more liquid than a prop vol trader with five years experience. Work through breakfast at one place, you'll be at a desk at another firm in mid afternoon if you want. They will pay bonuses or die."(Often due to big losses during the stock market downturn.)"Any firm that is always market biased net long and links their bonuses to same is just a big dumb long only fund with "investment bank" as their SIC code. Ya might as well work at Vangaurd balancing the S&P 500 portfolio and taking home a bonus equivalent to the tracking error if this is the case. Avoid a firm like this unless the name cache is so great it can overwhelm this stoooopid bias. Goldman, some extremely private Swiss banks, Coutt's, Lazard, and maybe a few other blueblood white shoe firms can do this. Otherwise, forget it."Or those that have not developed a particular area of interest (and, may be, now actively developing)." See comment about Marco Avellaneda above. If you have a chance to work with someone of that calibre by all means do so and screw the name brand value curve.But I recall my buddy who was so happy to go work with that famous trader X at this new hedge fund 'Long Term' something. "We've got all the best people......you'd never get a job there....."He cold called me the other day. We had a nice time chat. ;-)Draw you own conclussions. I think Johnny's maximize probable cash flow analysis is the best market neutral view to take.

I think we're getting it backward ... do something great, the money will eventually follow