The Exit Everyone Overlooks: Why Your Next Move Might Be Another Bank

You’re 18 months into your post-MBA banking role and something feels off. You’re not exactly sure what it is, but you know you’re not happy.

You started thinking about PE because that’s what you’re supposed to do. But as you’ve talked to people and done your research, you’ve realized the path isn’t as straightforward as you thought. There’s no clear “process” to follow for post-MBAs. The mega-funds you heard about during business school? They don’t have structured post-MBA recruiting. You’d need to network aggressively for months with no guarantee of outcomes. Some of your classmates have gotten interviews after 6-9 months of networking. Most haven’t.

Corp dev seems more accessible, but every role at a decent company has 300 applicants and you’re not even getting callbacks. You’ve submitted applications to top tech companies and several F500 companies. Radio silence.

So now you’re stuck. You’re unhappy where you are. The “traditional” exits feel either impossible or not quite right. But you also can’t quite articulate what the actual problem is. Is it banking itself? Is it this bank? Is it this group? Is it just burnout? You genuinely don’t know.

Here’s a question almost nobody asks, but should: What if you don’t actually hate investment banking? What if you just hate your bank?

This isn’t semantic hairsplitting. It’s a critical diagnostic question that determines whether your next career move solves your actual problem or just trades one set of frustrations for another.

The Confusion Nobody Talks About

Let’s be honest about what most post-MBA associates are experiencing 12-24 months into their roles:

You’re definitely unhappy. That part is clear. But when you try to articulate exactly why you’re unhappy, it gets murky.

Sometimes you think it’s the hours. You’re working 100-120 hours some weeks and it’s destroying you. Except there were a few weeks early on where you worked 80 hours on a live deal and it was hard but somehow manageable. So is it the hours themselves or something else?

Sometimes you think it’s the work itself. Except when you’re actually executing on a live transaction, you kind of enjoy it? The modeling is interesting. The client interaction is engaging. The problem-solving is satisfying. But then you spend three weeks on a pitch that goes nowhere and you remember why you hate this.

Sometimes you think it’s the people. Your MD is difficult. Or your VP is a micromanager. Or your staffer doesn’t care about your workload. Or the associate next to you is actively trying to make you look bad. But then you talk to friends at other banks and some of them seem to… not hate their colleagues?

Sometimes you think you want PE. Except you’ve talked to enough PE people now to realize that the work might actually bore you. The 8-week diligence deep-dives. The portfolio company board meetings. The operational focus. That’s not obviously better than what you’re doing now—just different. And you’re not even sure how to break in without a clear recruiting process.

Sometimes you think you want corp dev. Better hours, right? Except you’ve also heard the deal flow is sparse, the politics are intense, and you’ll take a $150K+ pay cut. And you’re not sure if “better lifestyle” is worth all of that when you’re not even sure lifestyle is your main problem.

The real issue is that you’re confused. You know something isn’t working. But you can’t quite pinpoint what it is. And because you can’t pinpoint it, you don’t know how to fix it.

This is where most people make bad decisions. They commit to an exit strategy—PE, corp dev, whatever—not because they’ve carefully diagnosed their problem and determined that’s the solution, but because they need to do something and exiting is the default answer everyone gives.

The Diagnostic Process Nobody Walks You Through

Before you spend six months networking for roles you’re not sure you want, you need to actually figure out what’s making you unhappy. Not the surface-level answer you give your friends. The real answer.

This requires being more granular and more honest than most people are willing to be.

Breaking Down “I Hate Banking”

“I hate banking” is too vague to be actionable. You need to decompose this into specific, separable components.

The Work Itself

Let’s start with the fundamental question: Do you hate the actual work of investment banking?

And by “actual work,” I mean:

• Building financial models and analyzing companies
• Thinking through deal structures and valuation
• Understanding strategic rationales for M&A
• Managing deal processes and timelines
• Interacting with clients and helping them solve problems
• Negotiating with counterparties
• The transactional nature of moving from deal to deal

Here’s how to test this: Think about the last time you worked on a live deal with a real client. Not a pitch. An actual transaction that was going to close. How did you feel?

If your honest answer is “I was engaged, I was learning, I felt like I was doing something meaningful”—then you probably don’t hate the work itself.

If your honest answer is “Even the live deals feel tedious and uninteresting”—then you might actually hate banking and should consider exiting.

But for most people, the answer is somewhere in between. The work itself is fine or even interesting when conditions are right. It’s the conditions that are the problem.

The Conditions Under Which You’re Doing the Work

This is where it gets specific. What about your current situation is actually making you miserable?

Is it that 80% of your time goes to pitches that never convert to mandates? That’s not “I hate banking.” That’s “I hate working on fake deals at a bank with poor deal flow.”

Is it that you’re doing good work but your MD takes all the credit and throws you under the bus when anything goes wrong? That’s not “I hate banking.” That’s “I hate my MD.”

Is it that your staffer has no concept of workload management and puts you on four simultaneous active deals? That’s not “I hate banking.” That’s “I hate the staffing model at this bank.”

Is it that the culture in your group is toxic—people don’t help each other, politics are intense, everyone is miserable? That’s not “I hate banking.” That’s “I hate the culture of this specific group.”

Is it that you’re three years in and you’re still just formatting decks and doing junior analyst work because you never get real responsibility? That’s not “I hate banking.” That’s “I hate being at a bank where I’m not developing.”

Is it that you’re surrounded by mediocre people who aren’t teaching you anything? That’s not “I hate banking.” That’s “I hate being at a bank where I’m not learning.”

Do you see the pattern? Most of what makes people unhappy in banking is situational. It’s specific to their bank, their group, their team, their role. It’s not inherent to investment banking as a profession.

And if the problem is situational, then the solution might be situational too.

The Lifestyle Components—Let’s Be Real About the Trade-offs

Let’s separate out the lifestyle factors, because these are different and require honest assessment of what’s actually possible.

The hours are one piece. But you need to be realistic about the trade-offs here, because there’s no free lunch.

Right now you’re probably working 100-120 hour weeks regularly. That’s brutal and unsustainable for most people. The question is: what would make it tolerable?

Would you be okay working 80 hours a week if those hours were on real deals with good people? What about if you had protected Saturdays—meaning you could actually make plans and they wouldn’t get blown up?

Because here’s the fundamental trade-off nobody talks about honestly: More live deals means more hours. You cannot have both great deal flow AND reasonable hours.

A bank with a strong pitch-to-close ratio—where you’re working mostly on real deals—means you’re working on deals that actually close. Which means you’re in diligence. You’re negotiating documents. You’re responding to buyer questions. You’re managing closings. Real deals generate real work, and that work is intense and time-consuming.

A bank with terrible deal flow might actually have better hours in some ways because 80% of what you’re doing is pitches. Pitches are painful and demoralizing, but they’re also often more controllable. You’re not at the mercy of a buyer’s diligence timeline or a seller’s urgency to close. You’re just building decks on your bank’s timeline.

So you need to be honest about what trade-off you prefer:

Option A: Elite Platform with Strong Deal Flow

• Work 90-100+ hours a week consistently
• 70-80% of your time is on real deals
• You’re learning fast, getting real reps, building valuable skills
• Top-tier comp: $400-550K as a 2nd/3rd year associate, $550-700K+ as VP
• Strong brand and exit opportunities
• But you’re exhausted and rarely have weekends
• This is the top-tier boutique/elite bulge bracket coverage group experience

Option B: Middle-Market/Regional Bank with Selective Deal Flow

• Work 70-85 hours a week on average
• Maybe 40-50% real deals, rest is pitches and relationship management
• You’re getting decent reps but not the volume of elite platforms
• Comp is lower: $300-400K as associate, $450-550K as VP
• Less brand recognition but might have better client exposure
• Slightly more predictable schedule
• Protected Saturdays are more realistic

Option C: Lower-Tier Bank with Poor Deal Flow

• Work 60-80 hours a week
• 80% pitches, 20% deals
• Hours are somewhat more predictable but the work is demoralizing
• Comp is notably lower: $250-350K as associate
• Minimal brand value
• You’re not developing as quickly because you’re not closing deals
• The reduced hours don’t feel worth it when the work is meaningless

There is no Option D where you work 60-70 hours a week on tons of live deals at a top platform while earning top-tier comp. That doesn’t exist.

And here’s the critical piece most people don’t think through: Banks that offer better hours typically have less deal flow, aren’t at the highest tier, and pay less. Are you okay with that trade-off?

If you move to a bank that promises 70-hour weeks and protected Saturdays, you need to understand what you’re giving up:

• The deal flow will be lighter (fewer total deals, maybe 2-3 per year instead of 5-8)
• The brand recognition will be lower (it won’t be a name that impresses at cocktail parties)
• The comp will be 20-30% less ($300-350K instead of $450-500K at the associate/young VP level)
• Your exit opportunities will be more limited (these banks don’t feed into top PE funds)
• Your skill development will be slower (fewer reps means slower learning)

Some people look at that trade-off and say “absolutely worth it.” Better hours, less stress, more life. The comp hit and brand sacrifice are acceptable prices to pay.

Others look at it and say “not worth it.” If I’m going to be in banking anyway, I want to be at a top platform learning from the best, getting maximum reps, and maximizing comp and optionality.

You need to know which person you are before you lateral.

Understanding this trade-off is critical because a lot of associates are unhappy about hours but they haven’t actually thought through what hours they could tolerate and under what conditions, and what they’d be giving up to get better hours.

If your honest answer is “I cannot handle more than 50-60 hours a week regardless of what I’m working on, and I’m willing to take a comp hit and go to a less prestigious bank for that lifestyle”—then you should look at lower-tier regional banks or honestly consider exiting to corp dev.

But if your answer is “I could handle 80-hour weeks if I had protected Saturdays and was working on real deals with people I respect at a place that pays me well”—then your problem isn’t banking hours. It’s that you’re at the wrong bank with the wrong deal flow and the wrong culture.

The unpredictability is another crucial factor. It’s not just the hours—it’s that you can never make plans. Weekends get blown up at 6pm Friday. Vacations get cancelled. You can’t commit to anything.

Some banks are better than others on this. Banks with good staffing and reasonable MDs try to protect weekends when possible. Banks with strong deal flow are actually sometimes more predictable—you can see the busy periods coming. Banks with bad processes and reactive management create unpredictability that’s worse than the hours themselves.

The question is: would you be okay with the hours if you at least had protected Saturdays? If you knew that barring true emergencies, Saturday was yours? For many people, that one day of protected time makes 80-hour weeks sustainable in a way that 80 hours with zero predictability doesn’t.

But again—banks that consistently protect Saturdays are typically not the top-tier, highest-deal-flow platforms. They’re middle-market or regional banks with less intense workloads. Which means less comp, less brand, less exit optionality.

The People Factor

This is huge and underrated. The quality of the people around you—colleagues, bosses, mentors—determines so much of your experience.

Are you learning from the people around you? When you watch your VP or MD work, do you think “I want to be able to do that”? Or do you think “This person is mediocre and I’m not learning anything”?

Are your colleagues people you respect and enjoy working with? Or is the culture competitive in a destructive way?

Does your MD treat you with respect? Give you real responsibility? Credit your work? Help you develop? Or are they abusive, dismissive, or just absent?

If you’re at a bank where the people are strong and the culture is good, you’ll tolerate a lot. Even 90-hour weeks are manageable when you’re learning from brilliant people and you genuinely like your team.

If you’re at a bank where the people are mediocre or the culture is toxic, everything else becomes intolerable. Even 70-hour weeks feel impossible when you don’t respect the people you’re working for.

The Career Trajectory Piece

Where do you see yourself in five years? This is an annoying interview question, but it’s actually important.

If you want to be an MD at an investment bank someday, then you need to be at a bank where that path exists and makes sense. You need to be developing the right skills. You need to be building relationships. You need to be at a platform where partnership is realistic and the economics are good.

If you’re at a bank where the MD path is blocked (too many VPs, poor economics, bad franchise), then staying doesn’t make sense even if you like the work. You should lateral to somewhere with better trajectory.

If you have no interest in being an MD—if five years from now you want to be doing something else entirely—then you need to think about what skills and experiences will get you there. Maybe your current bank is fine as a temporary platform even if it’s not perfect.

If you don’t know what you want to be doing in five years—which is honest and common—then you should probably optimize for learning and optionality. Be at a place where you’re developing skills, building relationships, and keeping your options open.

The PE Question You Need to Answer Honestly

Let’s address this head-on, because PE is the default answer for most people and often it shouldn’t be.

Most banking associates, when unhappy, assume they should pursue PE. But have you actually thought through whether you’d enjoy PE? And more practically—do you understand how hard it is to break in post-MBA without a structured process?

The Post-MBA PE Reality

Here’s what nobody tells you clearly: there is no standardized post-MBA PE recruiting process at mega-funds. There’s no “on-cycle” you can plug into. There’s no process to follow.

If you want to recruit for PE as a post-MBA associate, you’re looking at:

• 6-12 months of aggressive networking with no guarantee of outcomes
• Reaching out to funds cold or through any connection you can find
• Maybe getting a few first-round interviews if you’re lucky and persistent
• Competing against people who worked at better banks, have better deal flow, or have relationships you don’t have

Some of your business school classmates who started networking the day they started their banking jobs have gotten PE offers. Most haven’t. The success rate is low and the process is grueling.

Upper-middle-market funds ($500M-$3B AUM) are more accessible but still require intensive networking. You need sector expertise. You need to be willing to accept smaller platforms. You often need to relocate. And you need to be genuinely passionate about the fund’s strategy because these funds can afford to be selective.

So before you commit to this path, you need to ask yourself: Am I willing to network aggressively for 6-12 months with a low probability of success? And if I’m successful, do I actually want the job?

Would You Actually Enjoy PE?

Not “Is PE prestigious?” Not “Does PE pay well?” But: Would you actually like the day-to-day work?

Here’s what PE associates actually do:

During Deal Processes (Maybe 30-40% of the time):

• 8-12 weeks of intensive due diligence on a single company
• Building detailed models of every aspect of the business
• Meeting with management teams repeatedly
• Reviewing customer contracts, supplier agreements, employment data
• Reading legal documents
• Coordinating with consultants, lawyers, accountants
• Presenting to investment committees

Post-Close (The Other 60-70%):

• Monthly or quarterly board meetings with portfolio companies
• Reviewing financial performance vs. plan
• Helping management teams with operational issues
• Supporting hiring of key executives
• Thinking through strategic initiatives
• Working on add-on acquisitions
• Preparing for eventual exits
• Fundraising (LPs, presentations, due diligence calls)

Now compare this to banking:

In Banking:

• Multiple deals happening simultaneously
• Variety—different companies, different industries, different situations
• Shorter cycles—you might work on something for 3-6 months then move on
• Client-facing—you’re interacting with CEOs, CFOs, board members regularly
• Always something new—new pitch, new company, new problem to solve
• Less operational—you’re advising on transactions, not running businesses

These are genuinely different jobs. Neither is better. They appeal to different people.

If you love variety, if you get bored doing the same thing for months, if you like the pace of moving from deal to deal, if you enjoy client relationships and advisory work—you might actually hate PE even if you could get in.

If you like going deep, if you enjoy operational work, if you want to see the long-term results of investments, if you’re interested in helping build companies rather than just advising on transactions—you might love PE.

But here’s the key thing: Most banking associates have never actually thought about this. They just assume PE is “better” because it’s prestigious, pays well, and offers better hours. They haven’t considered whether they’d actually enjoy the work.

Before you commit months to PE networking with no clear path, talk to PE associates who are 2-3 years in. Not the ones who just started and are still in the honeymoon phase. The ones who’ve been doing it long enough to know whether they actually like it.

Ask them:

• Do they miss the variety and pace of banking?
• Do they find the operational work interesting or tedious?
• Do they like the long hold periods or do they wish they were moving to new deals more frequently?
• What do they miss about banking? (Everyone misses something.)
• If they could go back and choose differently, would they?

You might discover that PE sounds worse to you than staying in banking. That’s valuable information.

The Corp Dev Reality Check

Corp dev has emerged as the “smart exit” for people who can’t or don’t want to do PE. But corp dev has its own significant trade-offs that most people underestimate.

(I wrote a detailed piece on this recently—”Leaving Investment Banking for Corporate Development? Here’s What You Need to Know”—which goes deep on the comp, career path, and challenges. Go read it if you’re seriously considering corp dev.)

The short version:

Compensation: You’re taking a $150-300K annual pay cut compared to banking. As an associate or VP, you’re making $200-350K at most companies vs. $400-600K in banking. This gap doesn’t close—it widens over time.

Deal Flow: You might close 1-2 deals per year. That’s it. The rest of the time is integration, strategic planning, pitching deals to business units that don’t want them, and navigating corporate politics.

Politics: Banking has politics, but corporate politics are different and often worse. Every deal requires buy-in from business units who see you as a threat. Your success depends on executive decisions you can’t control. When deals succeed, others get credit. When they fail, you get blamed.

Career Path: The pyramid narrows fast. There are 3-5 SVP/Director roles at a typical F500. There’s one Head of Corp Dev. Most people plateau at VP level.

The “Strategic” Work: At junior levels, you’re not setting strategy. You’re analyzing decisions that have already been made by people above you or by consultants the company hired. The actual strategic influence comes much later, if you make it that far.

Corp dev can be excellent for specific people—those who are genuinely passionate about a particular company or industry, those who value lifestyle over comp, those with a clear path to general management.

But if you’re considering corp dev primarily because PE seems too hard and you need to do something—that’s not a good reason. You’re trading banking’s problems for different problems. Make sure the new problems are better for you specifically.

What If the Solution Is Just… Better Banking?

Here’s the hypothesis you should seriously consider: What if you’d be happy in banking, just not at this bank?

Think about what banking would look like in an ideal world:

• Strong deal flow with a good pitch-to-close ratio—maybe 20-30% pitches, 70-80% live deals
• Good people around you—smart, collaborative, teaching you things
• Reasonable workload management—you’re staffed on 1-2 things at a time, not 4-5
• Quality mentorship—MDs who develop you, give you responsibility, credit your work
• Good culture—people help each other, politics are minimal, the environment is supportive
• Real client exposure—you’re in meetings, building relationships, learning the business
• Protected Saturdays—barring true emergencies, you have one day where you can make plans
• Clear career path—promotion timelines are reasonable, trajectory to MD makes sense

Would you be happy in that environment, even if it meant 80-90 hour weeks most of the time?

If your honest answer is “yes” or “probably,” then you don’t need to exit banking. You need to find that environment.

And here’s the thing: That environment exists. It’s not hypothetical. It’s just not universal.

There are banks where the pitch-to-close ratio is strong. Where the MDs are good. Where the culture is healthy. Where associates are developed and promoted on reasonable timelines. Where people generally seem to like their jobs. Where Saturdays are protected unless there’s a genuine emergency.

These banks exist across the spectrum—bulge brackets, elite boutiques, middle-market platforms, industry-focused shops. The quality of the environment is not perfectly correlated with brand or size. Top bulge brackets have some groups with excellent cultures and some groups with toxic cultures. The same is true for every bank.

Your job is to find the right seat. Not just any seat. The specific group at the specific bank where the combination of work, people, culture, and trajectory matches what you need.

The Trade-Offs You Need to Think Through

If you’re considering a lateral move, you need to be clear about what you’re optimizing for. You cannot have everything. Different banks offer different packages of trade-offs.

The Four-Way Trade-off: You Can’t Have It All

This is the reality nobody wants to hear but everyone needs to understand:

You cannot simultaneously have:

1. Elite brand recognition
2. Strong, consistent deal flow
3. Reasonable hours (70-80 vs. 90-100+)
4. Top-tier compensation

You get to pick 2-3 of these. Maybe. If you’re lucky.

Let’s break down the actual options:

Tier 1: Elite Boutiques / Top Bulge Bracket Coverage Groups

• Brand: ✓ (Elite boutiques, top coverage groups at premier bulge brackets)
• Deal Flow: ✓ (Strong pitch-to-close ratio, 70-80% live deals)
• Hours: ✗ (90-100+ hours regularly, weekends often consumed)
• Comp: ✓ ($450-550K+ as associate, $600-750K+ as VP)

This is the “maximize learning and optionality” path. You’re getting the best training, the strongest brand, and top comp. But you’re paying for it with your life. If you can sustain 90-100 hour weeks for 3-4 years, this is where you want to be.

Tier 2: Strong Middle-Market / Boutiques

• Brand: ~ (Known in the industry but not household names)
• Deal Flow: ✓ (Good deal flow, maybe 50-60% live deals)
• Hours: ~ (75-90 hours, slightly more predictable)
• Comp: ~ ($350-450K as associate, $500-650K as VP)

This is the “balanced” option. You’re still getting good deal experience and decent comp, but you’re giving up some brand and some earnings potential for marginally better lifestyle. Protected Saturdays are more realistic here.

Tier 3: Regional / Lower Middle-Market Banks

• Brand: ✗ (Regional recognition only)
• Deal Flow: ~ (Sparse, maybe 2-3 deals per year)
• Hours: ✓ (60-80 hours, protected Saturdays common)
• Comp: ✗ ($250-350K as associate, $400-500K as VP)

This is the “lifestyle” option. You get meaningfully better hours and more predictability. But you’re taking a 30-40% comp hit, you’re getting fewer reps, and your exit opportunities are limited. If hours are truly your primary constraint and you’re willing to make those sacrifices, this might work.

The Critical Question: What Are You Actually Optimizing For?

Before you lateral, you need to be brutally honest about your priorities:

If you want to maximize long-term earnings and optionality, you should target Tier 1 platforms. Yes, the hours are brutal. But you’re building the most valuable skillset and keeping the most doors open. The comp now is highest, and the comp later (as MD or in PE) is highest.

If you want the best overall balance of learning, comp, and lifestyle, target Tier 2 platforms. You’re giving up some brand and some money, but you’re still getting good development and the hours are somewhat more sustainable.

If hours are truly your primary constraint—if you genuinely cannot function above 70-80 hours per week—then Tier 3 makes sense, but understand what you’re giving up. Lower comp. Weaker brand. Fewer exit options. Slower skill development.

Most people fool themselves about what they’re optimizing for. They say they want better hours, but they also want top comp, strong brand, and great deal flow. That combination doesn’t exist.

You need to rank these priorities. What’s #1? What’s #2? What are you willing to sacrifice?

Brand vs. Responsibility

Top bulge brackets are household names. Your parents’ friends know them. The alumni network is vast. The resume signal is strong. Exit opportunities are real.

But you’re also part of a 2,000+ person organization. Client responsibility comes slowly. You’re staffed on large teams. Real autonomy might not come until VP or later.

At 50-person elite boutiques, you sacrifice some brand recognition outside of finance. Fewer people outside the industry know these names.

But you get meaningful responsibility faster. Smaller teams mean you’re doing more. Client exposure comes earlier. You’re learning how to originate, not just execute, by year 3-4 instead of year 6-7.

At focused middle-market banks or strong industry boutiques, you sacrifice even more brand. But you might be running entire M&A processes as a second-year associate. You might have your own client relationships by year three.

Which matters more to you? The name recognition or the skill development?

Be honest. If you want to pivot to tech startups or venture capital in five years, the top bulge bracket brand might matter more. If you want to become a truly excellent investment banker and potentially start your own shop someday, the accelerated skill development probably matters more.

Deal Size vs. Reps

Bulge brackets work on the largest deals. $5 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion mergers. These make headlines. They look impressive on your resume. They’re complex and interesting.

You’re also one of 10-15 people on the team. You own one piece. You see one slice of the transaction. You’re important but you’re also replaceable.

Middle-market banks work on $200 million to $2 billion deals. These rarely make the news. They don’t generate the same cocktail party cache.

But teams are smaller—maybe 2-3 people. You own the entire model. You manage the data room. You’re on every client call. You negotiate with the other side. After three years, you’ve closed 5-8 deals and you genuinely know how to run an M&A process.

After three years, which banker has developed more? The one who was a cog in three mega-deals, or the one who ran eight middle-market deals end-to-end?

The tombstone with the big number is impressive. But what matters more for your career—the tombstone or the skills?

Deal Flow vs. Hours—The Fundamental Trade-off

This is critical to understand because many associates think they can find a bank with great deal flow AND reasonable hours. You can’t.

High deal flow banks (elite boutiques, strong coverage groups at bulge brackets):

• Pitch-to-close ratio might be 30% pitches, 70% deals
• You’re constantly in live transactions
• You’re learning fast because you’re getting reps on real deals
• But you’re working 90-100 hour weeks regularly
• Weekends frequently get consumed by diligence or closing work
• Comp is top-tier: $450-550K+ as associate
• The work is meaningful but the lifestyle is brutal

Medium deal flow banks (selective boutiques, middle-market banks):

• More balanced pitch-to-deal mix, maybe 50/50
• You might work on 3-4 deals per year
• Hours might be 75-90 per week
• You might have some protected weekends
• Comp is solid but lower: $350-450K as associate
• You’re getting good experience but fewer total reps

Low deal flow banks (weak coverage groups, lower-tier regional banks):

• 80% pitches, 20% deals
• Hours might be 60-80 per week and more predictable
• Work is demoralizing because most of it goes nowhere
• Comp is notably lower: $250-350K as associate
• You’re not developing as fast because you’re not closing deals
• The reduced hours don’t compensate for the poor learning environment

The brutal truth: If you want dramatically better hours, you’re moving to a bank with worse deal flow, lower comp, and weaker brand. Are you okay with that?

You need to decide: would you rather work 90 hours on real deals at a top platform making $500K, or work 70 hours at a regional bank on mostly pitches making $300K?

There’s no universally right answer. Some people would rather work more hours on meaningful work. Others would rather have the lifestyle even if it means slower development and less money.

Be honest about which trade-off you prefer.

MD Quality and Group Culture

The quality of the MDs you work with determines your ceiling.

Great MDs teach. They bring you to client meetings. They explain their thinking. They give you real responsibility. They help you understand not just how to execute but how to win business and manage relationships. They give credit where it’s due. They have your back.

Mediocre or bad MDs use you as labor. They don’t explain. They don’t develop. They take credit. They throw you under the bus. You’re a resource to them, not a professional to be mentored.

At larger banks, staffing is often formulaic. You might not work with the best MDs consistently—you’re assigned to whoever needs bodies.

At smaller banks, you often work directly with senior partners. If those partners are excellent, your development accelerates dramatically. If they’re not good, you’re stuck.

Before you lateral, do intensive diligence on the specific MDs you’d work with. Talk to current associates and former associates. Ask direct questions:

• Do they develop people or just use them?
• Do they give credit or take credit?
• Do they bring associates to client meetings?
• Are they genuinely good at banking or are they coasting?
• Would you want to be them in 15 years?

Culture matters just as much. Some groups are collaborative—associates help each other, VPs mentor actively, people generally seem to enjoy their colleagues. Other groups are competitive in a toxic way—people hoard information, undermine each other, and everyone is miserable.

You can’t fix bad culture by working harder. If it’s broken, leave. And culture varies group-by-group even within the same bank. Do group-specific diligence.

Geography and Lifestyle

Geography affects your options and your life quality.

New York offers maximum optionality. Most banks. Most groups. Most deal flow. Most future opportunities. But it’s expensive, intense, and you’re competing with everyone.

San Francisco offers tech deal flow and the tech ecosystem. But fewer banking options and less M&A volume overall.

Secondary markets—Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston—offer lower cost of living and potentially better lifestyle. But fewer banking seats and less mobility if you want to move again.

London, Hong Kong, Singapore have their own dynamics—different markets, different types of deals, different career paths.

Think seriously about whether you’re willing to relocate. The perfect seat for you might be in a different city.

When Laterals Make Sense vs. When They Don’t

Laterals make sense when:

You genuinely like the core work of banking but your current situation is dysfunctional. The deal flow is poor—you’re spending 80% of your time on pitches. The people are bad. The culture is toxic. The mentorship is absent. Moving to a better bank solves your actual problem.

You’re willing to make the four-way trade-off consciously. You understand you can’t have elite brand + strong deal flow + reasonable hours + top comp. You’ve decided what you’re optimizing for and you’re targeting banks that offer that specific combination.

You’re in the wrong sector or product area. You’re in industrials but passionate about healthcare. You’re in restructuring but want M&A. You’re in a generalist group but want to build deep industry expertise. Pivoting within banking makes more sense than exiting.

Your bank has structural problems. No clear path to VP or MD. Poor economics at senior levels. Limited franchise in your sector. Terrible pitch-to-close ratio. These problems won’t improve—you need a different platform.

You’re still early enough to optimize for learning. If you’re 1-3 years post-MBA, you have time to move to a better training ground. Better to spend 2 years in the wrong seat and 3-4 in the right seat than 5-6 grinding somewhere mediocre.

Laterals probably don’t make sense when:

You genuinely hate the fundamental work of banking. If even the good deals feel tedious, if you dread client interaction, if you find the work inherently uninteresting—lateraling won’t fix this. You need to exit.

You want both better hours AND top comp/brand/deal flow. If you’re not willing to make trade-offs—if you want 70-hour weeks at a top boutique with elite comp and strong deal flow—you’re chasing something that doesn’t exist. Either accept the trade-offs or exit to corp dev.

You’re totally burned out. Sometimes the problem is burnout, not the specific seat. If you’re exhausted and depleted, lateraling just moves the burnout to a new address. You might need time off or a genuine lifestyle change.

You have a clear, compelling next move lined up. If you have a great PE offer after months of networking, or a perfect corp dev role at your dream company, take it. Don’t lateral just to lateral if you have a strong alternative.

You’re very late in your career. If you’re 5+ years post-MBA and still unhappy in banking, a lateral probably won’t change the fundamental trajectory. Consider whether banking is right for you long-term.

You’re not willing to accept lower comp and weaker brand for better hours. If you want better lifestyle but you’re not willing to move to a middle-market or regional bank and take the comp hit, then corp dev is probably your better option. The lifestyle improvement in banking requires these sacrifices.

How to Actually Do This

If you’ve determined a lateral makes sense, here’s the practical process:

Step 1: Get specific about what you want

Write it down. Not vague generalities—specific, concrete requirements:

• What sectors or products do you want to focus on?
• What does “good culture” specifically mean to you?
• How much client exposure do you need to be satisfied?
• What pitch-to-close ratio is acceptable?
• What kind of mentorship would you value?
• What hours can you actually sustain? (Be honest—can you handle 90 hours if deal flow is good and you have protected Saturdays? Or do you need 70 hours regardless?)
• What trade-offs are you willing to make? (More deal flow but more hours? Less brand but more responsibility? Better lifestyle but lower comp?)
• Are you willing to accept 20-30% lower comp for better hours?
• Does the brand matter to you or just the learning?

Rank these. You can’t optimize for everything. What’s most important?

Step 2: Research systematically

Don’t just target randomly. Build a target list based on what you’re actually optimizing for:

If you’re optimizing for learning/optionality (and can handle 90-100 hours):

• Elite boutiques with strong franchises
• Top coverage groups at premier bulge brackets (healthcare, TMT, sponsors)
• Industry-focused boutiques with elite reputations

If you’re optimizing for balance (willing to accept 75-90 hours):

• Strong middle-market banks with good deal flow
• Regional powerhouses with solid franchises
• Selective boutiques

If you’re optimizing for hours (need 60-80 hours, willing to sacrifice comp/brand):

• Regional banks in secondary markets
• Lower middle-market platforms
• Understand this comes with significantly lower comp and limited exit options

Gather intelligence through your network. Talk to people at target banks—alumni, former colleagues, business school classmates. Ask specific questions:

• What’s the actual pitch-to-close ratio?
• How are hours? What does a typical week look like?
• Are Saturdays protected?
• What’s the comp? Be direct about this.
• How’s the culture? Do people help each other?
• What are the MDs like? Do they develop people?
• What happened to recent associates? Where did they go?

Step 3: Network carefully

You can’t broadcast you’re looking—word travels in banking. But you can:

• Reconnect with old contacts naturally
• Take coffee meetings with people in your extended network
• Attend industry events
• Be selective about who you tell directly

Build relationships, not just transactional job-seeking conversations. People help people they like and trust.

Step 4: Time it right

Good timing:

• 18-24 months into your current role
• After closing a significant deal
• Around promotion cycles (moving to VP at a better bank)

Bad timing:

• Less than 12 months in (looks flighty)
• During a major live deal (burns bridges)
• Right after a significant mistake (looks like running away)

Step 5: Interview both ways

You’re evaluating them as much as they’re evaluating you. Ask hard questions:

• What’s the typical pitch-to-close ratio for this group?
• What do hours actually look like? Week to week?
• Are Saturdays protected?
• What’s the comp range for associates and VPs? (Be direct—you need to know)
• How does staffing work?
• What happened to the last 3 people in this seat?
• Can I talk to current associates?
• What’s the path to VP? Timeline?
• How does MD partnership work? What are the economics?

Red flags:

• Vague answers about culture or career path
• Unwillingness to let you talk to current team
• Defensive responses to direct questions
• Pressure to decide quickly
• Promises of “things are changing” without specifics

Step 6: Negotiate comprehensively

Not just comp—everything:

• Base, bonus, signing bonus, guarantees
• Year-end bonus from current bank (timing matters)
• Which MDs you’ll work with (try to get this specified)
• Specific group placement
• Title/level
• Promotion timeline expectations
• Start date

Get commitments in writing when possible.

The Bottom Line

You’re unhappy in banking. That’s clear. But why you’re unhappy determines what you should do next.

If you hate the fundamental work—the client service, the deal execution, the financial analysis, the transactional nature of the business—then exit. No amount of better circumstances will make you enjoy work you fundamentally dislike.

If you cannot handle 80-hour weeks even under ideal conditions—even with protected Saturdays, real deals, good people, and meaningful work—then corp dev or operating roles make sense. Accept the comp trade-off and prioritize quality of life.

But if you could handle 80-90 hour weeks with protected Saturdays and good deal flow—if you like the work when conditions are right but hate your specific situation—the people, the culture, the 80% pitch ratio, the politics, the lack of development—then consider seriously whether a lateral move is your best option.

Just understand the trade-offs you’re making:

Moving to a bank with better hours means accepting lower comp, weaker brand, and less deal flow. There’s no way around this. Banks that work you 60-70 hours are not top-tier platforms. They pay less. They have less prestigious names. They close fewer deals. If you’re okay with that trade-off, great. But don’t fool yourself into thinking you can find a bank with 70-hour weeks that also offers top-tier comp and deal flow.

Moving to a bank with top deal flow means accepting 90-100 hour weeks. Real deals generate real work. If you want to be at a platform that’s closing 6-8 deals per year with strong pitch-to-close ratios, you’re signing up for intense hours. The meaningful work and accelerated learning are the compensation for the brutal lifestyle.

You can find better banking. But you can’t find perfect banking. Every platform involves trade-offs. Your job is to figure out which trade-offs you can live with.

Don’t assume exit is the only answer just because that’s what people do when they’re confused and unhappy. Many of the most successful, satisfied bankers didn’t follow the default path. They moved laterally to better platforms. They found groups where the deal flow was real, the people were good, and the culture was healthy. They built sustainable careers at banks where they could see themselves long-term.

Understand the fundamental trade-off: better deal flow means more hours. You cannot have both. A bank where 70-80% of your work is live deals means you’re working 90-100 hours because real deals generate real work. But that work is meaningful, you’re learning, and you’re building real skills. If you want fewer hours, you’re moving to a platform with less deal flow, lower comp, and weaker brand.

The finance industry is full of people who exited banking because they were miserable, then realized 2-3 years later they actually miss banking. They miss the deal flow. The variety. The client interaction. The pace. But now it’s awkward to go back and the path is harder.

Don’t be that person.

If you actually like banking—if you like the work, if you’re good at it, if you could see yourself doing it long-term under better circumstances—find better banking. It exists.

It requires effort. Networking is work. Diligence is work. Leaving a secure seat for a new one is scary. But it’s far less work than spending months pursuing PE with no clear path, or taking a corp dev role and realizing you made the wrong call.

Be honest with yourself. Really honest. Not the answer you think you should give. The real answer.

What are you actually willing to trade? Lower comp for better hours? Weaker brand for more responsibility? Be specific.

If your real answer is “I could handle 80-90 hours with protected Saturdays if I was working on real deals with good people at a platform that pays well and has strong deal flow”—then don’t exit.

Lateral.

But understand that lateral means finding the right combination of trade-offs for you. It doesn’t mean finding banking without trade-offs. That doesn’t exist.