Should I leave a top tier shop to advance my career?

Dear GTGDTGU,

Your situation is a classic banking dilemma: stay at a top-tier firm and wait your turn, or jump to a smaller shop for a bigger role. I get the appeal — more responsibility, a fancier title, and the chance to be a bigger deal at a less competitive place. But unless you’re being pushed out or getting a massive payday, moving to a lower-ranked bank is usually a mistake.

So my advice is to stay put. The grass is rarely greener on the other side; it’s usually just a different shade of brown.

Right now, you’re at a top-three desk in fixed income syndicate. That’s a strong position, even if it doesn’t always feel like it. I get that the culture is tough. At the top firms, missing a deal means a grilling, and the ritualistic recriminations are off-putting. Promotions aren’t guaranteed, either, and the competition is tougher. But that’s the trade-off for working at the top. At a second-tier bank, the pressure might be different, but so are the downsides. You’d be giving up prestige, deal flow, and the kind of platform that makes your job easier in the long run.

The offer you’re considering comes with a promotion and more money — but not enough more money to justify the risk. If it were a retirement-sized guarantee, that’d be one thing. But it’s not. And while running your own desk sounds great, titles at smaller banks don’t always translate to real career advancement. You might be a bigger fish, but you’re swimming in a pond that matters less.

You’re right that a move could force you to develop new skills; winning deals without a top-tier brand behind you isn’t easy. But that’s not necessarily a reason to go. You can push for more responsibility where you are without betting your career on a weaker franchise. And if you ever want to move back up to a bulge bracket later, it’ll be much harder once you’ve stepped off the ladder.

Most importantly, the banking industry is fickle. Strategies shift, management changes, and promises made today can evaporate as quickly as the senior people who made them when you were interviewing. Unless your move is underpinned by a substantial guaranteed payout — the kind that on an after-tax basis makes you feel flush and gives you financial security — you’re taking a leap of faith in an environment where faith isn’t always rewarded.

I speak from experience: when I moved from Deutsche Bank to Merrill Lynch in 2005, it was a calculated risk to move between two peer firms of roughly equal standing in EMEA equity capital markets, and even then, it required exhaustive due diligence. I fretted a lot over that decision as the merits were finely balanced. Moving to a conspicuously and demonstrably lower-ranked bank without a compelling financial or structural reason is an entirely different proposition.

Lower-ranked firms also have a nasty habit of shutting down or massively downsizing franchises or product lines because the returns are usually subpar if you’re not top 3 or top 5. Franchises fall apart more quickly when you’re already second- or third-tier than when you’re top-tier.

If you were being pushed out, or if the culture at your current firm had become toxic, the calculus might be different. But from what you’ve described, this isn’t the case.

In short, unless there’s a huge financial upside or your current job is unbearable, staying is the smarter play. You’ve got years ahead of you. Don’t rush a move that could close more doors than it opens.

Stay put — for now,

Craig