I was talking to a Managing Director in Equity Research about the differences between investment banking and equity research and realized that there’s a lot more risk in equity research than investment banking.
I’ve always assumed that there was a proportionate risk to reward ratio for most brokerage jobs. Sales and trading with a large inherent risk (losing your job if you don’t do well) would have the largest possible rewards (large juicy bonuses). On the other hand you have investment banking which is considerably more risk averse (you can’t single handedly lose $7.2 billion), thus having a smaller compensation range.
But this seems to stop holding true for equity research. You’re putting your neck on the line when releasing analyst reports. These reports should be right more often than not. If not, it won’t take long to be out of a job… Thats definitely a lot more pressure than filling in commas and double-checking models in investment banking.
Yet investment bankers get paid a lot more. Why? There’s probably some reward that is more intangible than cold hard cash so I added working hours to the mix.
Even though they’re both brokerage jobs, its probably unfair to be comparing research with investment banking since the jobs aren’t that similar. One could just like doing stock analysis rather than endless DCF models. And of course theres a lot more involved than hours and compensation. But from a purely financial point of view, it certainly makes the risk reward graph look a lot more logical.
EDIT: Goldman Sachs’ chief investment strategist (Equity Research), Abby Cohen has just been demoted for painfully wrong predictions… It just goes to prove that equity research seems to have a disproportional risk to its reward…
Posted by jqwerty 
