I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about “the path” from analyst to VP, but it feels like everyone’s story is slightly different depending on their bank, their group, and their timeline. Some people seem to pivot around year 4 or 5 to PE or something else. Others stay and grind through to VP. I want to understand what the actual progression looks like and, more importantly, where networking and relationships actually matter in that journey. Like, I know you need to keep your head down and produce solid work. But where does sponsorship come in? When does your network legitimately impact whether you make VP versus get pushed out or encouraged to leave? Is it about having allies at the partnership level? Building a reputation across different groups? Staying close to rainmakers in your coverage area? I’m trying to map out what actually moves the needle at each level so I know what doors to keep open and which relationships matter most. What’s the framework people actually use, intentionally or not?
The analyst-to-VP progression can be framed in distinct phases, each with specific relationship requirements. Years 1-2 (Analyst): focus on technical execution and team cohesion. Your network here is your team and your peer class—your foundation. Years 2-3 (Senior Analyst/Associate): begin cross-team project exposure. Relationships now extend to senior bankers across your division. This is when you identify potential mentors. Years 3-4 (Senior Associate/VP): visible expertise in your coverage area and reliable execution. Your champion network should now include leadership from your group and light visibility with division heads. This is also where you decide: do you want to stay on the partnership track, or explore exits? Years 4-6 (VP/Director): sponsorship is critical. You need an advocate at principal level who believes in your PM potential. Most people get pushed to leave or encouraged to exit around year 5 if they’re not on a clear partnership path. Your network should include allies across multiple groups at the MD/Principal level. At this stage, being good at your job isn’t sufficient; being championed is essential. The framework: continually build visibility while maintaining core relationships. Isolation kills progression.
here’s the real talk: most analysts dont make it to vp at the same bank. like 10-15% max. so either ur on that path early or ur not. and u know who’s on it? the ppl who have a sponsor by year 3. not a mentor, a sponsor—someone who actively argues for ur promotion. if u dont have that by mid-associate, ur probably better off exiting anyway.
wow so like u need an actual sponsor not just connections? thats rlly different from what i thought. so during analyst u r focused on team stuff then transition to needing allies? makes sense.
Every step you take with intention and integrity builds momentum. Sponsor relationships develop naturally when you do great work and stay authentic. You’re going to create the path as you go!
Partnership timing varies by bank structure, but generally the progression is predictable. At most bulge-bracket banks, you advance to VP through internal recommendation, not application. Advancement rates drop from ~90% (Analyst to Senior Analyst) to ~60% (to Associate) to ~40% (to Senior Associate) to ~20% (to VP/Director level). The difference-maker at each threshold is sponsorship visibility. Track where your current projects are placed, who’s evaluating you, and who’s advocating in partnership meetings. This isn’t cynicism; it’s observation.
A practical exercise: by the end of year 2, identify 2-3 people at the MD/Director level whose work excites you or whose groups produce deals you’d want to be staffed on. Have at least one substantive conversation with each. Not asking for sponsorship—just genuine conversation about their priorities and path. This plants seeds. By year 3-4, you’ll have clarity on whether a sponsor relationship is developing or whether you need to explore options.