It’s almost always better to do Audit –> M&A/ TS –> IB because audit directly to IB is quite a jump and usually doesn’t work that well. You could spend a lot of time networking and interviewing and end up with nothing after months of effort.

The biggest problem here is that you’re in Australia, which is a terrible market for career changers moving into IB (see: https://mergersandinquisitions.com/investment-banking-in-australia/).

Honestly, you’re probably better off pushing for a transfer overseas so you can aim for IB roles in a bigger market. Normally, you should stay in each role for about ~1 year before moving to the next one, but you may need more time if you’re also moving to another country as part of this.

I attempt to respond to all good-faith comments on this site, even ones on older articles (some articles here are ~15 years old and still get plenty of comments…).

My understanding is that in South Africa, it’s quite common for CAs to get into IB after working in audit/accounting for a while. So I don’t think it will be a hindrance (though I admittedly haven’t looked at that market or done an interview with a banker from South Africa in quite a few years).

I think the issue here will be less your age and background in audit and more the fact that SA is a small and difficult market to break into. You’d have a better chance if you could move to Europe, the U.K., or some other larger market.

Yes, it probably makes sense to go to the TAS/CF group, even if it’s at a smaller firm. You already have a brand name from your current firm.

M&A is probably better since you’re exposed to more deals and deal processes there.

I currently work as an auditor at a top 5-6th accounting firm in the UK. It’s not Big 4 but it is a pretty recognizable name globally. I am placed in a regional office near London, so it is not our central office, although I work on their audits too. I am in the middle of my 3-year graduate scheme but got an offer from CF/TAS group in a much smaller firm with a not known name. So I am trying to decide if it would be wise to move to their CF or stay where I am right now with a goal of getting into IB boutique in the medium-term horizon. This smaller firm seems to have pretty strong CF/TAS for its size with deals between 5mln and 100mln. and majority around 40mln. Just as a comparison my firm works on deals between 5mln and 500mln. with most being around 50-70mln. This smaller firm is also led by partners who are ex-BB bankers. From internal networking at my current firm, I learnt that it will be very difficult to transfer to TAS/CF in London office and if successful may take up to 3 years from now, meaning I am stuck with audit for good 4-5 years. On the other hand moving to the other firm means I will have immediate hands-on experience of fin. modelling on a wide range of deals (they have very high deal flow) but I am worried their name and size may damage my chances of getting into IB later. I would appreciate your advice on this as I find it really difficult to decide what would be the best option of breaking into IB.

It would be better to get into TAS or IB before you move back. I wouldn’t say Big 4 experience really carries more weight in Asia, it’s probably more helpful in EMEA. It’s still a bit easier to get in than in the US, but your chances would be better if you got into something relevant than audit before moving.

Thanks!