Boutiques tend to be a backup or last resort option for most, except the elite firms (Greenhill, Evercore, Lazard, etc.). Bulge bracket firms give you a lot.

You have a huge incoming class each year that you're part of, the networking is pretty powerful. You'll slog through the trenches with dozens of other young guys, and staying in touch with them means you'll have connections across finance and other industries as you progress from your analyst stint.

You get tremendous exit opportunities if you're part of a top group. Each bank is known for a few specific groups (i.e. GS TMT, MS M&A, MS FIG, CS Sponsors, JPM LevFin ... to name a few) and they tend to release a bumper crop of top candidates for PE/HF recruiting.

Having a name like that on your resume tends to lead to better chances during b-school admissions season, although lately there's some trouble over the large number of finance guys trying to go to HSW and schools looking to diversify their student body.

Compensation tends to be better as well; together, the bulge bracket sets what is referred to as "Street" compensation, which right now is $70,000 in salary for first-years. Boutiques (except the elite) tend to offer slightly to moderately less in salary, and bonuses at boutiques are undersized as well.

Boutiques pull in less notable deals as well, since companies tend to go with larger, more prestigious firms for their reputation and the idea that they'll do better for you goes a long way.

I am permanently behind on PMs, it's not personal.
 
A Posse Ad Esse:
Boutiques tend to be a backup or last resort option for most, except the elite firms (Greenhill, Evercore, Lazard, etc.). Bulge bracket firms give you a lot.

You have a huge incoming class each year that you're part of, the networking is pretty powerful. You'll slog through the trenches with dozens of other young guys, and staying in touch with them means you'll have connections across finance and other industries as you progress from your analyst stint.

You get tremendous exit opportunities if you're part of a top group. Each bank is known for a few specific groups (i.e. GS TMT, MS M&A, MS FIG, CS Sponsors, JPM LevFin ... to name a few) and they tend to release a bumper crop of top candidates for PE/HF recruiting.

Having a name like that on your resume tends to lead to better chances during b-school admissions season, although lately there's some trouble over the large number of finance guys trying to go to HSW and schools looking to diversify their student body.

Compensation tends to be better as well; together, the bulge bracket sets what is referred to as "Street" compensation, which right now is $70,000 in salary for first-years. Boutiques (except the elite) tend to offer slightly to moderately less in salary, and bonuses at boutiques are undersized as well.

Boutiques pull in less notable deals as well, since companies tend to go with larger, more prestigious firms for their reputation and the idea that they'll do better for you goes a long way.

@Posse I would tend to agree with you on the first point that you made that they are a backup for most, but I think its b/c prospective 'bankers might not have a full understanding and in the vacuum of available information they resort to choosing 'names'. I would argue that there are better opportunities out there than just straight BBs if you know what you want to do i.e. Restructuring choices would be Laz, HL, and BX, but you wouldn't choose Barclays for that or even generalist programs vs. specialization.

To your second point I would say while that turnover due to 'hard times' might not be as dramatic at junior levels as other people in this forum will have you believe. I think that BBs are more willing to 'flex' headcount with the times than a well-performing MM or boutique, which can obv. be negative.

Doing 'notable deals' might be cool, but outside of the finance world is still the minority and you'll be doing the same thing that you would if it was XYZ Co. deal. Probably just a better conversation piece...

I'm not saying what you wrote is wrong, but I'm just trying to fill out the picture in support of MMs and boutiques, b/c I think in spite of the prestige arms race on this forum they are really great opportunities... just my opinion

'Before you enter... be willing to pay the price'
 

do not do compliance, seriously. dealing with compliance gives me a big enough headache, I don't know what I'd do if it was my job. from what I can see, its just a lot of paperwork and rule following. definitely take the boutique and get some front office banking experience. also, most recruiters will see right past the luster of having a BB on your CV when it says compliance underneath.

 

Should I get the job I want at a not as good place, or a job I don't want, that won't get me the job I want, at a place with a better name?

The name of the firm should only come into your thoughts with comparable jobs. This is like, "should I take a MM PE job or a back office role in a boutique" or perhaps "should I work in corporate development at Pepsi or be the CEO of RC Cola."

Apples and oranges people, you may like both but they are not comparable. If you want an apple (banking) then why are you considering the orange (compliance/back office/middle office/TAS/god only knows what else).

--There are stupid questions, so think first.
 
PowerMonkey:
Should I get the job I want at a not as good place, or a job I don't want, that won't get me the job I want, at a place with a better name?

The name of the firm should only come into your thoughts with comparable jobs. This is like, "should I take a MM PE job or a back office role in a boutique" or perhaps "should I work in corporate development at Pepsi or be the CEO of RC Cola."

Apples and oranges people, you may like both but they are not comparable. If you want an apple (banking) then why are you considering the orange (compliance/back office/middle office/TAS/god only knows what else).

Well said. This should just be posted at the top of the IB board.

If you want to have a career in a particular industry, why wouldn't you do an internship in that industry assuming you have an offer? It seems like common sense. Of course you should take the boutique IB job, it will give you direct experience that you can use in FT recruiting.

 

Unless you plan on having an offer from every one of those places, don't worry about it now. Make a decision when you have an actual decision to make.

That said, I have heard both fields of thought. Spoken to some people that went from "mid tier" BB to PE that essentially say take BB over any boutique because of the larger network and more recognizable name. Others will say that the top analysts at Elite Boutiques place better into megafunds, etc. Have heard of people taking a mid BB over elite boutique and heard someone say they took Moelis over 5+ other offers. Bottom line is that it's not a cookie cutter answer. Some people fit better at BB, some fit better at boutique. But figure it out once you've actually interviewed and gotten offers.

"Money is a scoreboard where you can rank how you're doing against other people." -Mark Cuban
 

I guess it could go either way...for SA your GOAL should really 100% be to get a FT offer. that gives you most flexibility for FT recruitment or if you want to stay for your analyst stint at that firm.

for long term banking however like you asked, i would feel in a much safer position with better job security and peace of mind working up the ranks at an elite boutique like you mentioned than 3/4 of the BBs that are constantly reducing headcount, bonus clawbacks and now have even lower cash bonus caps. This is just me however.

Hope you got one of these offers btw, they're all phenomenal shops!

I don't throw darts at a board. I bet on sure things. Read Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Every battle is won before it is ever fought- GG
 
AnalystMonkey2769:
I guess it could go either way...for SA your GOAL should really 100% be to get a FT offer. that gives you most flexibility for FT recruitment or if you want to stay for your analyst stint at that firm.

for long term banking however like you asked, i would feel in a much safer position with better job security and peace of mind working up the ranks at an elite boutique like you mentioned than 3/4 of the BBs that are constantly reducing headcount, bonus clawbacks and now have even lower cash bonus caps. This is just me however.

Hope you got one of these offers btw, they're all phenomenal shops!

The whole industry cuts headcount when times are bad and, if anything, boutique firms are more flexible in eliminating staff on a moment's notice.

The best career move is to take an offer where the people like you and want you to work there - that's where you'll thrive.

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

If your boutique is an elite one (think Moelis, Evercore, Lazard, Centerview, Perella Weinberg, Greenhill, Guggenheim) then this is a no brainer. These firms pay much better and placements into PE/ Hedge Funds are all excellent. I would even take these over JPM Investment Banking due to the learning, comp and exits. Some other group at JPM is probably not even worth discussing here in comparison. If its not an elite boutique, then the JPM brand / possibility to gain optionality to move groups is worth the risk of losing early experience.

 

2 is not really finance related at all. Sounds more like an internal consulting role. If your end goal is IB then take the boutique gig regardless of the perceived prestige of the shop. The experience you would get in the second role is pretty much useless from an IB standpoint whereas at the boutique shop you would be doing actual banking.

 

I would say a lot depends on the industry. In the energy industry for example, a lot of M&A is smaller firms so MM banks can get in on pretty complex deals. Junior guys will also get more exposure to execs of their client companies at a MM. But those deals likely won't make the front page of the journal either. MM banks also deal with more private clients on M&A assignments.

Simmons is a MM bank and they are practically every energy M&A deal, no matter the size.

https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
 

The basic difference is that at a BB you will work on bigger deals in larger teams and at a MM or boutique you will work on smaller deals with leaner deal teams (might just be you and 1-2 other people working on the deal).

I wouldn't say larger deals are necessarily "more complex" - actually smaller deals tend to be messier and more painful to pull off because people end up arguing over minutiae. Also certain types of M&A (e.g., divestitures, cross-border reverse-mergers, mergers of equals etc.) will be more complex than the usual Company A acquires Company B type of M&A. We're working on a relatively small deal right now that is insanely complex because it falls into one of those categories.

Bigger deals will be more focused on number crunching so you'll gain more financial/modeling skills. Smaller deals, in contrast, are more about process and positioning so you'll be able to tell a better "story" around your experience.

The other difference is you get a lot more client interaction with smaller deals/leaner teams - as an analyst you may get to speak directly to the CFO etc.

If you have to choose, I would second opticalcharge's recommendation and go with a BB to start out. It's harder to "move up" than to "move down" so if you don't like the hours/number-crunching/lack of client contact you can switch to a boutique after your first year.

While you can leverage what you learned at a smaller MM and go to a BB, you will probably be put back a year in the process, e.g. they may make you start over as a first year again. This is kind of ridiculous because you will obviously know way more than the incoming first years but it's just the way things work.

 

My mistake. Just want to clarify that I was not talking about whether I should start out at a BB or MM. Here is the story. I have an offer to start with a BB next summer. Currently, I am going to start my internship with a MM. It will last about 6 months. I was wondering whether this opportunity will help me better my chances of getting into the M&A group or hurt it. From what I have heard, the placement into M&A is quite furious. Thanks guys.

 

I don't know about that. I know of plenty of kids coming out of elite boutiques that have landed some pretty sick jobs. Everything from KKR to Silicon Valley to F500. All the guys I know that were at BB's are either still in banking or in PE/HF. This is out of sample of about 10 people I know personally at top shops.

i think it also depends on your pedigree. If you're coming out of a top ivy with a 4.0 it doesn't really matter where you go. It's probably more dependent on what culture you see yourself fitting in best. If you come from a semi-target state school, you should probably pick the BB to gain some brand recognition and give yourself more options after your analyst stint.

 

bank, i definitely see what you mean - the boutiques are great for KKR, TPG, the corp dev programs that work a ton with bankers, etc. but I meant if you are looking to switch gears (to medicine, emerging markets, going abroad to Asia, Europe, etc., law, etc.) I'd imagine the BB to have a bigger punch on your resume and give more credibility?

 

Most people probably know (or have a bit of the sense) into how they envision themselves in the future.

You mentioned, for example, what if someone wants to do "medicine, emerging markets, going abroad to Asia, Europe, etc., law, etc."

You probably know whether or not you want to do medicine by the third year of your college career. Law might be a later life option but who says you can't go to a top law school by being in a boutique? People who want to go to emerging markets are probably ones who have families / backgrounds in the language already and therefore probably have weighted that route as an option in the later stage (can you imagine a white kid with no family background or the language capability going to China all the sudden?)

BB has less than the "punch" than you would think. Most people will think you are a bank teller or some guys selling mutual funds at the front desk. Ones who actually know what investment banking are probably are the ones who know about the playing fields more.

In the end of the day, it doesn't matter where you go from the beginning. If you work hard and enjoy what you do, you will succeed.

 

"medicine, emerging markets, going abroad to Asia, Europe, etc., law, etc."

This isn't a real argument. Law and medicine wont give a shit that you were at a BB unless you go to a top tier grad school (good grad school will trump GS any day in these professions) and even then might not do anything for you.

BBs are all about prestige and the overwhelming majority of people do not know much about boutiques. Plus every word in the news is about BBs

 

In most cases, a strong BB will be always be a better beginning career choice than a boutique. Getting your wings at a large, recognized and reputable company will open many doors down the road. At the beginning of one's career, it's always good to have as much optionality as possible. Avoid pigeonholing yourself at the beginning - which is what boutiques tend to do.

 

I think this quite depends on your definition of pigeonholing.

I completely get your point but I do not fully agree. If its just about having a brand name and a general understanding of various financial aspects, why even go into IBD?

Being placed in ECM is pigeonholing. Being a NatRes banker in your first year without option to learn about other sectors is pigeonholing.

Assuming the idea is to become an Investment Banker, being with a company that only does M&A, in a generalist role (which you find way more often in the boutiques) should actually be less pigeonholing, shouldnt it?

Brand name of pure M&A shops pigeonholes to an M&A skill related career. I get your point if the person is not sure what exactly he wants to do later on (obviously this is an issue in my thinking as it will change with the hours). Here coming from a BB might open doors (a la corp dev).

Yes, you can see more "different functions" at a BB which might open doors down the line. Nevertheless, since placement is often random it remains questionable for me whether this is a good thing. I would hate ending up in ECM (which is an awesome dep.) if my dream was M&A. For people who are unsure what they want later on, it might be good to be shuffled around a little. But assuming you have your goal fixed (with the right reasons to do so) on learning a certain skillset, why risk to end up somewhere else?

just a thought

 

AWP - most elite boutiques have such large analyst classes these days that their programs are no longer generalist programs - you usually focus on one or two industries. And dealflow within each industry at boutiques is certianly not equal , so the experiences between analysts can vary. Aside from GS/MS and maybe JPM, I would take some of the elite boutiques over other BBs.

 

second-hand info

All of the names you mentioned are the best at what they do. That said, if you're aiming for the KKR/TPG/Carlyle route, you have a lot better chance of getting hired going the MS/GS/BX analyst route, although they still pick people up from those top boutiques

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 

if by better culture you meant more relaxed hours...then you are probably not in the boutique where people generally want to be in because most good boutique actually work people harder

But the benefit of being in a boutique is that you can kinda see what the culture of the place is before jumping on i, so you will know what you are getting yourself into.

and to OP's question,

It doesn't matter if you are in GS or greenhill, you are going to do MM deals. Mega deals are scarce especially considering the amount of deals happening each year and what proportion of it is going to be > 1 or 2 bil.

If you are on a sponsor or strategic buyside deal, generally the deal will go to BBs since they will be providing the financing. But if you looking at sellside, sometimes sellside companies prefer boutiques because of either the industry focus or the attention boutiques generally give to the client

In the end of the day, you will get the same good quality exp and exit oppo in Lazard/Evercore/Greenhill as you would at any top tier BB (unless you are also talking about the top groups like GS TMT, CS sponsor, etc..which few people get in anyways)

 

Boutiques can do things that BB cannot do anymore. I would hesitate to really ignore them.

I think people hear boutique and think 6 man shop or something. There are some strong, private shops out there.

 

I would NOT include Perella Weinberg on that list. They do so many fairness opinions / tertiary board advisory work its incredible - basically companies call Joe for him to give his stamp of approval on the deal so they won't get sued. PE firms value BUYSIDE deal experience first and foremost, then marquee SELLSIDE experience ($20bn+). They definitely do not respect FAIRNESS work on friendly deals.

Another thing is, for a fairness or co-advisor role, the firm gets paid very little. I've recently done a fee run that had several big deals Perella has been involved in and they've been paid $3-5 million on each while the other bank(s) got $20 million+

I would advise prospective monkeys to go to each firm's website and search for "Lead Financial Advisor" or "Sole / Exclusive Advisor", those are the money making / resume boosting roles. Alternatively, you can go to press releases and look at the order in which the investment banks appear in, the first name mentioned usually has the biggest role/fee.

Out of those boutiques, I would consider Blackstone/Centerview to be the best, because those firms are considered "true" boutiques in the banking community. BX has less than 150 bankers and Centerview has about 60. Comparably, Moelis, which started only 3 years ago, has over 350 bankers. Evercore/Greenhill both have over 300. Perella has over 250. Those are still fine places to go to, you just won't get the same level of senior/client exposure and deal experience. First years at BX and CVP are already closing $1+billion deals as the sole analyst... Guess who's getting that PE offer?

 

are you guys crazy? analysts from all of the aforementioned boutiques will get looks at all the top shops. it's a filter effect. guys who actually get offers from there are already very qualified individuals with proven history of success. they will continue on their paths to great exit opps.

 

I would heavily disagree with bunkerbanker. Just off the top of my head, PWP has advised on two very high profile deals lately, jcrew as well as Prudential buying aig's japanese insurance units

In terms of PE, you don't hear about PE very much because so many of their analysts either get promoted to associates or go to HBS (Pete Weinberg is on the board of HBS)

Also, if you compare the people who get offers at PWP vs say for example, Moelis, I think it's fair to say that they are much more selective in their hiring in my opinion.

 

I disagree with bunkerbanker as well. His number of 250 is way off, i think its closer to 100. Just check their website, it has all the employees down to the analyst listed there. As far as dealflow is concerned they are currently advising Seagate and Massey Energy on top of J Crew. Their analyst class is of 6 each year. Just to set the record straight on this forum here are the class sizes of all the Elite Boutiques and then think once again about exit opps and accordingly the chance to be on a large live deal: All NYC offices BX M&A = 8 analysts Lazard = 30 Evercore= 18 Greenhill = 8 PWP = 6 Centerview = 8 Qatalyst = 4 Now if everyone thinks that at Evercore or lazard every analyst will get megafund then thats wrong. Every year these top boutiques send a couple to megafunds out of their relatively large classes and at the end its made like kids are going to KKR / TPG. For the record I am not in any one of the Boutiques nor taking side of any. Just wanted to correct the wrong information spread over here.

 
manuarsenal:
I disagree with bunkerbanker as well. His number of 250 is way off, i think its closer to 100. Just check their website, it has all the employees down to the analyst listed there. As far as dealflow is concerned they are currently advising Seagate and Massey Energy on top of J Crew. Their analyst class is of 6 each year. Just to set the record straight on this forum here are the class sizes of all the Elite Boutiques and then think once again about exit opps and accordingly the chance to be on a large live deal: All NYC offices BX M&A = 8 analysts Lazard = 30 Evercore= 18 Greenhill = 8 PWP = 6 Centerview = 8 Qatalyst = 4 Now if everyone thinks that at Evercore or lazard every analyst will get megafund then thats wrong. Every year these top boutiques send a couple to megafunds out of their relatively large classes and at the end its made like kids are going to KKR / TPG. For the record I am not in any one of the Boutiques nor taking side of any. Just wanted to correct the wrong information spread over here.

Perella advised the special committee and board of j crew... getting paid peanuts. I know for a fact MS is doing 90% of the work on Seagate mandate Massey is a strategic alt mandate, every firm listed above has tons of those that are not public

Again, on a deal, you would want to work with the whole company, the management and the board.

A list of recent marquee M&A transactions where Perella has ONLY worked with the board: Del Monte J Crew Pactiv Qwest PBG

They got paid 3 million dollars on the Qwest deal but still got full league table credit.

Now, PWP actually has a legit restructuring practice, lots of interesting mandates, If you wanna do both M&A and restructuring that might be a good place to go to.. They are also very strong in France..

 

Not sure if Moelis is an elite boutique anymore. Quotes from another thread:

blackbearlodge:
Moelis is simply growing too fast without a true base of support backstopping that hiring. As a result, they ended up with an amalgamation of a ton of mediocre-quality bankers along the way – at all levels.
mrbellaiche:
Moelis (and to a certain extent PWP) started by grabbing a bunch of top bankers and basically creating a powerhouse; now they have too many senior people and not enough people supporting the bottom which is why they are mass-hiring analysts.
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/Moelis-centerview
 

According to CapIQ, PWP got paid $5M on Qwest. Still the lowest among banks, but fairness opinions also don't take that long to complete. So not a bad fee overall. The company has advised on plethora of ~$1B in more senior roles (Eclipsys / Allscripts, Marsh McLennan), so I'm pretty sure they're making out ok. Being considered the "go-to" fairness opinion provider for multi-billion dollar transactions is not that bad.

 

From a summer experience, here is my take:

Closer to the deal includes frequent "interaction" with management and playing a part in most, if not all, parts of the deal (research (typical), modeling (typical), offers, negotiating offers, legal docs). You certainly get a voice on the deals, but you won't be talking with management directly. You're still a fly on the wall in meetings but this seems to change at the associate level. Associates where I worked frequently led conference calls when superiors were unavailable or out of the office. Responsibility seems to come more quickly at a smaller bank. Level of experience, as you know, is different and not usually regarded as equal [to BB]. There are pros and cons of each, for sure.

 

Basically:

Boutique: Leaner deal teams. More experience with the entire process. More internal promotion. I would argue its a better "pure" banking experience but others would disagree.

BB: Bigger deals. Better brand name. More traditional "well known" paths for exits. Probably easier exits (though the biggest determinant of your exit is you.)

Hours suck everywhere.

 

Some of the smaller places are more brutal than the big ones: It's completely group dependant, and institution size is no indication of performance. Examples: LAZ restructuring works harder than DB loan syndicate, and Morgan M&A is much tougher than CIBC healthcare.

Use.the.seach.function

Get busy living
 

Search bar.

Get offers ask questions later.

"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper
 

You're right on all of the points except better hours. Boutique hours are largely unpredictable. Regional boutique hours are generally better (again, major generalization), but New York boutiques can have far worse hours than many bulge bracket groups.

TLDR: Very group dependent, but boutique hours are generally long in New York (80-100 consistently).

 

Well, I am pretty sure the European BB's send a few analysts from their top groups to great buy-side firms, but is it easier to get there from the top boutiques. Is an analyst from a top group at BarCap going to KKR an exception when it is normal for that to happen at Greenhill?

 

tough call, but based on the firms you listed above, I would go with the boutiques. Although I might be slightly biased since I never worked at a BB. for deal flow you should try to figure out #1 what group you will be in at each firm and #2 you should ask about this directly to other analysts / associates to try and gauge which offer would lead to more live deal experience and less pitching (try to tread lightly here, of course). You could come right out and say, would you mind sharing how many deals the group has closed in 2009 and how many active engagements you have going on right now? (assuming they know that you have another offer)

Good Luck, Patrick

Elite GMAT Tutors: //www.wallstreetoasis.com/page/one-on-one-gmat-prep Invite Monkeys Here: //www.wallstreetoasis.com/invite WSO Guides: //www.wallstreetoasis.com/wsoguides Follow WSO on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wallstreetoasis

 

Reality is, if you have a banking internship almost anywhere (especially a reputable boutique) you can leverage it into good full-time offers elsewhere. I've seen lots of people do boutique/MM internships and then get BB full-time jobs.

I wrote more about boutiques vs. bulge brackets, but most of what I say there applies more to full-time jobs rather than summer analyst positions.

In general pick good deal experience over brand name... for FT you have to give it a bit more consideration though.

 

I think concensus is that if you want to stay in finance (Pe/HF) definitely do Lazard/Moelis at least. Smaller groups, much more deal exposure, and much more responsibility not to mention great networking opportunities since teams are much smaller.

if you're looking to get into other things later on, take the BB brand name.

 

I would say it really depends on individual experience and its not necessary true that you get a better experience/exposure in boutiques. I also disagree about networking. I think networking at BB's, especially if you're talking GS/JPM is a lot better there and GS is still the #1 feeder into KKR.

I personally had to make the same decision and I chose a BB due to its name and the opportunities for MBA as well as structure and stability. Plus I loved my team/group and I never really liked the boutique culture.

 

I think bulge brackets in general are better choices to start out your career. More recognizable names and more varied exit opportunities. You're also guaranteed good training, and typically strong deal flow. And you have bigger analyst classes so potentially more friends. I think the biggest con of boutiques is that your experience is less predictable.

 

If it is a top boutique/MM or even a name that people know decently well, you're fine. Yes, going to a BB will be perceived more favorably but for a summer internship doing banking vs. not doing banking matters way more than boutique vs. BB.

At the end of the summer you can decide if you want to go back, or if not, you should be able to move to a BB pretty easily for FT assuming you did well there.

But if you like the people/environment there, feel it is selective and will learn a lot, I would go with that assuming that you can't/won't hear back from BBs in the same timeframe.

Better to go with a sure thing and get banking on your resume than take a gamble and not end up with a BB offer... especially in today's market (though to be fair, not sure how much that has affected SA hiring).

 

The firm is definitely very successful, filled with a lot of bright bankers and has actually stolen some senior people from BBs recently. You are right that I will probably not hear from BBs in the same timeframe, although I have spoken about this problem with a few friends at BBs who said that having this offer will actually make me a more attractive candidate for their firms' recruiting. Still, I am not sure if gambling on a BB offer is the right move, especially considering that I am not sure I would rather work at a large bank in the first place. I guess my take is that as long as it doesn't hurt my career in the long run, I would rather work at the boutique where I will gain experience in the part of the industry I would most like to work.

 

1.) The terms "boutique" and "mid market" are both incredibly broad and encompass a huge gamut of firms. They will need to be refined to better address the questions.

2.) Stating a counterexample is not sufficient to disprove a trend. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the argument for choosing a boutique as you said "simply because they might get more "exposure"" can just as easily be turned around on the BB in this case when faced with insufficient data (as we are now).

“Millionaires don't use astrology, billionaires do”
 
Nouveau Richie:
1.) The terms "boutique" and "mid market" are both incredibly broad and encompass a huge gamut of firms. They will need to be refined to better address the questions.

2.) Stating a counterexample is not sufficient to disprove a trend. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the argument for choosing a boutique as you said "simply because they might get more "exposure"" can just as easily be turned around on the BB in this case when faced with insufficient data (as we are now).

  1. let's just say we're comparing larger firms with top reputations vs. smaller firms with worse reputations
  2. i agree, but when a person is choosing BB or boutique, the chances of a good experience aren't clear cut, so there's no reason to not go for the BB, simply because it has the name and deals to back it up
 

then how about..if you decide on a BB offer, then you get placed in a group you arent remotely interested in? With boutiques you will likely know who/what you are going to be working with.

i agree that the experience can differ and it all really depends on your luck. With a boutique if your rainmaker md leaves, the specific industry group is basically fucked. The same can be said for BB though, how do you know you are going to get staffed on "good deals" when there are 10 of you in one group?

Some people get lucky and some don't, as long as in the end of the day you are working at a tolerable environment i would say you made the right choice.

 

agreed that the boutiques will generally be a more safe option in this environment. its not real easy to rank the banks though on the basis of job security since so much of that is going to depend on the group you are working in. tech, restructuring, life sciences, etc. are going to be better positioned to stay busy in the near term.

 

Tech companies have no debt and boatloads of cash, so they are looking for strategic M&A. Further, tech just did this a few years ago (dot-bomb), so they see this not as a global meltdown but as an opportunity to retrench-strengthen, which can be done because of the lack of debt.

 

I am starting at a MM IB in the summer in their tech group. Is this a good thing for my potential dealflow then?

I assumed it would be a tough time for techs because all of the analysts I talk to in my group at this bank (I have a couple of friends there) have said they have ZERO deals going on right now.

 

So basically the consensus is that in order to be tops in the league tables (obviously not the only metric that should be looked at in ranking M&A advisers) you need to be a full-service investment bank. Only thing I see a trend in though is

1) Flight of senior talent to boutiques/independents (ex. Rubin to Centerview, some recent big hires by Lazard, hiring spree of Moelis) and away from some full-service banks (especially firms like Citi, BoAML). I think the big
question around the boutiques/independents is compensation for senior people vs. BB peers and obviously the product offerings (debt/trading capabilities, etc)

2) The rise of Moelis is peculiar to me in the sense that its recent success in getting a large number of mandates as a boutique most somehow be correlated to an inherent demand for boutique/independent advice? Am I wrong on this?

3) Increasing use of boutiques in fairness opinions (Houlihan Lokey are very strong in this)

Cartwright, in terms of Evercore why is your friend saying that? From what I hear they don't get the lead roles on many of the big ticket deals they do, but more of a secondary role, but I could be mistaken.

 

Secondary when the fee is spread between 10 people instead of 50 isn't too bad. I don't think there's much question they dominate the boutiques. Michael Price (telecom), David Ying , George Ackert (damn near single handedly landed the BNSF deal), Schlosstein, Altman obviously, etc. That's a pretty heady roster. They seem to be getting more love in the financial press than any other boutique (or bank for that matter). Check the fortune article from August if you haven't already. I'm not saying you turn down GS TMT for EVR, but it seems that they are very well positioned.

 

Aww, OP, look at you, putting the accent aigu on the E and everything...

animalz:
hmm i thought that Laz/Evercore was always pretty much >>> Citi/BAML id def take Laz over both anytime
This. Although you can't go wrong with any of them...
Currently: future neurologist, current psychotherapist Previously: investor relations (top consulting firm), M&A consulting (Big 4), M&A banking (MM)
 
AstonMartin:
It's all about exit opps, and the exit opps at Citi/baml blow hard. Chances are you'll be working at some shitty MM PE shop after your 2 years

This is incorrect. Also, the majority of people who know what they are talking about, i.e. those who have worked in banking don't want to go to Mega Funds... the kids who are at home whispering KKR and Blackstone into their pillows at night aren't the same kids getting killed in the office all day every day. You get to a point where you don't want to leave to go to a firm where you work more hours than you are working in banking for a bit of a pay increase. There isn't anything shitty about working at a middle market PE shop. The majority of kids in banking who get PE offers at all will work in a middle market shop. Do you know why? KKR will probably hire 4-5 kids this year out of all banks. Good luck. If you kids thought getting a banking offer was hard, now think about the fact that of all the analysts out there, you've probably got around 400-500 PE offers for all the kids out there who want to work in PE. You do the math.

 
Best Response

When I read threads like these, I wish that this site forced certain people to disclose the following with every post:

"I am a high school/college student who has never worked in banking or, for that matter, even had an interview. In fact, the only time I have ever seen a real life investment banker was at a crowded school information session or while watching CNBC. Please take all my posts with the necessary grain of salt."

I think those of us who have gone through the process and actually landed an offer (especially in recent years) will tell you that worrying about this kind of thing is totally useless. If - and this is a BIG if - you actually manage to land multiple offers, you should pick based on how much the work that particular group interests you and how much you liked the people who interviewed you from that group (you're going to be spending a lot of time with them......).

 

Rerum quibusdam consequatur quod. Et sed tenetur laboriosam inventore. Mollitia accusantium animi vel sint ratione. Nulla dolores saepe nulla. Quasi ut non nihil facere repellendus. Dolor ipsa in quas consequatur.

Qui praesentium laudantium voluptates numquam tempore non. Minus natus qui perspiciatis omnis commodi. Enim odit facilis et magnam aut. Placeat adipisci assumenda autem amet vitae consequuntur.

 

Quas corrupti ea ut nulla dicta magnam. Quibusdam vero eum dolorem nihil sed deserunt dolore eos. Adipisci quas necessitatibus nihil earum qui qui. Voluptatem inventore eligendi totam aut consectetur est aliquid. Quia distinctio quaerat aperiam non qui asperiores.

Quia illo et sint exercitationem. A voluptatem doloremque eos commodi ratione itaque in. Consequuntur repellendus nulla delectus ut omnis non facilis. Incidunt consequuntur eum id magni consequatur.

 

Recusandae quibusdam quis omnis amet nesciunt. Id tempora ipsam rerum voluptatem.

Totam voluptatibus ab quo ea hic sunt sint ea. Rerum consequatur iure et soluta consectetur est. Voluptatem ad doloribus sed quaerat neque veritatis. Magni cum aut et voluptate velit aperiam asperiores. Eligendi vel ipsam impedit facere qui illum a. Alias non tenetur cum. Soluta quisquam voluptatibus sit odio et enim.

Voluptatum inventore ab sunt id voluptatum. Error debitis iure rerum itaque delectus ratione voluptas. Eveniet voluptas vel omnis possimus reiciendis dolores sed.

Qui laborum perferendis odit et cumque velit iusto. Minima veritatis atque quidem et similique. Nam et officia eos incidunt deleniti eligendi iste.

 

Animi voluptatem delectus nesciunt sit voluptate aspernatur expedita. Cum et dolor in vel. Atque ad quis ipsa et pariatur nihil consequatur. Laudantium inventore nihil aperiam ut.

Id in aliquam ratione animi excepturi vel. Similique culpa explicabo at temporibus nihil. Et eius ad enim ea mollitia fugiat. Et cumque odit similique officia dolore debitis.

Vitae minus enim dolores sit beatae voluptatem. Voluptatibus soluta esse rem ratione. Ullam in iste sed est.

Ducimus esse sapiente fugit quos aut et maiores. Aliquid numquam incidunt aspernatur quos non laborum est. Beatae dolore ea quisquam dolor. Impedit deleniti voluptate quo voluptas perspiciatis. Velit similique qui consectetur.

 

Qui odio earum explicabo voluptates ut adipisci incidunt. Qui molestiae minima nesciunt et natus. Voluptatibus voluptatem repellendus hic ipsum. Cupiditate velit quis incidunt fugit inventore pariatur.

In corrupti deleniti quo unde. Est impedit repudiandae voluptate fugit repudiandae.

Occaecati et iusto et perferendis in nam. Itaque magnam nobis voluptatem officia et quia qui. Consequatur ipsa qui rerum doloremque ut voluptas commodi totam. Cum qui qui earum rerum autem qui. Sed quia inventore molestiae laborum molestias sed sit iste.

Nulla enim quas id autem sunt voluptatem maiores a. Aliquid rem eos quis. Consectetur aut hic voluptatem et minima saepe. Eum sint voluptas qui enim corporis autem quasi est. Adipisci atque est qui ut id sit. Qui tempore quia eaque neque.

 

Aliquid et dolor tempora enim temporibus laudantium. Asperiores est et rem odio modi. Nostrum dolor totam tenetur officia et voluptas sequi. Eaque repellendus consequatur explicabo aliquam. Iste aut rerum dolores libero nostrum cum. Quam quis adipisci alias enim. Ut enim autem accusamus officia laudantium laboriosam.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”