difference between bulge bracket and boutique careers
whats the real difference in careers? what does working at a BB offer that a boutique doesn't? Vice versa?
whats the real difference in careers? what does working at a BB offer that a boutique doesn't? Vice versa?
Career Resources
... everything. Exit opps, business school, pay, prestige, dealflow, experience with huge transactions, high profile clients, etc.
how much of a difference is in the pay? Is it easier to get a boutique offer than BB?
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
Depends on your industry but read the M&I stuff for a general overview.
Depends on your industry but read the M&I stuff for a general overview.
also, is there a difference in how much math I need to know? How much math do I really need? I have taken Calculus I, but thats it. My econ classes do use a decent amount of math tho
You need to be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide hahahahaha seriously though
BepBep12 is right. Basic addition/subtraction/multiplication/division. That's it. But you need to know how to use excel formulas. Some of them get pretty complicated
Bulge Bracket or Boutique? (Originally Posted: 03/26/2008)
Hey guys, just a problem I have been facing lately. I am a pre-final year student in a UK uni. I have been offered 2 internships and am pondering which one to take:
or
Obviously I would like to know what will be more important to really augment my CV. Will it be the firm I work for or the department? Although I want to have a career in IB, maybe the brand name of the Bulge Bracket can help even though it is not in the IB dept?
Thanks guys.
boutique. compliance is a dead end and will be really boring imo
Take the boutique bank. It's what you work as and not where you work. Your can leverage on your boutique experience during BB FT interviews.
the back office is a dark, dark place
I was just audited yesterday...I did not appreciate it.
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).
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.
EXPERIENCE > SPECIFIC FIRM
Cheers to that! A few years ago my first day at a brokerage house we were being audited, I did not appreciate it either.
Exit opportunities for Boutique vs BB (Originally Posted: 09/06/2013)
Hi, thinking about making a switch and looking for advice on which of the following would have better exit opportunities for PE/HF/Asset Management:
1) Boutique (e.g. Rothschild, Evercore, etc.) Hong Kong office doing M&A / greenfield vs 2) BB Hong Kong office sector team
In terms of: - technical skills, i.e. which position would have more transferrable skills - franchise/reputation, i.e. would I receive better first-impression / recognition for being an analyst at a Boutique or a BB
Would be inclined to stay if I like the job/people, but exit opportunities are a big consideration too. Thanks in advance for any advice.
Ditto - I'm looking for info on this too.
Ditto - I'm looking for info on this too.
Boutique vs BB for B-School (Originally Posted: 02/19/2016)
Do admission officers at M7 business schools view top boutiques like Evercore/Moelis/Lazard in the same light as GS/MS? Assuming a non-URM male gets a decent GMAT and does the two years banking then two years PE/HF/CorpDev thing, is getting into a M7 pretty doable or is it going to be a crapshoot?
Seems to me that schools are indifferent assuming you have good grades/GMAT/extra curriculars. I am a first year at H/S and we seem to have a good mix between BB/boutique former bankers.
2 years top banking + 2 years pe/hf/corp dev with the right GMAT should more or less guarantee you a few M7 acceptances
Top M&A Boutiques vs. BBs? (Originally Posted: 02/22/2013)
Top M&A Boutiques (e.g. Centerview, Evercore, Greenhill, Guggenheim, Lazard, Moelis, etc.) vs. mid/lower tier BBs (e.g. DB, Barclays, BAML, Citi, etc.) for SA?
What would be the better move for a long term career in banking???
You're not "deciding" - you have no decision to make.You recruit at all of these top places, see what you can get and then make a "decision"
Unless you have offers from these places please don't ask these types of questions because they don't matter.
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.
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.
Evercore did shitty this year, centerview is a 3 year program, so I wouldn't generalize about boutiques.
Lazard and BX did well though
Regardless, any of those boutiques are on GS/MS level in terms of recruiting, comparing them to a place like baml is a joke.
In most cases I would take any of those boutiques over any of the BBs you mentioned unless it was guaranteed in a particularly strong group (e.g. Barclays Energy, BAML Lev Fin etc.)
Boutique IB, vs. Bulge Bracket related Finance (Originally Posted: 12/25/2014)
Given the following 2 offers, which would be more desirable to put on a resume?
1: An offer at an Investment Banking boutique.
2: Something finance related, but NOT Investment Banking at a Bulge Bracket (JP Morgan). A specific description of the responsibilities is given below:
• Governance & Program Management: Provide program management and project execution support for Corporate & Investment Bank wide and Finance specific business and technology change programs, including governance, planning, stakeholder management, communication management, issue management, requirements management, testing and design.
It boils down to whether the brand name of the firm, or the actual experience, is more important. Both offers are summer internships.
How practical would it be to take the second offer, and try to move within JP Morgan to the Investment Banking Division? If this is possible I'd almost certainly take the second.
Thank you for your opinions and advice.
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.
Agree with alphasapphire. Top Boutique over that group
Boutique. You should not expect to move from a corporate role to IB.
Boutique.
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.
Even if the boutique isn't an EB, it still seems like a better option than the Treasury gig. Deal experience trumps all.
Even if the boutique isn't an EB, it still seems like a better option than the Treasury gig. Deal experience trumps all.
M&A - BB vs. Boutique (Originally Posted: 11/30/2007)
What are the differences (in terms of analyst experience)between boutique M&A and BB M&A? Please be specific.. thanks so much.
BB works on significantly more complex deals. Depending on the boutique (unless you're talking Lazard, GH, etc..), then they're cookie cutter auction deals, quite often.
Start at a BB. If you don't like it, you can always switch to boutique.
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.
How transferable is the skills acquired working for a MM (small - not the Lazard or Evercore type)? Can you leverage it for a BB position?
While the deal may be more complex, you're working on a much smaller aspect of the deal, so you don't really get the benefit of the complexity of the deal.
I would think that certain boutiques (Greenhill, sagent, Evercore) work on deals every bit as complex.
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.
Why would you go boutique over BB? (Originally Posted: 06/06/2011)
Yes, if you are DEAD set on going into KKR or TPG after 2 years there's a good case to choose Evercore or Greenhill over the UBS and BAMLs of the world, but what kid coming out of college is gonna know that he wants to do that?
You haven't worked a day in banking, but you are looking forward to continue banking 2.0 work after your two years? If there is even a decent possibility that you want to consider other paths (law, medicine, business, fortune 500, VC, etc.) wouldn't it make more sense to choose a bulge bracket? I'm sure plenty of traders, executives, and other important people are gonna be impressed at UBS but have never heard of Moelis or perella, giving you a huge a disadvantage coming out of a boutique program
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
Why wear Levis when you can buy Rock and Republics? Why Wear Ferragamos when you can get Reeboks?
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.
Boutiques vs Bulge Brackets (Originally Posted: 12/02/2010)
I know this has been discussed ad infinitum on this forum, but most of the discussions were from 2007 to 2008. What do people in the industry think of Blackstone/Lazard/Evercore/Greenhill TODAY in terms of exit opportunities, deal flow, etc.?
Asking this because I checked some of their websites and their deal flow is much more middle-market than in 2008 or so, and wasn't sure if that was a symptom of the economy or the fact larger deals go to BBs because of financing.
Boutiques usually have better cultures and are better places to work long term if u want to stay in banking.
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
what other boutiques are considered very good besides the obvious laz/BX/ghl/evr? maybe 5 or 6 more?
That's pretty much it.
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)
Centerview is killing it, they were just on KKR del monte and Pepsi Cola Russia
Exit ops have not changed in the last 2-3 years. Re-read the old threads, they are all still valid.
midnight got it. those are all the elite boutiques, nothing more.
Your mom has an elite bootyque.
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?
Centerview and Qatalyst seem to be en vogue these days
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.
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:
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/Moelis-centerviewMoelis LA can be considered elite, not sure about the NY office though. In the NY office there are like 20+ analysts. Their goes the exclusivity. LA is more like 5-6 analysts.
Financo, Sagent Advisors, peter j solomon are pretty legit too
agreed with bunkerbanker. PWP is overrated and Moelis is crap.
The elites are Lazard, Blackstone, Evercore, Greenhill, 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.
IB Firm: Boutique vs BB (Originally Posted: 02/08/2015)
I've an offer from a boutique IB firm and also undergoing an interview with a BB. The boutique firm is 2 years old with 7 people (including the partners and the founder) apart from the advisory board. These people have executed 3 good projects recently - right from raising funds to M&A (healthcare sector).
My questions are:
(1) Are there any difference(s) in the Associate position between a boutique firm and a BB other than the process, structure and money? (2) How are the exit options from either of them? (3) Overall, what kind of work culture exist in BB?
You'll have more responsibility at the boutique but that's probably the only benefit
BB Vs. Boutique - From the horse's mouth. (Originally Posted: 09/09/2015)
Given all the BB Vs. Boutique discussions around this board I thought the FT's Big Read for yesterday might be of interest / kill some Wednesday downtime. The paywall is switched off for a day (09/09) so it's free to read for all non-subscribers.
Thoughts, esp. regarding the point on how these firms will fare when the M&A pipe quietens down?
ft.com/cms/s/0/d99d271c-5545-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd.html#axzz3l8nYU2Yh
(or if you want to read when the paywall goes back up and don't have a subscription search "Investment banking: Walking away from Wall Street" in incognito).
Completely agree. I thought this was a great article!
It'll be interesting to see in 5-10 years which boutiques are still standing.
boutique vs BB (Originally Posted: 10/01/2007)
Hey, I've been offered by a boutique and a BB. The boutique is specifically focused on tech M&A, while the BB offer is for a regional office. What would be the best place to work?
Thomas Weisel is not a boutique
from fucked-up comments. would appreciate to hear from people who are actually out of college. Thanks!
Your question is extremely broad.
First, what are you looking for from your experience? What is important to you?
Second, what firms? Which regional office?
Third, What are you looking to do afterwards?
i agree with altfp - you need to clarify: which region and what groups for the BB?
boutique ibanks vs bb (Originally Posted: 09/13/2007)
what exactly does "closer to the deal" mean?
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.
so, they talk to management when inhouse mgmt is not there. i thought there was more to this...
BB versus midmarket/boutique bankd (Originally Posted: 03/23/2012)
Hey everyone:
Ive been trying to search the site regarding differences between working in a Bulge Bracket type bank or a midmarket/boutique type bank. Haven't had much luck (besides countless threads regarding pay).
I was wondering what the differences were,if any, in terms of hours, amount of responsibiilty, advancement ops, etc in a midmarket vs a big name bank. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks all!
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.
Thanks..........btw I'm a fellow (former) Illini, went for undergrad.
BB vs Boutique (Originally Posted: 07/09/2011)
Just a quick question for the IB guys as I've never worked or know much about working at one, but are the hours different between the different sizes of banks? Say an analyst at BarCap or GS compared to a much smaller bank like Moelis & Co/ Houlihan Lokey/ and the Blackstone Group? Thanks
You will work just as much if not more at top boutiques. Once you start working you won't notice the difference between hours after a certain point.
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
Investment Banking: Boutique vs. Bulge Bracket (Originally Posted: 12/08/2013)
Hi monkeys,
I'm a senior doing a BBA, and have applied for various IBD SA positions for both BBs and boutiques. I've been researching on the differences in working in a boutique IB versus doing so in a BB or a MM bank, and so far from my research and interaction with professionals and former SAs, I've concluded the following:
I'm hoping that those working in IB can shed some light on these points, and perhaps provide some of your own? It will definitely help me understand the differences and perhaps help me make a better decision with regard to working in a larger firm or a boutique firm. Thanks!
Search bar.
Get offers ask questions later.
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).
Boutiques vs. BB (Originally Posted: 09/16/2009)
Hey Guys,
I am a senior with opportunities at the BBs available to me, but am considering making the switch to a boutique M&A firm. Not all of them recruit on campus, so I am hoping that someone can lay out what they consider to be the most elite, and how they would compare an analyst experience there vs. a BB. So far, as someone unsure they want to do more than 2-3 years in banking, I have heard it would be more appropriate to go to a BB where they have more structured programs and more regimented exit opportunities. Any advice/thoughts are appreciated.
Thanks!
Boutiques other than a handful are worse in every way than a BB - seriously, go for a BB for IB.
The elite name boutiques are obviously on par or better in some respects, but aside from them...
It really depend on which boutique Vs which BB at which group.
Lets say Morgan Stanley or JPM vs. Evercore or Perella
....
BB or Boutique (Originally Posted: 09/03/2009)
Top group at European BB (CS, DB, BarCap) or prestigious boutique (Laz, Greenhill, Perella, Evercore) in terms of exit ops and deal flow?
Get an offer first or STFU. This question has been asked a hundred times.
Offer at several of the above. Thanks for the concern.
.
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
BB vs. Boutique (Originally Posted: 02/22/2008)
Which do you all think is a more valuable SA experience?
Work at a bulge bracket bank in a not so busy group without a lot of live deal experience
Work at a reputable boutique where you will have lots of experience on live deals
It seems to me that although having the BB name on your resume looks great, at the intern level having more deal experience might be more helpful in the long run. Thoughts?
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.
deleted
Thanks dosk, that's my feeling too. Rockman, I'm no expert but I would think Greenhill/Evercore would be the better choice, possibly excluding a few locations.
Be careful with satellite offices, often you can get screwed in terms of deal flow and such. Greenhill and Evercore are both great and you'll get lots of good work for sure in their NYC offices.
Can't really go wrong with either one here IMO, esp. for a summer gig, but I would probably pick the top boutique.
But if you want to work at a BB full time, you can intern at the BB and most likely can get an offer there for FT
There is a big difference between Greenhill/Lazard/Evercore/Gleacher and a "boutique".
Offer help: boutique v. bb (Originally Posted: 10/28/2009)
Hi all, was hoping for some opinion on the following:
Offer from top boutique (think Lazard/Evercore/Moelis/Greenhill) Offer from tier1 (think GS/MS/JPM)
I know there is a plethora of info on the forum, but does it depend on which boutique? If so, would you turn down a tier1 for all of the top boutiques, none of them, or one of them?
Thanks!
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.
Thanks a million. These are all important issues. What's everyone's perspective on the top boutique?
Boutique vs. BB (Originally Posted: 12/17/2007)
I have a Summer Analyst offer from an NYC boutique which I must make a decision on in the next few weeks. This firm specializes in an area of investment banking that really interests me, is experiencing solid growth and has a great outlook for the coming years. My question for those in the industry is how is working for a boutique perceived versus working for a BB bank? The environment at this firm is very collegial (pretty much all Ivy grads or comparable) and from speaking with some of the analysts, it sounds as if they are worked as hard as any BB analyst. The interview process was also fairly intense, and they seem to be just as selective as most of the BB's. I also think that the small firm environment might allow me to actually get more hands-on deal experience, although I'm sure I will bind my share of pitch books too. If I end up working at this firm, will that look worse on my resume in the long term than working for one of the bigger banks?
which boutique matters a lot.....unless you give more details it's hard to say.
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.
boutique vs. BB - experience vs. name (Originally Posted: 11/04/2011)
I think a recurring and in my experience wrong perception of boutiques on WSO is that they will give you better deal experience/let you get more exposure, but from my experience that's not true. i know analysts at bulge brackets who go to meetings and talk to clients on day one, as well as analysts at boutiques who spend most of their time doing database work because there's no back office. i think it would be a disservice to tell anyone to go to a good MM or boutique over a bulge bracket simply because they might get more "exposure". whether you're at JPMorgan or a no-name firm, you group which comprises 90% of your job is still going to be less than 50 or so people.
i know comp banker, etc. will come in and discuss their experiences at middle-market firms, but that's just one data point and i know plenty of middle market kids who spend all day making pitch books as well (without even getting to go to the pitch!).
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).
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.
BB vs. Boutique Job Safety (Originally Posted: 02/20/2009)
Going into a full-time position, which banks do you feel can offer the best 'job safety' (i.e. smallest chance of getting laid off) during the 2-year analyst stint? Any difference in BB vs. boutique?
In particular, I'm curious how you would rate the following: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Greenhill, Lazard, Blackstone M&A
Blackstone Greenhill and Lazard are probably the safest. Blackstone only hires 12-15 a yr anyways. Lazard has small cuts but mostly back office.
BX took 6 this year. From what I've heard only 6-8, not 12-15. GHL took 5.
Second what was said. As far as I know, Lazard cuts were all back office and analysts in slow groups were moved to busy ones like restructuring. BX has had its share of layoffs as well, but again it was minimal.
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.
Why tech?
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.
Blackstone/Greenhill/Lazard
JPM/GS (everyone at both of these is on edge)
MS
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.
Is that 6-8 FT or only SA for BX?
6 SA for BX and around the same for full-time M&A
BB v. Boutique (Originally Posted: 10/14/2010)
So this question is not really about which type of firm to join, but rather the future of the investment banking business model. After Sept 2008 many people said the days of the full-service investment bank are over, but as the market...dare I say.... begins to recover this business model undoubtedly has its benefits.
Although new regulations are forcing BB banks to spin-off proprietary trading arms, raise more capital, etc the viability of the full service investment bank, in terms of cross-selling clients products (M&A, financing, etc) has not been effected in any drastic way.
So my question is what do people generally view as the future of boutique/independent advisory firms (ex. Greenhill or even a larger independent firm like Rothschild)? Obviously they are still getting M&A mandates, but will they ever be able to truly displace (break into the Top 5 global M&A advisers consistently) the BB? And why/why not? Obviously restructuring wise these firms have relevance, but I am talking more about M&A.
Shhh, Jimbo! If he or she just looks at top ten league tables (recent, YTD, LFY, L3Y, etc.), they might consider UBS a bulge bracket bank!
I would say Evercore is the best positioned boutique, and better positioned than many of the BB's. A friend who just joined PE after his 3rd year as a BB analyst said he would go there over any BB if he were coming out now. Their league table representation is pretty salty if you look over the last 4 years or so.
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.
Is jimbo a terrible troll or is it just me?
How about some originality for once?
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.
élite boutique vs bulge brackets (Originally Posted: 08/04/2012)
You hear during the recession many of the top boutiques did very well with restructuring work, issues about whether or not Citi/baml would survive, etc. Are the elite boutiques going to be strong going forward in terms of deal flow, exits, overall experience? Is taking Lazard or Evercore over citi or baml (or even over a GS/ms) still reasonable today? Haven't seen too many analysts at either of those two at the top PE firms, but that could just be a size issue.
hmm i thought that Laz/Evercore was always pretty much >>> Citi/BAML
id def take Laz over both anytime
Aww, OP, look at you, putting the accent aigu on the E and everything...
This. Although you can't go wrong with any of them...Honestly, all else being equal (which it's not), I don't understand why you would take BB (especially a BB not doing too well, i.e. C, UBS, BoA) over elite boutique.
because college kids usually don't know any better and go for the "name". Bank of America, Citi etc are the household names
lols
Don't forget Greenhill and Moelis...
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.
"And telling a random girl at a bar that you work at BofA makes her assume you're a teller. Sad that that's the way it is." HAHAHA
Laz over Citi for sure. Laz over BAML is like choosing Megan Fox over a 40 year old fattie. Laz over GS/MS is also reasonable - exit opps are pretty similar.
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......).
This.
Sed fuga minus tenetur est eos. Harum facere dignissimos similique labore. Voluptatum similique corporis autem voluptatem. Odit illo ducimus id est consequuntur. Nisi aut qui recusandae natus.
Quo aliquam est ad sunt quia. Rerum voluptatem reiciendis ut quos et ut a. Eos adipisci ratione qui omnis dignissimos delectus eos voluptatem. Molestiae consequatur voluptatem cumque sit incidunt est quia consequuntur. Sed voluptatem labore reprehenderit non quis error. Consequatur temporibus cum eos consequatur eveniet voluptatem ea.
Eveniet blanditiis enim voluptatem dolorem. Distinctio perferendis omnis ut nihil. Asperiores fugit est voluptatem. Qui beatae voluptatem blanditiis numquam dolor quas.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Perspiciatis officiis quis ut et. Et adipisci ut culpa nostrum.
Ipsum earum rem molestias dolore aut sit culpa. Sit sapiente quaerat possimus sed enim et aliquam.
Voluptatem qui enim neque. Ipsa corrupti dignissimos veniam doloribus qui doloribus repellat numquam. Architecto est nam occaecati.
Vel esse ad fugiat facere ut doloremque ipsam. Excepturi velit quidem hic repudiandae. Quisquam eos neque cumque et voluptatum voluptas. Mollitia est nesciunt quia aut dolores.
Id reiciendis quia hic rerum. Dolore eos facilis ut qui. Eum voluptas animi omnis impedit.
Nihil officiis vitae et nobis a. Magnam magnam ab voluptas qui mollitia.
Perferendis fugiat sapiente earum blanditiis harum. Deserunt earum sint velit est sed neque dignissimos. Doloremque in earum perspiciatis laborum. A fugiat voluptatem accusamus. Cumque et eum in aut nemo.
Non non omnis doloremque veritatis corporis. Est quod eveniet omnis exercitationem facilis ratione. Voluptatum et debitis quo.
Deleniti omnis omnis non iusto voluptates omnis minus. Cupiditate quia autem aut voluptas officia. At velit autem eveniet.
Non architecto dolorum non officiis. Sed quia voluptatem quam necessitatibus exercitationem alias ad. Dignissimos voluptate molestiae qui molestias.
Asperiores labore ea et aut harum quia quasi. Quas cum veritatis voluptatem perspiciatis aperiam voluptatibus ut. Assumenda et dolores reprehenderit enim saepe. Architecto enim nihil ut accusamus. Corporis unde sit ex cupiditate veniam sapiente.
Omnis similique adipisci tenetur excepturi. Dolores eos consequatur molestias placeat voluptatibus magnam. Consectetur alias modi atque ex.
Et ut expedita doloremque soluta. Autem quia distinctio blanditiis. Et qui neque ipsum ea qui. Occaecati temporibus explicabo tempore minima voluptatibus laudantium.
Nihil iste ipsa ut explicabo molestias. Aut qui qui occaecati et excepturi sed ratione aperiam. Velit exercitationem qui itaque et similique qui molestiae sed.
Et fuga voluptatem et. Voluptas eligendi voluptas minima ut id vitae sit.
Possimus ea voluptas vitae. Ipsa aut asperiores numquam reiciendis nostrum quae.
Quia repellendus autem explicabo et dolorem quas facere. Temporibus est sint aut temporibus dolor ipsum.
Delectus ea sapiente repudiandae ut sint quas est cupiditate. Est distinctio aut eum laboriosam et est. Quo voluptate molestias impedit aliquam facere dolore. Nemo veritatis molestiae quos voluptates.
Voluptatem dicta sit sed animi sit aut fugit. Ipsum qui eligendi totam soluta. Maxime repudiandae occaecati doloribus ea eos minus.
Illo est et rem aut deserunt nulla labore harum. Aut exercitationem sit deleniti ipsam ratione.
Numquam ipsum qui nobis molestiae aut. Eos tenetur est aut sapiente cum est voluptate impedit.
Itaque voluptatibus recusandae velit architecto. Explicabo sunt quo tempore ipsa voluptatem amet eum. Quia id vel deserunt.
Dolores autem et consequatur voluptatem aut ut vero. Velit aut impedit vero. Saepe odio ut enim nostrum at ad. Quam non neque nisi necessitatibus dolor impedit eum.