If you work in a semi-related industry (i.e. FPA, financial due diligence etc), and you want to break into corporate development, what experience would be considered better:
- Spend 1 year working on a single large deal (think USD 100+ billion) that closes or
- Spend 1 year working on a couple (maybe 3-5) of smaller (USD 1-5 billion) of which some close and some dont.
In other words, is size more important than the number of times you do it or is it the other way around?
Work in DD. Also curious to know from someone who has more WE. I would think more deals (depending on how small the deals are) just because more reps = more knowledge (generally). I would think five 300k deals are obviously not as valuable as one billion dollar deal, but five or seven 100 million dollar deals could possibly be seen as more of an asset than the former.
More reps. Obviously you want your deals to not be small deals but every deal is different. More reps = more experience = more value add going forward.
This.
Also - it may seem like $100bn deals just get announced and happen, but it likely took years of analysis, board meetings, CEO lunches, and analysts running merger models before anyone announces anything. Verizon/Vodafone txn for Verizon Wireless ($130bn) took 8 years to actually take place. It wasn't constant work, but that means that ~4 classes of analysts had sleepless nights running different scenarios over the course of their tenure and had nothing to show for it.
Depends on the type of deals the three 1 to 5 bn dollar ones were. If one was a full sell side, one was a buyside and one was an asset sale..then you pretty much have seen the full of investment banking and that makes you very attractive. Also a 5bn deal is legit, if you do three of those in a year...God have mercy on your soul because I'm sure you worked 110 hours a week the whole year.
What about the fact that you probably would get exposed to more complex work on a larger deal? Dont smaller deal tend to be more straight forward (relatively) than larger deals?
Why would you throw monkey shit at my question?
Size always matters
I think as long as you're => 6 inches you'll be fine.
Just ask a whore what her preference is. 2 inches probably won't feel anything no matter how many times she gets penetrated. But she probably prefers 10 inches multiple times a week vs. 20 inches only once a week.
Does your gf likes big or small dicks?
I guess that answers your question.
Depends who you're trying to fuck.
It ain't the motion of the ocean, it ain't the curve of the road, it ain't the length of the tank, it's most certainly the thickness of the chasm.
Don't have anything to add but I just want to compliment you on the 10/10 thread name. I lol'd
Size matters for "prestige" purposes because the thought process is that "the best analysts work on the largest / most important deals" so maybe it is more important for a MF PE job. For corporate, I would imagine that # of deals is way more important but really it's the different types of transactions. Once you do 2-3 sell-sides, you've got it figured out but I personally would say working across buyside, sellside deals and doing a handful of debt / equity deals are what every analyst should look to learn in his 2-3 years. The debt / equity deals can get a bit repetitive but you really just need to see 2-3 here and hopefully work on different sides of the M&A table.
Diversification of the number of deals > # of deals > size of deals.
I used to work in in a TS/Deals Strategy type role and saw FDD/other deal related accounting guys go to fortune 50 corp. dev. roles. I would argue that it is much easier to break in there than IB/PE coming from those groups.
Get the best deal experience you can/network and you will be fine.
Ideal deal size to learn (Originally Posted: 11/20/2017)
Hi all,
What would be an ideal deal size for an analyst to learn as much as possible? When is a deal too small (no complexity) and when is a deal too big to handle/keep an overview?
What is the biggest difference between small and large deals in terms of modelling? How much different is a sell side deal versus a buyside deal?
Thank you in advance
Small deals can be very complex too.
It's very important to learn modeling when you're an analyst, but modeling is also a very, very small part of IB. If you actually want to learn about M&A and it's legal, tax, M&A, etc. intricacies, I would say deals below $75M are probably ideal. I have found that on those deals, the amount of third party advisers (e.g. QOE, FDD, tax, etc.) you use is minimal, which results in more being expected out of the IB, and therefore a better opportunity for the analyst to learn. If I were to pick one deal that I've worked on that has taught me the most, I'd say it was a $50M sell-side M&A deal.
I would reckon one learns probably more on the buyside than the sellside. The youngins are often burnt on horrible grunt work (data room, information memorandum) on the sellside
I've only been doing M&A for a year or so in the MM but I've been on a number of transactions (and have closed a few). A small sell side (depending on the bank) will be a good experience and the senior folks are probably less focused on it given the fees will be 'small'. The upside is you'll have more room to run and really tag team the process with the VP.
Choosing boutiques: Few large vs. multiple small deals (Originally Posted: 04/08/2015)
n/a
Both good options it appears. I'd look up some of the former analysts for both places on LinkedIn and see where have they gone after their analyst stint. See if they are where you want to go long-term and then decide.
Do you want to stay Tech focused after this or does coverage group not matter? I feel that #2 will get you more of an overall broad experience in the M&A field if that's what you wanted to do post analyst stint where as #1 would probably get you more experience for other options post analyst stint.
i feel like #1 is a no brainer unless you feel #2 is a better cultural fit or are looking to do Tech long-term. Bigger deals, more breadth, smaller analyst pool should lead to more responsibility
n/a
PE will value quality over quantity in most cases. Quality being larger, more complex deals over smaller deals and pitches that don't materialize.
n/a
Size of deals > quantity of deals
Above a certain point. Would rather work on 3 $5 billion deals than one $10 billion deal
Eaque ea ratione rerum mollitia vel nesciunt. Rerum deleniti porro perferendis. Dolores sunt ea quia.
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...
Delectus qui animi in rem aliquid facilis. Ex corrupti magni voluptatum quis omnis. Et quaerat qui non quis id et deserunt. Quas minus quas totam aut sed odit.