Morgan Stanley ER

Top 2-3 minimum.  They actually pay attention to the business, unlike many other BBs.  Seems like you're interviewing for the summer associate position there.  Good luck.

Check II ranking. MS is pretty good but not top 2-3. Top ER house overall is Lehman. Of course, the analyst you end up with is the most important.

See, this is why I hate ranking systems. Each publication has different rankings. If you read 4 publications, you'll get 4 completely different lists. So the argument that leh is far and away the best ER shop is truly misguided. In fact, I wouldn't necessarily trust a survey that has bac 6th when it just cut 1/3 of its research staff. Take one publication's rankings at your own peril.

rankings are irrelevant. The key thing is who you work for. Top analysts are all over the place.

.

i agree that your day-to-day experience really depends on the analyst whom you work for. you want to be in a situation where you can get a lot of visibility with the sales force, traders, and clients, and that you have the chance to play an active role in developing the investment theses rather than just cranking out reports and working on models. in general, i think the best experience someone can get as a pre-MBA is if they find themselves in a situation where they're thinking critically about the stocks they cover every day, and they have a good sense of investor sentiment and what is driving stock valuation. good experiences can be had with new analysts, and bad experiences can be had with veteran analysts. the point is that while you may have an edge if you work with an II-ranked analyst, at the end of the day, what matters more is what you do rather than who you work with, so you really should carefully vet what your day-to-day responsibilities will be (i.e. like the other author said, doing mindless data mining and template work is pretty useless from a career advancement perspective, no matter who your boss is).

that being said, i'd say that as far as the cachet of your bank goes, it really depends on what you are hoping to do following an associate stint. if you think you can get your future job, be it on the sell-side or buy-side, through sheer networking, then what matters more is who you know rather than where you work. after all, as others have mentioned, research is a very franchise-oriented business with the day-to-day role being more defined by the analyst rather than the bank you work with. however, if you are looking to switch fields at some point and/or are working through recruiters, your resume will get a lot more looks if you come from a top bank.

as for myself, i've worked at two of the top bulge bracket banks in equity research. one experience was great, the other...not so much. however, in both cases, i learned a lot and really found out how to position myself effectively for my next job, which is in private equity/leveraged buyouts. and even though my experience at one bank wasn't as exciting as the other, i still felt like i got "credit" for working at a BB, simply based on the perception of greater prestige of working at such an institution.

now, i will caveat that it is very difficult to make the transition from research into private equity, but with some perseverance and dedication, it is possible. but what helped me a lot are the networks from my school, as well as the brand recognition of working at big banks. private equity is a different situation from hedge funds as you can't expect PE firms to know which analysts cover which sectors, since that's not what PE guys do on the day-to-day. however, they do recognize the prestige of the big banks, and the perception is that you receive the best training and exposure if you've done a stint at a larger bank, not to mention the reality that it's more competitive to land a pre-MBA role at a BB bank.

bottom line is, all is equal, you should pay more attention to the analyst and team that you work with, but don't underestimate the value of working at a top bank, especially if you're hoping to transition out of the public markets. institutional investor isn't all that relevant these days -- people in sell-side research care more about greenwich poll anyway -- and the point is that even though firms like MS and GS are no longer as highly ranked in the polls as they once were, people still care about the cachet of the names, and this is something you really should think about as you consider your future career goals (which probably won't involve sell-side research).

hope you find my two cents helpful

Anyone know if Lehman is still #1 or should I look elsewhere?

Paine Webber just got first place this year