Prestige Rankings

I agree ML shouldn't really be all the way up there.

i really dont think the rankings matter at all....

I agree that it doesn't matter if you go work for the #2 vs #3 bank, especially since these rankings change every year and are to a large degree subjective (they can be based on M&A volume in dollars vs number, or on headhunter reputation, etc.). However, I think general rankings (i.e., BB tier 1 vs tier 2 vs boutique) matter for the following:

1. dealflow: both in terms of number and type of deals that you will see. If there is a good deal in your industry group, it is more likely that you will be involved if you work for a BB.

2. future prospects: many employers -- especially those that don't breathe i-banking -- will value a BB experience, because they don't know what some of the boutique's are doing and how much you learn. Also, sometimes your contacts at the i-bank can be significant. Finally, coming out of a BB you are likely to get exposure to better headhunter opportunities and referrals from your bankers to better or at least higher-profile PE jobs because of their contacts.

That said, there are some great boutique shops that do a much better job at all the above than any BB, e.g., Greenhill or Gleacher.

Even though the experience may sound better at some of the smaller boutique M&A, merchant banking firms, I believe that the BB experience is still more worthwhile because there is a lot that you learn through osmosis by working for a large corporation in a structured environment that you don't get to experience. After a few years at i-banking, you will probably want to go to smaller companies so you can make a difference, so getting the BB experience early on is a good idea.

So, to clarify, Gleacher or Goldman? Blackstone or MS?

i definitely think that even within the BB, prestige matters; but mainly for future prospects. But remember that different banks are really good in diff groups.

But isnt ML's private banking(wealth management) division second to none? That was my impression.

not sure about how they rank prestige, but they are around that ballpark i think

How would then JPM compare to other bb ibanks in terms of M&A?

I might actually go with Gleacher over Goldman. Even though Goldman is a great name and has a very strong culture, Gleacher has a great niche name, you will get more exposure to senior people, and you will probably get more attention in the near future. By that, I mean that senior people with very good contacts may be more willing to help you out. I have heard of a few Gleacher "alumni" that it's a great place, you really learn a lot and the seniors care, whereas I haven't heard the same from Goldman guys. It's a close call though.

As for Blackstone vs MS, I would choose Blackstone hands down. No comparison. Great comp, great name, great experience, and perhaps the best name on the Street on you resume, with options to move around in other top-notch groups. You will get killed though for a couple of years.

Not that great. I would put them towards the bottom of BB. They had a good name a few years back, particularly in energy I think, but I don't think anymore. That said, they may a good name at some of their groups, so I hope I'm not being too harsh.

i dont understand this debate. i think the rankings are pretty clear - goldman at top, then gap, then morgan stanley then gap and then everyone else!

yeah, but I don't think IM/WM is part of the rankings at all, different industry.

blackstone hands down

And honestly, rankings don't really mean that much anyway. If you're a top-tier analyst, you'll get interviews at most places. You might end up at Franciso instead of Silver Lake, but does that really matter in the long run?

What about UBS LA and CSFB LA? Heard that these are legit shops and since I want to do PE on the west coast would be strong choices.

work at a place where you're happy with people you like

Where is this list located?

Both are TOP notch for westcoast pe placement

blackstone hands down

i dont get it... whats the big deal with this firm? i don't even remember when they last advised on a deal! maybe a few years ago or something no?

have you checked the league tables? JPM is #2/#3 globally in M&A and is on a lot of the big deals... this is just plain wrong. they are obviously in the top end of the BB.

See if you can do HLHZ LA. They have the biggest presence on the West Coast.

Just a bump to JHM where can you actually find this list?

Greenhill has done well, but it's focused on smaller deals. The firm didn't even place in the top 15 for U.S. M&A during H1 2006.

Gleacher does not do a lot of deals.

Evercore placed 7th in U.S. M&A for H1 2006, above UBS, Lazard, Merrill, B of A, Bear Sterns, Deutsche, etc. This was done with less than 70 M&A bankers.

In terms of boutique banks, there's really no question.

http://www.vault.com/nr/finance_rankings/finance_rankings.jsp?finance200...

Lehman's top in "Quality of Life Ranking", and 4th in "Prestige Ranking". With that in mind, my vote goes to Lehman.

I love when people get worked up about a movement of ONE place in a ranking, on the basis they disagree.

These things are just number crunching algorithims, and they are going to move every year, but by all means, be upset about an unjustified move from 7->6....

ML should be top 3

ML should be top 3

Worrying about rankings is ridiculous. As long as you work at a big bank it's all about the same.

The people who really care about the rankings and talking about it, aren't really the type of people you'd want to have a beer with anyhow, so who cares?

agree...

i don't know where you got that from. HLHZ might have the biggest presence on the west coast in terms of critical mass, but the best known shops are UBS and Credit Suisse in LA... GS also has good deal flow in the media and consumer space. exit opps are good from these three in LA

Morgan Stanley Menlo Park and GS SF are, from what i know, two of the best regionals in the bay area

HLHZ's only strength is restructuring

My vote goes to Lehman Brothers

rankings are too subjective to really be all that valuable or get too worked up over

Lehman is bomb now

not much difference between the top banks...cept for goldman which has its hands in everything

ML took a big yield hit this year at my school. That said, I still think it's no. 3 on the street.

Big yield hit? Because, if you mean they made a lot of offers at your school but people didn't take them, that happened at my old school, too. Why did that happen?

Does anyone know how well ML's private banking pay for incoming analysts?