Why FIG IB
This may be a stupid question but from those working in FIG what would you say’s good about working in FIG specifically?
I have an interview at a good firm so I want to do well but I haven’t previously considered FIG. From a really ignorant point of view M&A of asset managers and wealth managers (this is what the team focuses on specifically) seems pretty mundane in comparison to other groups. Really interested to get a better understanding so comments are appreciated..
Just out of curiosity is this Canada or US?
US
Mizuho, Oppenheimer or DB?
Can shed some light here - currently an AN1 focused in these sectors. For some context I had previously spent the summer rotating between consumer and TMT.
From a general point of you, the work streams and actual process items are essentially identical in WM and AM as it pertains to M&A. When I was recruiting M&A activity was down and I was trying to target sectors that were more stable and less cyclical in nature. Through various conversations FIG seemed like the most logical group / sector to target (given the stable cash profiles of the businesses) and was thankfully able to land myself an opportunity at a great shop.
Although FIG was not my first choice, I have found it to be somewhat more interesting than I had anticipated. I think one of the fascinating aspects I was not necessarily aware of as I was recruiting was / is the amount of consolidate that is underway. There are a handful of PE-backed aggregators as well traditional sponsors who have been deploying capital in the space. One of the more notable transactions that has happened recently is CD&Rs take private of Focus Financial (a larger aggregator of WM firms). While FIG focused M&A is less “sexy” than other sectors, I have certainly come to terms with the fact that I think it is a good place to start in banking. This may be specific to my experience at the firm I am at but but I have found a lot of the work in this first year to stray away from moving logos and putting together overly dense marketing materials to spending most of my time putting together analyses and process execution. All that being said, there has not been a week we have not been busy on live transactions (aside from like the week between Christmas and New Years) and it certainly looks like 2024 will shake out to be a busy one.
At the end of the day it’s still M&A, it’s still banking and the skill set I am building out will most definitely be transferable to another group / job in high finance as I build my my career. Hope that’s helpful and happy to expand further
How are you thinking about exits? FIG specific or general? (If you are even thinking about exiting that is) Thanks in advance!
I’m not really in any sort of rush to the next thing right now like some other people might be. As you come to find in banking and in any career, you quickly learn how little you know and how much there is to learn. I’m almost a year in and still trying to find my footing in being the most value add I can be at my level. The bar only goes up from there as you become more senior, learn to lead processes, teach more junior people, start winning business and ultimately being sought out as a valuable strategic advisor to clients.
Realistically in the long run I think I can exit to just about anything I would like to (this is under the basic assumption that I meet only normal qualifications of a traditional IB analyst or associate looking to exit banking). On the FIG side of the business you are constantly interacting with financial sponsors as well as who would be considered “strategic” counterparties in private market managers in verticals like RE, PE, infra, credit and a host of sub-verticals within a those. To that extent, the exits opportunities are much more vast that what I think most may perceive
How are you thinking about exits? FIG specific or general? (If you are even thinking about exiting that is) Thanks in advance!
One thing I like about FIG is that the business models are more mathy and mechanical. This is probably why it appeals to nerds like me.
Clients are in the business of money & running numbers so you don't necessarily have qualitative elements to the business where you can have an amazing, market leading Tech or Consumer product but a christ awful, money losing business built around it or vice-versa. An example would be like Altria. By all financial metrics the business is doing great, highly profitable and delivering steady/robust returns. BUT, you have intangible elements that cause the stock to trade like shit anyway, insofar as changing attitudes towards combustible tobacco. Other examples are all the bullshit Tech companies that rode the SPAC wave to billion dollar valuations but now trade like penny stocks. They had a sexy product with a ton of zeal, so their companies were valued off of product hype moreso than existing earnings/capital etc. FIG businesses generally are more about the cold hard numbers. When you're marketing a FIG business you're selling the historic / current credit quality, EPS, Net Interest Margin's, loan growth etc. All of these are quantitative, objective metrics. It doesn't get all pie in the sky and "BRO but the TAM is massive!!!".
—would love to PM you! I am very interested in the space.
Eius tempore deserunt id id architecto eos. Excepturi rerum qui velit consequatur quaerat quisquam iste iure. Maiores sit qui animi. Consequatur quas in quae est totam iure velit. Ullam sed tempore ab exercitationem sequi cum. In consequuntur est qui sed ut ea tenetur.
Dolores voluptatem cumque omnis sit est velit voluptate. Rerum ut ea laboriosam vel quis quod. Accusamus laborum aliquid sed vitae.
Et veritatis cumque rerum. Maxime nihil laboriosam omnis dolorem. Possimus sed deserunt neque voluptas ad adipisci.
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...