Average MS Industry Group vs. Lazard M&A

I don't know much about the specific professional pros v cons for each but i can speak about the b-school side of it. Assuming HBS as the gold-standard (won't argue if you claim Wharton etc.) Lazard M&A is FAR better. My impression after talking to someone "in the know" about HBS admissions, Lazard sticks out a LOT more on your resume than MS.

Of course this isn't just for Lazard, there are a few other firms which create the same impression but specifically for LvsMS, Lazard is tremendous for b-school apps whereas at a run of the mill BB like MS, though still extremely prestigious, you are in a much larger pool of similar applicants.

In summary, you want a better chance at HBS, Stanford, etc., go to Lazard.

Boozer, would the same thing also apply for GS?

Will b-schools give a candidate any special consideration for coming from GS (like they do for Lazard analysts), or is it the same for all BB analysts?

Lazard is definitely much better than Goldman for business school admissions. But whether Goldman is better than the rest of the bulge bracket for business school admissions, I'm not sure.

No the whole idea is boutique analysts are rarer. GS has a massive analyst class. Blackstone m&a, Greenhill, top PE etc all have the same advantages for b-school.

There is so much criteria that feeds into a business school application (including soft skills) that if Lazard gives you an edge over GS or any other BB, it's definitely marginal. To say it makes or breaks any application is an exaggeration.

Agree with Westcoasting. It just makes you a more unique applicant. As for what GameTheory says - I think it must help a lot, since almost everyone from Lazard gets into HBS and the ones that don't go to Stanford/Wharton. Although, it's possible that the people Lazard hires are just of such a high caliber that they earn HBS and the Lazard name has little to do with it.

Lazard/top boutiques are going to be extremely selective by nature because they can be and have to be. So I think that plays into a slightly higher caliber of analyst. But if you're telling me that the work experience that the Lazard guys are talking about in their interviews is something more special than any other BB, I highly doubt it.

It's funny. I think people talk about prestige of bank, group...potential to get into b-school, buyside, etc. because people feel like they have this set plan. "I must go to xyz bank, xyz group, get into xyz b-school/buyside shop, etc."

Once people start working, things change. People decide to stay in banking, people decide to quit early. People decide to do something completely different. B-school is nice, but sometimes I think people miss the point of what it's truly useful for and think of it more like a pre-requisite to self-fulfillment.

Completely.

One of my summer associates put it best... (he went to HBS) and a summer intern was telling how awesome he was..

the guy was like...

'I'm envious of you (to the summer intern) because you got into the group that would have made it so I wouldnt have to have had to go to b-school at all'

Something to think about. B-school is grat but i think Game Theory hit the nail on the head with his analysis.

Isn't that a little short-sighted though? I always thought the TRUE value of a top MBA was not to get a job as an associate (generally if you're good enough to go to HBS, you're good enough to get a direct promote, right?), but to develop the skills/relationships necessary to succeed in your own business venture or zoom up the corporate ladder in a more cushy industry.

While I don't recommend the book, Ferazzin in "Never Eat Alone" always talks about how all his Yale buddies hook each other up, even 20 years after school. There's value in that.

Do business schools recognize or care about the distinction between top groups and not so top groups? (i.e. GS TMT, UBS LA etc.)

sure HBS is great. don't kid yourself that every kid that gets into HBS is good enough to get direct promote.

You make a shitload of contacts going through banking; some very relevant. If you can latch on to a great mentor you are set. Look at some of the great up and coming banker, Navid Mahmoodzadegan is a great example.

He got some great mentoring and moved up quickly. You have to compare whether you beleive that two years doing an MBA is more valuable than two years of work experience; its up to you in the end.

I think the MBA adds value from the networking perspective, but the world of finance is small and if you even a stellar analyst people know.

I guess then it's the argument that 80% (give or take) of people that enter investment banking at the analyst level intend to put in their 2 years and use their experience there as a springboard to bigger and better things (buyside, entrepreneurial, corp development).

Personally, as of right now (starting in July), I'd like to put in a max 5 years in IB/PE combined to develop the skillset to build some personal capital and personal legitimacy with investors to start some great entrepreneurial projects. DCF and pitch books won't help me much with the intricacies of a bio-tech start up, management theory and strategic leadership from HBS might.

so going back to the original post, Lazard or MS? I would take Lazard since you know what you'll be doing (M&A) bypassing the random group selection process at BBs

Lazard is a great shop, don't get me wrong, but I would argue for MS IBD any day. If you're only an average candidate and know that you're going to get stuck in a shitty MS group, then maybe you should take Lazard M&A, but if you feel as if God put you on this earth to become a banker, then it's not as hard as you might think to get yourself into one of MS's top industry groups (Sponsors, Tech, RE), which would definitely lead to better buy-side exit ops and thus, better b-schools.

Moreover, if, after doing a couple of years at MS as an analyst in an industry group, you decide that you want to become a career banker, you should have contacts that will be able to essentially get you into MS M&A.

And as a rule of thumb, if you're a truly talented/bright kid, you can always get into the group you want at the firm you're currently at (assuming you're IBD).

Yeah, you shouldn't think you won't get into the group you want at MS. You very well might. Most people get one of their top three choices. So don't make the decision about Lazard versus a group you don't want at MS, since you still have to be placed in a group at Lazard too.

That being said though, I'd still go to Lazard. Better for business school (which to answer the previous posts, can be important - an MD at the place I interned at told me that it's often important to have one if you want to reach MD level at an ibank or PE/HF - basically it's taken into consideration when considering promoting you to MD. I'm not sure how it works, but that's what he told me). And Lazard's great for exit opps into PE/HF.