Bank of America Merrill Lynch to drop Merrill Lynch name from Investment Bank
WSJ just reported that BofA is planning to change the marketing name of its investment banking unit "Bank of America Merrill Lynch" to only Bank of America (Securities) and reduce the wealth management operations' name to Merrill.
How will this affect the reputation of the bank and its ability to win clients and recruit young, often prestige-focused, college students?
I think this will radically reduce the appeal of the brand and will even further destroy the performance legacy of Merrill Lynch.
Can't wait to see kids in 2 years time coming on WSO asking if BofA is a BB
BofA deez nuts are bulge brackets
Cue all the BOA retail bankers and investment advisors telling ugly girls at the bar that they are "investment bankers" lmao
Lol @ the notion of any guy telling any girl that he's an investment banker in order to impress her.
Missed opportunity to call it Bank of America Capital and shorten to BAC like the stock ticker.
Shouldn’t make a huge difference. Citi and Barclays both do reasonably well despite the retail bank names.
BAML’s ability to finance deals won’t change and that is often how they win mandates, not based on the reputation of their advice.
For IB, MDs move bank and often take clients with them regardless of the respective banks’ names so it’s really down to the quality of MDs / teams.
^^THIS^^
Names only change what you call something, it doesn't change the inner workings/the successes you've had/the quality people you currently have or will retain in the future.
Companies, in and out of banking change their names. It happens and often more than once in a company's history. Whether because of mergers [First Boston became CS First Boston became Credit Suisse, Manufacturers Trust became Manufacturers Hanover became Chemical Bank became Chase] or distancing from crises or scandals [Blackwater became Xe became Academi and Philip Morris became Altria] or a combination of reasons, sometimes to something catchier/trendier like when Burbn became Instagram or due to legal battles such as when WWF [World Wrestling Federation] became WWE due to World Worldlife's Fund's claim to the 3 letters WWF.
While BoA's just announcing this to the public, you can be certain this decision was probably percolating for well over a year or two, possibly longer. Names do change, but it's rarely done at a moment's notice or without lots of thought, board meetings, focus groups and discussions with your public relations people.
Clients don't care but it's a prestige thing mostly (mainly at the analyst / early associate level..) Once you hit senior associate / VP+ your focus turns more to "where can I get higher comp" and "which platform do I have the highest chance of making MD" rather than prestige
For a branding standpoint, I personally feel that they would've been better off keeping their investment bank / wealth management branded as "Merrill Lynch" then keep all the retail / commercial / corporate bank as "Bank of America". Similar to how JPM differentiates between their "Chase" and "J.P. Morgan" branding, with great effectiveness
With that said as toolish as it sounds, I do think branding does have an implicit impact on people's psychology & how people relate to your firm, and it's not for a league tables thing. For example, both Citi / BAML are technically "stronger" in almost all products than CS in the Americas and yet CS has a branding (recruiting) advantage over them because of their "Swiss high finance" vs. retail bank association. In New York, telling someone you work at Barclays has a stronger cachet because US people associate Barclays with the investment bank whereas in London, when you tell people you work at Barclays, first assumption is that you open checking accounts & credit cards for a living. Not a big deal at the end of the day, but I do think worth noting