BBs are easier?
Is there any truth when people say that BBs tend to be "easier" (less work) than EBs and MMs?
Trending Content
| +131 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 32 | 2h | |
| +110 | BEING WHITEGIRL IS PARADISE | 20 | 26m | |
| +73 | Best IB group on the Street | 35 | 52m | |
| +65 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 22h | |
| +58 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 21h | |
| +49 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 23 | 14h | |
| +38 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +35 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 19h | |
| +31 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 13 | 4h |
Career Resources
idk about that but every interview I've had with a BB has been significantly easier (behavioural and fit) than other banks like Asian/European banks (heavy grilling on technical knowledge)
Not as US BBs. Definitely not. I'm not saying BBs are harder, I'm saying that BBs create an enormous amount of internal work (comcoms, credit memos, weekly comps, precedent txns etc). EBs will do much more of this work on the fly rather than institutionalize it. I'm also not commenting on the quality of work. I'm merely just saying that at a BB you will do much more nonsense and it will take up much more of your time. For this nonsense, you also will not be able to float by with a bunch of busted outputs -- for no reason whatsoever, associates, VPs, directors and even MDs will review this internally work and provide multiple rounds of comments
This is honestly one of the benefits of an EB -- much less bureaucracy/internal nonsense
Well yes, banks that don't underwrite or lend don't have underwriting or balance sheet committees. Glad whatever non-target or MLT/SEO program you crawled out of was at least able to teach you that.
These are actually pretty critical to make sure you have a paper trail and have done proper diligence to avoid exposing your bank to unnecessary reputational risk and lawsuits, but glad to see you see that as nonsense.
One thing that's clear is that BB's aren't exactly getting the best and the brightest analysts.
Are you okay bud? Or did you get spanked at your prestigious elite boutique this week?
WF isn’t a BB
Pretty accurate
Yeah basically doing any kind of advisory or underwriting at a fed-regulated bank by default requires a lot more busy work due to the mandatory memos / meetings etc required to carry out a transaction. Any non-fed regulated bank will always require much less stringent gateways to getting business approved and executed
Large BB’s need to justify hiring hundreds of analysts every year, but it’s really just for show. I work on a team with 20 people compared to our BB counterpart with like 80. And deal flow is honestly the same.
I’ve always thought this too though. I feel like a BB would be much easier cause there are so many more employees and templates for modeling? Better training and learning experience all around I feel like.
No? I mean do big bulge brackets still have to deal with trial balances?
Interesting comparison even if the title seemed a little silly. Easier is tough to say. If you have low tolerance for the internal BS work then definitely not easier. But likely takes less intellectual firepower (still banking at an EB) and would be more like factory work. EB work more situation-oriented and as someone said doing on the fly. Less cover on on deal teams too, but more interesting/challenging. Nature of deals too. M&A execution vs. if you're in coverage at a BB, really depends how involved you'll be in the deal alongside product partners handling the execution.
Why are BBs less intellectual?
Somewhat speculation, but seems like analysts have more responsibilities given smaller teams and are going to be involved in execution, whereas that might not be the case in a BB. In a BB you might see more product types, but probably won't really learn about them in depth. It's probably the difference in deal execution responsibilities where the difference in learning really kicks in. That being said, you will have at least some exposure to a wider variety of products at a BB and situations, so maybe you'll encounter a securitization in a filing doing work at a EB on a project, but at a BB you'll pitch a company that product (if I'm not wrong in assuming that coverage analysts at BBs help w securitization pitch, at least compiling materials.)
BB vary a bit between firms and even the coverage groups within each bank themselves. In general agree with the above it depends on what type of experience your want and your exit opportunities. I found that having a BB name on your resume helps you get in the door a lot quicker than a smaller shop, but again if your not in a good group or getting any real experience, it doesn’t really matter.
At certain (not all) BBs and groups because every group is different, model and most related work goes to M&A team. Have heard certain coverage groups at BBs hardly get any technical training. EBs don’t have M&A teams, so more technical experience. Again all groups different, but this is what I have seen / heard
I was at an MM bank and lateraled to a BB. I was shocked to see that some of the BB analysts didn’t have much exposure and couldn’t even model properly. I was told some were just aligning logo for a year. I think you can “hide” more at a BB because headcount is huge, but if if you show that you’re good, well you’ll be given meaningful work
Totam officiis voluptas fuga. Quis vero quos provident perspiciatis. Sint amet sequi possimus.
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...