I was going through 2006 Q1 - Q3 league tables for fun and found something interesting.
For debt, Citi is the top dog. For equity, Citi is #2 following GS. For M&A, Citi is #2 following GS, once again.
The information above is based on US involvement.
Anyway, it seems to me that Citi is excellent in league tables. Why is it that some view Citi not as good as Lehman, UBS, ML, or even MS?
| +125 | UBS Americas IB: The Kids’ Table of Wall Street | 15 | 2d |
| +63 | Return Rates For Interns Are Falling? | 28 | 6m |
| +61 | London IB BB is a challenge | 38 | 1h |
| +49 | VP Lifestyle at Top BB Coverage Groups | 31 | 2h |
| +46 | SharePoint makes IB hours HELL | 15 | 23h |
| +46 | An Outsider’s View of RX Banking Out of College | 6 | 3h |
| +41 | momentum of Rx groups | 13 | 1h |
| +39 | I am a drunk MD AMA | 27 | 1h |
| +37 | Fired during interview | 7 | 3h |
| +27 | Series 79 Help | 13 | 12h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Citi is a newcomer...has been solid for the past few years.
"Why is it that some view Citi not as good as Lehman, UBS, ML, or even MS?"
Even MS? MS is 2nd best bank on the street.
I meant to say Bear Stearns. How is Citi a newcomer given its Salomon Brothers history? Also, do you think that the image of Citigroup retail banking hurts its image?
yeah its weird, someone once told me Citigroup? more like shittygroup. Which I disagree with completely
In terms of prestige, people automatically discount banks with a commercial side. I don't know why, but it is commonly done. II must confess that i do it as well: the first thing that pops into my mind when I hear Citi is "checking account"
Citi is a newcomer in terms of performance. Only recently has the bank put up decent league table numbers; in the early 2000s, I believe they were nowhere near the top of the league tables.
What about DB? Are they looked down upon for having a commerical side?
Let me clarify: banks aren't looked down upon for having a commercial side in terms of performance (it is actually better to have a commercial side from a business perspective). they are just looked down upon from a prestige standpoint.
my guess for this is that non-commercial ibanks hate it when banks with a commercial side win business because of their BS. we feel like the only way they got the business was because of their BS, not because of their talents.
Citigroup just has too many bankers to be considered the most prestigious. Have you guys ever heard of the term 'analyst army' regarding citigroup.
It's easier to get into than some of the BB and leverages balance sheet heavily. Those are the reasons I think it loses from an analyst prestige perspective.
Still a great investment bank. Those are two very different things.
Citigroup is always seen as a financial supermarket. You can do anything with Citigroup, from home mortgages to M&A, but a large reach doesn
When I think of Citigroup Corp. & Inv. Banking, i think of Salomon Smith Barney instead of CitiBank. The strength and culture of SSB are largely unaffected after the merger. So now would anyone say that Citigroup lacks prestige for IB? One cannot say things like "if Citi had not come with the huge balance sheet it has, it would probably not have won the business over ..." Saying that is exactly like to say "If Jon had not have the smart brain cells that he has, he would probably not got an A on that exam!" The balance sheet is PART of Citigroup. People.
Actually, I heard that Citi's analyst class is smaller than that of CS. Anyone care to confirm this?
yes, and the numbers for the next class will be smaller
The analyst class may be small, but I think what the above post meant was that Citi has an army of people working for it (approx. 300,000 employees), and this dilutes its overall brand prestige.
H2O, Do you work at Citi or CS? Also, do you know how big the next class will be?
Citi, have friends at cs, don't know the exact number yet so please don't quote me, but a smaller class is probably expected
Citi's has a reputation of being extremely hierachial. As an analyst or an associate, you get less responsibility when compared to some other banks. More monkey...less prestige.
Banks with strong commercial sides leverage off their balance sheet to gain business. This is not a reflection of the quality of their people or of a long-established tradition, but a function of their size. So when these guys lose to firms without a similar balance sheet, it kinda makes you wonder...
When you look at the standard Thompson rankings, you're looking at a distorted picture of what some people feel matters most. When a transaction has multiple advisors, I have been told that Thompson gives the total value of the transaction to both firms. Firms with large balance sheets tend to be on these types of deals for underwriting purposes. Thus, these rankings are a poor proxy for advisory fees.
Just some thoughts, but I'm biased as I work for a well-known firm without a commercial side.
2006 class was 95 analysts.
In terms of pay, are IBanks with a commercial side in line with their pure play counterparts? Or is it lower?
Not sure about the general case but Citi is on par with Lehman.
Citi is almost by far the most international/worldwide bank. Like it has been said before and like it says on their website, if you're interested in international opportunities Citi is the place to be.
Citi is by far the most international/worldwide bank. Like it has been said before and like it says on their website, if you're interested in international opportunities Citi is the place to be.
I heard 1st years at Citi paid 120k all in last year. Anyone care to confirm or deny.
Darthtony,
I would disagree with you. When people think of Citigroup, I really don't think the thought of Salomon comes in mind. Come on, the merger was at least 7 years ago, and we have moved far ahead from then. Will we still talk about Citi IB being like Salomon 10 years from now? I really don't think so.
I see your point about Citi having a balance sheet and it should make full use of that. I don't disagree with that strategy they are using. The question is whether the retail side of Citi is in fact diluting its overall bank prestige. THAT is the case in point, not the compensation pay out (I'm sure Citi pays the same with the rest of the Bulge Brackets), nor the use of its tremendous balance sheet. It's the fact that Citi has an overly commercialised side to it that makes it less sexy and coveted to many.
wasn't it that part of why Citi is high in the tables is that they take on smaller deals, and fact that they advise less on mega deals hurts their image?
No, the league tables are for $ amount, not # of deals. Citi is actually lower in # of deals but they've gotten onto the big deals like HCA, mostly b/c of their balance sheet.
Autem aliquid aut deleniti aut asperiores. Nisi quasi est amet dignissimos. Officia voluptatibus voluptatem laudantium officia aliquid quia. Aut consequuntur sit sint et veniam. Soluta autem architecto dicta blanditiis explicabo consequatur quod. Iste qui sequi atque voluptatum.
Fuga corporis cupiditate excepturi velit sit in. Non voluptatem pariatur nihil qui maxime est. Illum ullam nemo nulla unde.
Necessitatibus rem impedit possimus atque quam error. Molestiae dicta dolores dolore similique aliquid. Vero consequatur culpa consequuntur molestias perspiciatis voluptatem ipsam. Magnam et et provident optio id. Perspiciatis dolorum illo unde quidem distinctio reiciendis sit.
Delectus est rerum et provident expedita et. Deserunt et voluptates sunt aliquam eius quod est.
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...
Tenetur quidem nemo ad et doloribus enim ut blanditiis. Magni autem et magnam asperiores saepe sed aut. Omnis eos sequi quod quos modi vel. In perspiciatis atque sit voluptatem impedit omnis. Minus dicta aliquid dolorem doloribus inventore id corporis.
Eos voluptatem quia molestias nulla voluptatem iste illo nihil. Odit dolorem omnis soluta. Asperiores et mollitia vel sunt dolor. Voluptatem id iure ut est recusandae assumenda. Voluptatem accusantium omnis ad atque recusandae et nisi sed.
Officiis atque eligendi possimus ut necessitatibus nam unde rerum. Eaque qui quia ut laboriosam deleniti aut et. Et id qui ratione itaque expedita. Delectus autem alias non dolor sit minima.
Maiores et qui velit amet. Voluptatem earum vero adipisci ipsa. Non explicabo ratione quae doloremque praesentium accusantium fugit.