I know Lazard and PJT tend to focus on debtor mandates. I've also heard that HL was traditionally creditor focused but has moved toward a more even spit in recent years. Any other places that focus on debtor? What do Evercore, Moelis, Greenhill, and Rothschild focus on?
| +85 | Drunk VP. How to manage? | 28 | 4h |
| +45 | How do I take my foot off the gas? (AN1) | 4 | 3d |
| +44 | Lazard US Views 2026/2027 | 16 | 2h |
| +40 | Who is the final boss in Houston Energy? (GS, JEFF or EVR) | 9 | 6h |
| +37 | Tomorrow Will Be Better | 5 | 6h |
| +33 | Moelis PCA vs Lower tier BB Coverage | 18 | 3h |
| +28 | Why Do We Turn Comments? | 3 | 11h |
| +22 | UBS’s Investment Bank Is Building an AI Slop Factory | 2 | 8h |
| +21 | How early is to early? | 9 | 1d |
| +21 | [2026 - October] Unbiased Prestige Rankings | 7 | 10h |
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.
RTH does only debtor, others try to balance. Not always debtor roles are the most interesting though
Where did you hear that Rothschild does only debtor. Their annual report (slide 14) shows they had a creditor mandate for Hertz
https://www.rothschildandco.com/siteassets/publications/rothschild_and_…
Historically they have been doing only corporate side to avoid conflict of interest and loose potential clients - this is factual. The cred says EUROPEAN creditors, probably in that case they had 0 relationship with the company so they were okay with doing a creditor mandate for European clients
They might have also changed the policy recently
To be honest there isn't this idea of debtor-focused or not; it's more that every bank focuses on trying to get the interesting mandate for each engagement. In my opinion in terms of attractiveness of opportunity/size of fee:
I would say every RX group out there tries to shoot for an engagement in this order of priority. HL is the only exception - they do a lot of UCCs relative to the other mandates which is helped by the sheer size of their junior pool
Disagree on the HL taking UCC mandates, they take a lot of unsecured ad hoc group mandates but incredibly few UCC mandates, I’ve only seen them on two UCC mandates besides Lehman’s
Maybe I should've been clearer. HL definitely takes other mandates to the same degree as other RX advisors, but they are the only large RX advisor that I have seen in my 5 years as a RX banker that consistently takes large-scale UCC mandates ($1B+). Other firms like FTI, Dundon, Province I've also seen take smaller-sized UCC mandates. Also, this is by no means a disparaging comment against HL given the complex natures of large UCC mandates.
My earlier points still stand though. HL took $10MM in UCC fees for Sears while Lazard and M-III (Company advisors) took $56MM. At the end of the day the fee size drives advisors to represent one creditor group / debtor or another. All public filings so feel free to fact check me
Dolores voluptatem accusantium sed commodi dolorum voluptatem libero. Quo eveniet ut asperiores rerum dolorem.
Aliquid dolores omnis perferendis incidunt. Culpa cupiditate voluptatem voluptatem. Adipisci praesentium sequi molestias aliquid dolorem aut voluptatem. Maiores officiis aut possimus perferendis modi nesciunt.
Ut id consectetur aliquid consectetur. Reprehenderit dolorem nisi id blanditiis quis aliquam. Quibusdam dicta omnis dicta et. Nam qui culpa placeat repellat omnis quaerat ea. Modi repellat modi cupiditate et maiores sit qui.
Placeat facilis id quia eveniet. Et harum et quisquam nemo amet occaecati omnis. Hic velit expedita corporis alias. Excepturi facilis id enim quae.
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...