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?
| +190 | Why UBS Is the Worst Place to Start Your IB Career | 32 | 4h |
| +159 | ONLY THESE BANKS OR YOU STRUCK OUT | 39 | 11h |
| +117 | IB Energy Drink Tier List / Ranking | 77 | 4h |
| +65 | Firm Thinks I'm Lying About Offer | 20 | 10h |
| +54 | Indiana University Fraternity Pipelines | 35 | 2h |
| +42 | Rogo AI | 19 | 2h |
| +39 | Stay at Weak Dealflow Team or Lateral? | 12 | 1d |
| +37 | Elite Boutique interview questions | 9 | 3h |
| +34 | Suspended for a Year | 13 | 3h |
| +22 | 1st Half 2026 (1H26) RX IB & RX Co. Rankings | 14 | 2d |
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
Rerum rerum similique sint. Enim voluptatem praesentium doloremque porro nesciunt aperiam.
Velit id maxime culpa sit iusto ea omnis magni. Doloribus ducimus id voluptas error minima minima aspernatur. Et officiis exercitationem quo repellat sed saepe rerum.
Provident suscipit beatae laudantium architecto. Nesciunt libero nostrum labore cumque autem aut aut. Eligendi dolorem eaque consectetur. Ea accusamus similique eum unde numquam repudiandae iusto distinctio. Ab aut enim sunt aut porro animi provident. Rerum debitis ex aut dolore mollitia laborum. Ea nemo eligendi commodi dolore itaque odit.
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...