Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse - tell me about them
Hello! I was just wondering what the reputation of the big 3 foreign banks is on the street. How are the exit ops from them? How would you rank them and how do you see their future? Thanks
also, what are their cultures like? Thanks
I would rank it:
UBS
Credit Suisse
Deutsche Bank
UBS is a good bank with strong momentum. Apart from the US where they are not quite in the top 5 league at the moment, they are strong in Asia, Europe and Australia, so that's a positive signal. Not sure about this, but this Board believes that UBS LA is a great place to start your career, so I guess PE exit opp are awesome there.
Credit Suisse is quite a sad story. A recent Wall Street Journal article bashed CS for being a copycat of UBS. Also, there are many articles that bashed CS lack of momentum at the moment. See below link:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2006/gb20060802_242955…
Although to be fair, there are some good groups to work for over there, like Sponsors and CS LA (which give great PE exit opp). Apart from that, CS is kinda like a sinking ship that needs to really plug the gaping hole right now. It's funny but I read that the Head of IB at CS recently ordered its bankers to cut back on color photocopying, as part of overall efforts to minimize costs. See below link:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14990002/
Deutsche Bank is good in Europe but in the US, they aren't making much strides, although I must say that their Capital Markets side are pretty good. However, if we are referring to the Corp Fin side of the business, it's not as competitive vs. its peers. The only strong groups I heard of are Lev Fin and Real Estate. Deutsche is always known as the IB that is lower in the Top 10 list (think 9th place, in front of BofA).
Can't say about the cultures of these places as I don't work for them. Hope this helps.
Why does CS have higher expenses than UBS and Lehman? I think it is trying to emulate these companies because their cost structure is much more efficient, leading to higher earnings than CS.
CS struggled over the past few years during Mack era, but Dougan has the firm headed in the right direction. They're ranked either 5th or 6th in M&A league tables this year for US. Granted most firms have had a great year, but CS was involved in HCA, Aramark, Mittal-Arcelor, Disney-Pixar deal and I'm sure many others. I would say UBS M&A is slightly better than CS. In terms of Lev. Fin and high yield, CS is definitely much better. Both are about the same in IPO's.
Do you think that even with all the negative publicity that CS is making strides and gaining momentum to be among the top 5-6 Ib
bullish, I don't think you are right about DB not making strides. Their M&a division has doubled in profits in the three years since its establishment. If anything, DB is gaining momentum at the expense of CS
Salam,
Let me clarify when i say that DB is not making strides in the US. What I meant was that although it may very well have gained market share and doubled its profits over the past few years, the question we should be considering is the overall firm reputation of DB and the exit opportunities the firm offers.
I mentioned this in my Citi post and I'll say it again. League tables are not the sole measure of firm reputation on the Street. There are many intangibles to reputation (yes, even the perception that a firm is doing well when the firm may be facing a bad quarter etc). Yes, league tables matters to a certain extent, more often in the very long run, but it is not the only indicator. For example, Morgan Stanley may have had a few bad years with the management shake out, but at the end of the day, they will always be known as the 2nd best bank on the Street right after Goldman.
DB is a good bank. But if we compare it with its peers soley on brand prestige and exit opp, it falls behind its competitors. That is my point, Salam.
The following is my suggested tiering of Bulge Bracket (Top 10) I-Banks soley in terms of brand equity and prestige (not league tables):
Tier 1
Goldman, MS
Tier 2
ML, Lehman, JP
Tier 3
Citi, UBS, CS
Tier 4
DB, BofA
ML belongs in tier 2 (even though they've been shaky over the past 3 years), but Lehman has had one good year ...if anything they should be tier 2.5 at best...i wouldnt say that Lehman isn't any better than any of your tier 3 banks below.
additionally, the only reason JPM wins lot of high-profile deals is b/c they provide staple-financing. i would say Citi and jpm are of equal prestige, althought jpm's m&a group is slightly better.
Well, the tiering is really subjected to personal opinions so I wouldn't comment.
Just some interesting thoughts I would like to share about the image I have of each bank:
Goldman and MS: The traditional powerhouses who spearhead the I-Banking community. Think of them as the General and Asst General. Pretty much untouchable/unconquerable.
ML: Bull. Pretty good branding actually (I guess the bull incon works). Tries to reach status of GS and MS, but may have to settle for #3.
Lehman: The young upstart. Possible rising star. Growing very well and doing good. Possible Goldman? Maybe. But it will get there.
JPM and Citi: The 'retail' I Banks. Good for staple financings, bad for firm prestige. Commercialised side hurts them. Think checking account.
CS: Firm trouble. Many bad news. Shake up for many years. Huge ship that needs to stop the gap before it sinks.
UBS: Another rising star. Good non-US bank. Winning globally at this point and cracking the US code of securing mandates.
DB: Good german bank, but nothing particularly striking/memorable.
BofA: Commercial bank trying to crack into I Banking. Very tough. May end up like HSBC unless they do something. Merge with Morgan Stanley? Highly unlikely but interesting.
I have two friends working at Deutsche in London at their FIG team. It is very clear that they're definitely alot stronger in Europe than in the rest of the world, but they seem to be doing just fine. Hours seems to be a pain in the ass, but if you're going IB you really can't avoid it. I actually asked one of them the other day what separates DB from the rest - culturewise, but he couldn't really say. Seems to be a pretty good atmoshpere though.
with bullish's view on CS. I didn't end up working there but came close and know many people who currently do. The firm's M&A practice is at least as strong as that of UBS, they're known on the street for their HY and sponsors coverage, and they've been in on tons of this year's headline deals - including this ICBC IPO thats coming up. The "sinking ship" view is dated, no question they got spanked when the shit hit the fan after the tech/quattrone/enron messes, but there's also no doubt they're back on their feet so far this year and just as much a competitor as UBS, ML, etc.
cs still has ways to go when it comes to internal operations (expense management) and trading side of revenues. UBS definitely has an edge there along with the one bank integrated strategy.
however, i completely agree on M&A. I would say CS is better in Lev. Fin/Sponsors, Tech, Energy, and Industrials. UBS is much better in HC and Consumer/Retail.
JP shouldn't be held in lower esteem because they provide financing. Any BB could provide a bridge for any deal, some merely choose not too because they would rather use the capital in other places, increasingly their prop desks or incubating hedge funds. JP is willing to put capital to work on bridges instead of natural gas contracts and they get critisized for it? Give me a break. What is underwriting? It's putting capital at risk. Underwriting has never been about advice.
...where do they rank?
CS - sole M&A mandate on the youtube acquisition:
http://www.financialnews-us.com/?page=ushome&contentid=1045607136
behind GS. The company was also the sole advisor to Pixar earlier this year. Seems like the tech group is still doing quite well after the Quattrone days.
Buysideanalyst,
JPM is definitely not faulted for having a huge balance sheet that allows it to provide financing and underwriting. What dilutes its brand equity is its affiliation with Chase and the fact that it is a "Retail" IB (like Citi).
Although financial supermarkets like JPM have the ability to win mandates, their commercialized/retail arm hurts brand value.
A funny headline to illustrate my point would be:
"JPM has been chosen to lead the financing for the largest buyout in history, at the same time, it is financing Joe Schmoe's third mortgage of his home in Jersey."
Isn't sexy is it?
CS has definetly overtaken MS as the second best tech group. was just sole advisor to google on their youtube acquisition.
DB sucks. Hear they pay okay though.
They speak German I hear.
YA WER IST DIE POWEPOINT YA?
DB sucks overall in banking. However, their Lev. Fin and RE groups are top across the banks. Their trading (FX) is top notch though.
How easy is it to get a job at DB? I'm guessing easy because they suck.
I met a few guys there this summer and many turned down places like Lazard to get there. DB is known for its trading prowess, not really its banking capabilities, in the US at least.
Lev Fin guys are top notch (and for the most part, hilarious). The group is relentless and works hard, though.
Saying DB "sucks" is like saying Miss February is ugly compared to the other 11 months. It's all relative, and like every non-GS/MS bank, DB has its strengths and weaknesses. Definitely not "easy" to get into, regardless.
Didn't CS do the Google IPO? I believe it was when it was still CSFB and they did it with Morgan Stanley.
MS was locked out of the initial IPO...CS did advise on it, think with someone else. MS and CS did the secondary about a year or so later. CS also advised on the youtube acquisition.
The four banks they usually turn to are CS, GS, MS, and Allen & Co.
GS was locked out of the initial ipo, not MS.
I love it. Structured finance is dope. Trading it top-notch. Great reputation for hard working, smart employees.
zfreshjive (and anyone else who has an opinion):
What are the exit ops for DB assocs (2nd or 3rd yr, following MBA)?
my friend summered at DB and said they pay overtime. is that amazing for an ibank or what?
The only thing that hurts Citi is not being called Salomon Smith Barney anymore. Besides that, JPM, Citi and BofA's balance sheets are what will provide them with the competitive advantage going forward in all business areas, i.e. including IBD/IBS. Around 10% of GS' revenue came from IB last quarter, IIRC.
Oh, and I would not say that ML has anywhere close to the prestige of GS or MS (despite the bad years).
DB gets the leftovers at bschools. But they treat their people well, very well in order to retain the talent they can get.
A friend of mine gave me a defined culture versus the rest of the street for DB: "no assholes". Whatever that means, interpret it as you will.
We all have our different personal rankings for prestige, but mine differs with the one above.
Tier 1 Goldman, MS
Tier 2 ML, Citi, UBS, Lehman
Tier 3 JP, DB, CS, Bear
Tier 4 BofA, Barclays, Jefferies, Wachovia, etc.
The basic difference versus the one above by Bullish is that I would never rank JP Morgan ("Chase") even with Citigroup these days, much less above them. You can "think checking account" just as easily for for both and Citi owns JPM in 90% of league tables, which counts for something since they are both quasi-commercial banks.
Also Bear wasn't even ranked above, but I'd easily put them, as well as DB, above poor BofA. "Think checking accounts." BofA is the one bank on the street (okay, maybe Wachovia too but they're tiny) that is entirely dominated by its commercial banking arm.
CS's prestige is falling every year while DB's is probably rising a little, but neither can compare to UBS. So my ranking of the major euro banks also differs from Bullish:
1 UBS 2 Deutsche Bank 2½ Credit Suisse
Another thing I'd add, about the CS and Google talk. The co-founder of Google went to high school with someone who was an Associate at CS when Google was ready for an IPO. Google went with CS, provided they give this kid... an ASSOCIATE... the credit for luring them in.
Now he's an MD at CS... go figure! But the point is that Google didn't choose CS because they are a great bank. Google went with CS because of a relationship developed way before either of them was involved in investment banking or search engines.
I would have to agree with most people and say that it is
CS is going through a hard time, they will come out of it but DB is moving up and UBS is relatively strong now. The people I know going to CS are going there because it was there only offer.
you must have something against CS. i'm not saying it's great bank either (UBS is much better in my opinion). However, CS is better than DB and BS in America. It helps to have good sponsors group when PE activity is increasing on the street.
I do agree with you that DB has fewer aholes than other banks. I've worked with a few of them and they were sharp and fun to work with.
I agree here, no way DB is ahead of CS.
My NYSE-where'd you hear that Google story?
MD from a different bank who works with CS and Google.
No way DB is a better overall investment bank than CS. UBS and CS are pretty much equals in any product.
As far as prestige on your resume, coming in as an analyst or associate right now, UBS has it. CS might be able to turn it around. It'll be interesting to see where they go from here.
There are very good people at CS, BoA, Barclays, Jefferies, and everywhere else. In retrospect, it's kind of a waste of time for us to "rank" banks. Do we really have nothing better to do? Oops.
what bank do you work at? i do believe UBS is better than CS, but you seem clueless
Why do you say that? I work for....... gosh, I forget! ;) Both rankings in this thread have CS as "Tier 3". Do you disagree? Just which of my rankings do you think are "clueless"? Bear in mind that I'm not the one who ranked DB over CS outright if that's your problem, that was a different person. I ranked them both Tier 3 with a personal preference for DB (#2 European versus #2½).
So maybe I work for DB!? Or maybe I don't work in the industry at all after being fired by all of the above. Do you work for CS? I don't mean to step on toes. Which is the problem with any of these rankings!
I somewhat regret playing the ranking game, it's just like ranking b-schools. There are tiers but it doesn't make a huge difference at the end of the day. That being said, I think mine were fairly accurate in light of the Bullish one that had JPM Tier 2 and SSB Tier 3. Or I wouldn't have put them out there.
Let's see your own rankings, I'd like to see just how clueless I really am. Feel free to give your own take on where they all fall.
Possimus recusandae ad aspernatur quo quis temporibus. Ut accusamus aut nobis enim totam. Qui in est impedit sit repellendus porro ut. Nisi qui laborum quam a dolores id velit voluptas. Facere corrupti voluptatem blanditiis omnis ut. Autem dolor cupiditate harum atque.
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...
Et et distinctio sint et sit et. Eum nostrum explicabo consequuntur ratione. Dolorem perferendis eveniet est aut. Modi autem officia voluptatibus recusandae non. Ut quae ea quae sit quis quibusdam ab dolor.
Sequi veritatis unde architecto quia esse tempora consequuntur nihil. Occaecati animi rerum recusandae et blanditiis recusandae consequuntur ipsa. Fugit recusandae nam qui quia.
Consectetur repudiandae repellat earum voluptatem. Quod ut dolore rerum repellendus et facere ipsum. Velit ea sit enim ipsum maxime architecto qui.
Fugiat nihil ad nesciunt autem magnam aut ipsam. Qui beatae provident aperiam impedit voluptas assumenda. Aperiam ea repudiandae iste dolorum temporibus qui fugiat error.
Placeat aspernatur in dolor facilis delectus. Eaque qui et aliquam ipsa quia dolores. Culpa id est dolor quam voluptates sed possimus. Quod quaerat eius aspernatur non molestiae in.