Does anyone regret choosing an EB over BB?
^ above. Struggled to decide between a top EB (EVR/PJT/CV) for M&A and BB (GS/MS/JPM). Always been interested in PE / investing but still unsure if finance is what I want to pursue following the 2-year stint (still very open to corpdev/entrepreneurship/getting an MBA). I also have family in Asia and am worried that being at a EB simply does not carry the same weight of a BB name. I went with the EB hype but am beginning to doubt my choice. Has anyone regretted choosing an EB over a BB, or is willing to share some perspective on the key differences between the two further along in your career? Would it be possible to lateral to BB full-time?
FWIW I'm at MS right now in a top group. When I was recruiting I was so gung-ho about one of the following: MOE/PWP/LAZ like that was the only place to be for me. I felt like there was no other place that would be better. Had an asshole of an interviewer and got dinged (he didn't make it to MD thank god) and I ended up getting an offer at MS a week later.
Having worked in this job for a year, I am so glad I didn't get the EB offer. BBs offer such a wider range of experience across M&A, debt and equity and if I want I can recruit for PE since anyone in my group that decides they want MF PE can do so with a 100% placement rate given the strength of our group. Not to say every single person in the group ends up in MFPE but anyone who wants it easily gets it.
I think there is a big emphasis on EBs on this website and there is no right answer for everyone. Some people only wanna work on M&A deals and some people want different experiences. Some people want MFPE and some want to do corp dev. You should decide whats best for you because at the end of the day, if you want it, you can get it. I don't think you should regret picking an EB over a BB but, against the grain of this website, I'm so glad I ended up at MS over the EB I wanted back then.
Edit: people on this website really MS’ing me because I said working at a BB over EB was the right choice for me lol
Can i pm you?
I’m at an EB and so glad i didn’t go to a BB cause I think debt and equity financings be boring as helllll
Was an analyst at a top EB. Whenever we got top BB (GS/MS/JPM) laterals, it took them a few weeks/months to get up to speed because honestly they just did not have the range of experience taking responsibility over their work. Literally just could not do basic things we expected a 3-month analyst to do (not firm-specific things but general things that everyone should know). Say whatever else about name brand, greater experience with equity/debt, and all, but going to an EB you will become much better at the core M&A processes.
Can you give some examples?
That makes sense, no? If a lateral was a coverage banker at MS and JPM, for M&A deals, they have product groups that come in and hold the pen on the model. In addition, deal teams are larger at those banks and analysts rarely hold the pen on the model there.
What’s your work life balance like
Probably media & comms group?
Have heard the same thing going the other way. Bottom line is, find a firm you like. PE exit opps will be similar and who cares whether your family knows the name of the bank. If they really care about prestige, show them M&A league tables at the next cookout.
bump
Chose top BB over top EB
Not going to reiterate the same considerations that everyone already knows, but I think one underrated element to this is the analyst class. EB kids tend to be nerdy, these are the hardos of all hardos. Not saying BB is immune to that and there's probably a higher concentration of dicks, but in general BB analysts are more social, well-rounded, and type of people that you want to befriend. Some of my closest friends in the city are from my group, and we don't need to talk about finance 24/7
The ultimate irony (if your tag is correct) is that outside of like FIG and Energy, M&A is probably the dorkiest group at the vast majority of bulge brackets.
You have thousands of posts on WSO dude, please dont tell me about dorkiness
I think at the post MBA level, there was a few posters on this website at EBs who felt their career was limited as they didn't want to be "execution" MDs while all the rainmakers were almost exclusively laterals from BBs. Hard to build up your client list when you can't offer certain products.
MM banks seems to be popular for post-MBA aspiring to be career bankers. BB banks probably give the highest variety of options. For example, a coverage BB post-MBA banker with pre-MBA experience in the same industry coverage - might prefer to exit to a cool role at a startup/corporate.
From a pay perspective, I think it would be absolutely foolish to pick any BB (besides GS because they completely shifted pay philosophy) over EB at the MBA level. Last year I got paid at least 50k more than every single BB associate my year (save GS). I’m not at Moelis either, just one of the other EBs. Friends at JPM and MS - in GOOD groups btw - got crap bonuses relative to the street. This is even putting to the side CS and Citi paying associates 125k bonus - less than EB analysts. JPM and MS had one of their best years ever, so if not last year, when?
Each his own. I still stand by my opinion.
Are we sure GS permanently shifted their pay philosophy?
Since there’s clearly a lack of representation from actual EB bankers here…
I’m currently at EVR/LAZ and turned down a couple BB offers for my current role. All things considered I don’t think I would go back and change my mind. From talking with my close friends at BBs, it seems like EBs require junior bankers to handle a bit more responsibility (i.e. earlier exposure to modeling, owning pages/sections in a presentation, etc.), which provides for a richer learning experience IMO.
However, my read is that depth often comes at the sacrifice of breadth. Seems like folks at BBs often end up working on more projects at any one time, thus gaining broader (but less deep) deal exposure.
Another consideration is whether or not you want to stay in finance your whole career. If you want to join a startup or some non-finance operations role, the BB brand name will likely open up more doors than an EB. But anyone who has ever tangentially worked in finance or M&A will immediately recognize brands like EVR/LAZ/PJT/PWP etc.
TL;DR both options are great, and seems like most people end up happy with their decision.
Congrats on Lazard
Think you pretty much hit it. Difference between maximizing responsibility and stronger technical skills for time in banking vs debt/equity exposure and stronger brand name for non-finance roles
Totally agree. Currently working at LAZ and don't regret my choice (was LAZ vs. Citi, didn't have much room for decision). What I hear from friends at BBs, EB just gives you much more responsibilities.
I'm at an EB right now, but my older sister is also a banker and she went EB AN-VP -> BB VP-MD. A huge reason why she jumped from an EB to a BB is because she found it much easier to make the transition from execution to relationship-building at an BB, where she could leverage a much wider arsenal of products to build her Rolodex. Let me put it this way: You're an SVP/Director/Principal or newly minted MD at an EB looking to build your future client base. Essentially, the only product you have to offer to clients is your advice. Why would a CEO trust you for advice when they can just go to the experienced 60-year old MD they've always gone to. What do you, a young 30 year old, have to offer and to show you're trustworthy that the MD the CEO has had a long relationship with can't offer? That's where being at a BB is much better. As a budding SVP/Director/Principal, you can build relationships by offering products aside from advice. You can start off the relationship by offering financing to the CEO, maybe make your deal more enticing by providing favorable terms and knocking off some fees. As time goes on and you've built your relationship with the CEO, you suggest that they can go public, and your bank acts as the primary bookrunner. Years later, after building up the relationship, you're the CEO's trusted advisor now, and when they're looking to sell their company, they trust your advice, and bring you in as a lead advisor.
A huge reason why EBs often emphasize "mentorship" during recruiting/to juniors is because mentorship is objectively more important at an EB than a BB. As you move up at an EB, your seniors are expected to groom you to be a senior by giving you more client interaction and slowly transitioning their client relationships more and more to you, so when they retire, their former clients are familiar enough with you. EBs need that aspect because it's simply harder to get clients to trust you when you only have advice to offer.
BBs are much better at producing senior talent than EBs are. Some EBs boast that their latest MD/Partner classes can come close to 50% internal promotes, while the norm for BB MD/Partner classes is ~80-90% internal promotes. BBs still tend to be the birthing grounds of MDs, and once MDs have established themselves and built their Rolodexes, they jump over to EBs where they get a larger cut of their revenue.
I don't really fully buy this. The reason that historically EBs have had such a large % of lateral MDs is because they are much newer and there hasn't been enough time passed to cycle through multiple classes (it takes a banker 13-15 years to make MD if they were to start at analyst; PJT is 8 years old, Moelis is 15, Perella is 16, etc.). I saw in Moelis' investor deck that over 50% of MDs are now internal promotes (vs. ~20% only a few years ago) so these are rapidly changing.
"Advice" is also simplistic. Companies basically need investment banks to execute on transactions because they don't have the internal resources or counterparty relationships to execute deals themselves (especially on the sellside). Many ways to demonstrate this ability outside of being directly hired too - so many instances where we've worked across from a company and later got hired by them in the future because they want the same level of services for themselves.
EBs (and also the MM banks like WB and HW that do lots of volume) also have great sponsor relationships because sponsors want to hire bankers on the sellside who are pros at doing M&A specifically. This is good 'recurring' revenue as well because they'll still have more companies to sell in the future (if you sell a company that is not sponsor owned then there's a smaller probability of repeat business). Doing lots of M&A = lots of touchpoints with sponsors and buyers = great way that EB bankers create relationships. Not to say BBs can't do this as well (they definitely do) but there are significant benefits to being in the market with higher volumes of M&A deals.
I chose to intern at BB over an EB and had a significantly better WLB than friends at EBs did. Just some insight
This website is so funny, people bootlicking EBs for mOdElinG experience and "more responsibility". That just means more hours and stress
The only legit reasons to take EB over BB is the pay, or if you're coming from a non-target and you're not confident about group placement (and this concern only valid for the lower BBs). And there's a reason why EBs pay more than BBs, to compensate for all the other factors that make them < BB
yep lol, look at all the posts above getting MS because they're laying pros and cons of BBs and EBs, anything that says that a BB can be possibly better than an EB is MS'd
EB banker here, and this post does hold some truth to it. There's a massive perception bias during recruiting. EBs often recruit earlier, and thus get the "hardo" students who are more well prepared and on their game. Undergrads then see the "hardo" students landing EB offers, and thus have a perception that EBs are better because those upperclassmen are signing for EBs more often (due to exploding offers and the spread-out recruiting timeline where most BBs don't even kick off by the time nearly all EBs are finished).
There are many merits to EBs, but many undergrads and WSO overrate EBs way too much.
Nontarget here and thats the exact reason I signed with an EB instead of MS. Didn't think I could make it through MS' group placement process when they prioritize clients' kids over all else.
non-targets these days get into EB's?
If you grind your ass off, yes. I worked like a dog during networking and recruiting. Had a top BB offer and leveraged for EB offer
Yea but more hours and stress also means you’re learning more in your time in banking - maximizing returns for the time spent. If you want to only spend 2-3 years in banking, think this has to be the most efficient way
you are the type of good boy that banks and pe shops love, you were perfect for EB my man
I am at one of LAZ/MOE/EVR/PJT outside of the US. Culturally I think I like being in a small team more than being in a massive bank. The downside is after 2 years I realised I am a bit fed up with people here.
I have had good interview opportunities (incl. some of the large cap PE funds, HF, distressed, growth equity). I have also had a probably better experience than at BBs (deal teams were so lean sometimes I’ve been with an ED only with no Asso/VP)
However, there is a brand mismatch with the top BBs like GS, MS, JPM, BAML. Whatever people here say, people in tech or consulting will barely know these EBs (sure, you may be able to impress the Apollo guy but this is not my goal in life). So I do not regret picking an EB because it ended up well for me anyway, but I think if you exit after 2 years BBs are best.
Have friends in both BBs and EBs. Can vouch that BBs open way more doors and get looks from recruiters in every industry. If you plan to stay in finance, EB would be the way to go but that's even arguable.
A caveat would be that I do know more people who regret choosing EB over BB than the other way around.
What's it with asians and being obsessed with 'brand name' institutions? Literally had a chinese analyst leave the boutique I was at at the time so they could go work in back office for a non-IB related group at Goldman simply because she wanted everyone back home to think she worked for Goldman Sachs
as an asian man, i love me some clout baby
Cause we won't be in the US 3 years from now and nobody in Asia knows what's Evercore, Moelis or PJT
You can tell them you make a lot of money no?
Been at both. I like BB better. EB did give me more exposure and responsibility within a transaction. Was the go to person for the clients in a transaction as A1.
But then I don't really care about having more responsibility, so BB feels better where you just do what you're told.
No regrets in life bro. Imagine after some years of marriage, you wish you asked out your wife’s best friend instead. Won’t get you anywhere.
Laterals flow one way, BB to EB, for a reason
The reason is pay. We're talking about starting your career and at that point, prestige and exits are better at BB so BB > EB. After you decide you like finance and wanna stay, you go EB to make $$. That's why laterals "flow one way". It is NOT because EBs are perceived as more prestigious or open more doors because they do not.
Illum tempora consequatur exercitationem voluptatem dolores incidunt sapiente doloribus. Ut dolor sed maiores labore est ad. Totam debitis cupiditate dolorum quibusdam. Voluptatibus ut qui ut qui cupiditate. Aut rem in sed in nesciunt.
Accusantium voluptatem suscipit quis voluptas assumenda quia eligendi. Sit eos omnis dolorem perspiciatis. Quia tenetur quas minima in dolorem tempore. Qui quo voluptatibus repellat corrupti veniam commodi aspernatur.
Facilis eos deserunt hic vitae aut quo. Rerum temporibus tenetur sit occaecati natus quis. Dolor veritatis consequatur nobis in. Repellat optio ex est atque dolorem voluptas.
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...
Nihil vel laboriosam molestiae eos error occaecati omnis dolorem. Sit quis sit labore eos a voluptas. Consequatur porro soluta nihil temporibus qui iure. Nostrum libero ea aut placeat quasi ullam enim.
Laborum est et ut harum deleniti consectetur. Ipsum porro in dolores officia non veniam placeat.
Rerum aut velit doloremque nihil velit. Asperiores tempore rerum suscipit delectus.
Optio magnam sed est excepturi cum. Voluptatem inventore voluptas rem aut.