Goldman Sachs/ Morgan Stanley vs the rest

Can't speak of Oaktree firsthand because, honestly, I don't know much about them at all - maybe that's just me being ignorant...

In terms of your "GS / MS vs the rest" question, that's quite a broad field you're trying to cover - are you talking in terms of a specific division (e.g. S&T, M&A), overall prestige, etc?

What, however, I will say is that a lot has been made the past week (what with US earnings) of - in particular - Morgan Stanley's performance vs, say, that of Bank of America (i.e. one of the last, pure-play investment banks, reaping the rewards of a relatively well protected trading division when other IBs were cutting, vs a "universal bank" with far greater retail lending exposure). I think - from, at least, the perspective of S&T - looking at the minutiae of prestige between these firms is overdone: BAML has great traders, as does Citi, as does JPM, as does Credit Suisse, etc. While some trading divisions at specific banks will do well some years, the case will be the same at different banks for others - it's a combination of both the then-current structure of the bank (e.g. exposure to retail lending), the business focus of the bank (e.g. equities vs fixed income), as well as the strategic focus of the bank (e.g. CEO wants to pivot to wealth management instead of S&T). There's little point worrying over what the best banks are now in terms of where you would be best placed to start your career - focus more on getting in at any good shop.

Ultimately, the long-and-short of it is this: the kudos that comes with working at any of these firms is significant - and, yes, some may be considered better than others, but that will change quicker than you expect over time. It simply isn't lasting. I remember when Goldman used to reign supreme, before they were then arguably surpassed by JPM, and now, it seems, by Morgan Stanley. Remember, there was once a time where working at Lehman Brothers / Bear Stearns / Solomon Brothers / Enron / Barings-fking-Bank was considered the hottest ticket to the big leagues.

I was given the advice early in my career that there's no point trying to pick the lows of a market to enter (e.g. equity trading), nor exclusively aiming for what is then perceived as the most exclusive / prestigious firm - if you're excellent at your job, you'll be compensated for it and, ultimately, likely have a reasonable chance later in your career when it arguably matters more of gaining entry to the most sought after / influential seats of near any firm.