How good was Greenhill back in the day (early 2000s and 2010s)?
We all know that Greenhill isn't the place that it used to be and that it was acquired by Mizuho last year. Nonetheless, I'm interested in hearing from bankers back in the day (or people familiar with the matter) about Greenhill's prestige during the early 2000s and 2010's? Did graduates often choose Greenhill over top BBs like GS/Lehman/ML (similar to CVP today)? Was it the top EB on Wall Street? What was compensation and culture like relative to the street? Will Greenhill ever go back to its glory days post the Mizuho acquisition? Apologies in advance if this has been covered before.
It was ok at best. In terms of prestige, would have ranked closer to Citi / BAML.
Interesting perspective. Thought they were the top boutique in the 2000's.
It wasn't. I am not the one who MS-ed you. I know Greehill v well...
It used to be the place to be in the 00s-mid 10s, similar to CVP. It wasn't necessarily that much better than other top EBs at the time (eg EVR, BX) but the fact that they took so few people made them very desired, on top of a relatively stable culture compared to other EBs that were known to be sweaty (eg LAZ or MOE). To the above poster's point, when I was recruiting (early-mid 10s), it was usually bucketed with GS/MS and it wasn't uncommon for people to take GHL over those (group dependent obviously).
I remember seeing an old thread here posted in the 2000s where someone mentioned that they were inclined to take GHL over GS SA offer
They are in bad shape right now, but just look up WSO threads from the 00s/10s... It appeared to be a highly desired firm
It was a highly coveted spot up until the aftermath of the financial crisis. One of the original batch of “EBs.” Great pay and PE placement.
No. It will never be what it once was
I would say it was still a "highly coveted" firm in the early-mid 2010s. It started to slowly lose its glamour from 2016 and on (even then, it was a great shop but a tier below the top EBs like EVR or CVP). From 2022 it was free-falling and eventually got sold in 2023.
Curious to know what made them deteriorate over the last years. When I was recruiting for SA back in 17/18, it was still considered a pretty good EB at my target, in line with the likes of Moelis or Lazard (but below Centerview or Evercore)
Scott Bok wasn’t the best at continuously hiring new talent.
That simple eh? The bank is the sum of its senior bankers…
Talent Pipeline Issues: The first generation of bankers aged out, and Greenhill never did enough to hire or develop the next generation of talent. This oversight set the stage for long-term challenges as the firm struggled to maintain a skilled workforce.
Cultural Barriers to Retention: Analysts were encouraged to leave after a short time, and associate-to-associate promotions were not the norm—often requiring a third year to happen. The Associate pool was entirely generalist, lacking the sector-specific expertise needed to build a strong, specialized team.
Strategic Missteps: In the 2010s, Greenhill chose to focus on corporate clients over sponsors and missed out on the wave of sponsor-backed M&A deals. I don’t believe the firm ever had a dedicated sponsors group, which put us at a disadvantage in a rapidly evolving market.
Fragmented Approach: Greenhill’s strategy to cover all sectors with a small team—approximately 400 employees across 15 offices—created challenges. Competing with well-resourced firms where entire teams focused on specific sectors was a losing battle.
Lack of Infrastructure Investment: The firm never invested in the necessary infrastructure to scale effectively. HR, recruiting, investor relations, and even basic templates were neglected. There was no CRM when I left, making it difficult for teams to work efficiently and cohesively.
Outdated Compensation Structure: Scott Bok’s reluctance to align compensation with market standards adversely impacted the firm’s ability to attract top MDs. Junior-level pay had a deferred cash component, while senior-level compensation was tied up in deferred stock. This structure made Greenhill less attractive to high-caliber talent and resulted in new hires that were less experienced, often “diamonds in the rough.”
Financial Strain from the Leveraged Recap: In 2018, Greenhill issued debt to buy out retiring partners, which saddled the firm with expensive debt. This decision was not refinanced when interest rates were historically low, leading to financial strain. The looming term loan likely influenced the firm’s sale to Mizuho.
Focus on Execution Over Origination: Post-Bob Greenhill, the firm was run by execution bankers for execution bankers. This shift meant a lack of focus on origination and undervaluation of having a strong network, or “rolodex.” The firm lacked standout leaders, or "rockstars," who could push Greenhill to greater heights.
Complacent Culture: The low-facetime culture that prevailed at Greenhill eventually led to a lazy and complacent environment. This type of culture made it difficult to foster accountability and innovation, impacting the firm’s productivity and effectiveness.
pretty much this
Curious, even today would someone still take GHL over a lower-tier BB (UBS/DB)?
Dealflow wise they are probably the same. If gunning for exits, then GHL probably has the advantage
You’re an idiot if they think they’re the same deal flow wise, GHL not even top 50 in league tables
I personally took GHL over a low-tier BB
why?
kids in my semi-target club i still know took top mms/mid bbs over ghl this cycle.
firm is in a complete free fall and its exits will soon start to calibrate and reflect this. I mean when was the last time anyone has seen GHL in t20 M&A league tables? Have heard first hand stories of analysts consistently getting out at 7/8pm on weekdays due to lack of deal flow.
Curious, do you know what bonuses look like given the lack of deal flow and juniors having less than 70 hours a week?
Copying from another thread lol:
Bob Greenhill was obviously one of the great bankers, and they had people of similar calibre in London so as long as the rainmakers were around, they could attract top talent around them and do big deals. When the key people got old, they made a few strategic blunders:
1. Hired good execution people but not the real hitters in the way Evercore did
2. were M&A generalists vs sector specialists in the way Evercore and Centerview built real sector depth
3. focused on strategicas vs sponsors when the fee wallet was tillting largely to sponsors
4. Cozy collegial culture with insufficient focus on individual productivity
when they interviewed me about five years ago, it was like going back in time to a world that no longer existed.
Wdym by this? Was the whole process just about vibes?
I went through a lateral process at GHL recently (sr. associate / early VP level) and it was entirely about vibes. I had more rigorous interviews at MMs
Around 2010, know of someone that took a Greenhill offer over Goldman in London. Probably not a great decision in hindsight but anecdotally goes to show how much stronger Greenhill's reputation was back then, the way we think of the likes of Centerview and Evercore today.
Clearly the person read too much American-based WSO
I was around during some of the Greenhill glory days. Solid firm, but not in some crazy top tier by themselves. Thought of them the way I think about PWP today.
Amet laudantium officia sit saepe et. Nobis ratione aut in ipsum voluptatem perspiciatis omnis. Doloremque et blanditiis ut cumque ducimus.
Omnis et ut architecto eos cum. Quo repellendus non necessitatibus nisi consequatur explicabo. Nobis laudantium sit nesciunt iusto aut accusamus. Quos molestiae saepe repellendus aut. Provident aliquam tempora consequatur.
Numquam voluptas iusto minus rerum sit dolorum magni. Quisquam et porro cum. Est aut veritatis nostrum. Atque earum necessitatibus ab non et dolorem. Sit amet at alias qui.
Aut fuga laborum natus quod. Quibusdam iusto consequuntur mollitia vero facere nobis. Neque aut sunt ipsa iure itaque sed vel maxime.
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...
In dolor aspernatur qui sit aut. Quo vel eum eum distinctio suscipit. Autem maxime perspiciatis alias et qui. Nihil alias voluptate sit et. Non dolores nemo culpa reprehenderit placeat neque. Vel similique iure odio iusto veniam id ut. Velit est et a eos illo sequi aliquam velit.
Aliquid suscipit nobis et et. Aliquid ipsum ut est ut iusto dignissimos. Et corporis eligendi voluptatum quaerat eligendi inventore eum. Aut voluptatem repellendus voluptatem tempora reprehenderit ullam.