How will boutiques fare in the next downturn?
Most elite boutiques are relatively new compared to the BBs and never went through a situation of comparable magnitude to 2008.
Given that boutiques are majority advisory focused and run lean deal teams, how would they fare in the next recession compared to the BBs? Will deal flow decline/increase given their strategic advisory models, will many implement tighter regulations despite them being private, will hiring rates go up/down/remain the same, etc.
A couple thoughts: The reason so many household name banks were on the brink during the crisis and cut employees wasn't primarily due to lack of deal flow. Depending on the industry a lot of that slowdown actually happened later. After the real estate bubble popped in around '06 the ripple was felt first and most acutely on the balance sheets of banks that were doing a huge amount of securitization. This (and other factors, oversimplifying here) caused Lehman to collapse and AIG to be placed in conservatorship by the government. Most other bbs suddenly had to take a hard look at their own balance sheets/counterparty relationships and start unwinding toxic assets/doing damage control. As a consequence of these factors, there was a liquidity crunch that hit the rest of the economy causing many sectors to enter correction territory with all the familiar effects of generally reduced dealflow, etc.
So to op's question, let's say it's 2009. Why did banks lay off/hire fewer juniors? Lots of effects to consider. Many trading desks were decimated by the crisis and banks had tightened their belts and teams to begin with and simply had higher priorities for burning cash than hiring analysts. Reduced deal flow didn't help.
Boutiques are a slightly different animal because their balance sheets and by extension existence won't suddenly be in jeopardy because you wake up and realize AIG might not post collateral for swaps you're using to hedge debt. These means that while companies are rarely 100% prepared for recessions, odds are there isn't a barrel of dynamite on your books that no one saw coming. Boutiques also have comparatively leaner teams; some have 1 or 2 analysts for even massive deals (= painful hours) which means they're already in some ways operating in "recession mode" with minimal junior support. In addition, many have strong restructuring practices (PJT, EVR, LAZ, etc) which can have a counterbalancing effect.
My guess is that analyst hiring will change more for places that have really expanded their classes of late; guggenheim comes to mind here among others.
Interested to hear others' thoughts.
I don't think that's safe to say at all. Each recession has its own quirks; as I describe in my post above, the big balance sheet banks were hit very hard in 2008/9 thanks to some of the "assets" they had on their balance sheets. That wasn't the case in 2001; so maybe you could argue that in that kind of an environment where M&A activity declines but financing is still going strong bbs have the upper hand thanks to their more diverse offerings. It all depends on the recession.
My take: With the same caveats others have laid out about deal flow and sector being the most important determinants, Id say "won't be affected much":
The clientele for EBs are already focused on paying for the best advice, which is why they're going to an advice-only advisor rather than a BB that can also help with financing, etc.
EBs aren't playing from their balance sheet - unlike the BB's in '08, there isn't really going to be a sudden and dire question of counter party risk/credit risk/liquidity risk, or the need to curtail front office activities to shore up the BS.
EBs staff lean - it's not like there's a lot of bottom bucket juniors lying around to fire/not hire.
(My personal hunch) a lot of EBs, while technically public, look and feel a lot like a partnership in practical terms. Partnerships, for a variety of reasons, are generally more averse to firing junior resources or letting them go through attrition if it can be avoided, as they have a lot of credibility to lose if they start axing the cheapest members of their workforce. It is, as they say, "not a good look".
As others have said, most EBs sport a restructuring practice whereas most BBs do not. So, there is somewhat of a countercyclical buffering effect on the bottom line.