Investment Banking Evolution

Until the late 1990s, before the repeal of Glass Steagall, you had a sharp distinction between investment banks (GS, MS, Leh, BSC, Solly, DLJ plus mid market firms like Alex Brown, Furman Selz, Robby, H&Q) and commercial banks (JP Morgan, Chase, Citibank, Bank of America).

Everything changed in the late 1990s and 2000s. Every investment bank other that GS got bought or went bust (even Morgan Stanley was effectively bought by Dean Witter). By the time I started, true investment banking seemed to be destined to die at the altar of the universal banks.

But somehow out of the ashes…

Independent advisory firms have prospered (once there was just Lazard) and former nonentities like JEF, Blair, Baird, Piper, Houlihan have become forces to reckon with.

in my view bulge bracket firms are the spiritual heirs of the commercial banks - solid institutions, deliver important services, pay ok but not particularly well, bug and bureaucratic 

The spiritual heirs of the investment banks are the independent advisory firms and the MM firms where bankers can actually get paid and are culturally a lot more similar to the old Morgan Stanley, Lehman, DLJ, etc

Goldman remains Goldman, a breed apart

Interesting times. The more things change, the more they stay the same





 

Curious why you say Goldman remains Goldman? They operate very similarly to (for example) Morgan Stanley, so why are you classifying Goldman as a different breed?

 

Curious why you say Goldman remains Goldman? They operate very similarly to (for example) Morgan Stanley, so why are you classifying Goldman as a different breed?

Goldman has survived whereas Morgan Stanley didn’t (the name did,  but Morgan Stanley was bought by Dean Witter in a merger of unequals) because Goldman is uniquely effective in managing risk and making money in proprietary trading and in principal investments / asset management.

Their investment banks superficially look similar but Goldman is much more than that - and much more successful in making money for its partners 

 
Most Helpful

For those who are interested

GS is GS

JPM is actually Chenical Bank which bought Manufacuters Hanover, Chase (which bought Hambrecht & Quist and Robert Fleming), JP Morgan, US Bancorp and Bear Stearns

MS is actually Dean Witter which bought Discover and Morgan Stanley (I remember the day Morgan Stanley bankers were given Discover credit cards as their corporate cards)

Primerica acquired Smith Barney and Shearson and Salomon Brothers before merging with Travelers Insurance and Citi

Barclays is the combination of Barclays Investment Bank (whose foundations are De Zoete Wedd and Lehman

DB bought Bankers Trust (which bought Alex Brown) and Morgan Grenfell

BofA bought Montgomery Securities and Merrill Lynch

UBS acquired Swiss Banking Corporation which acquired SG Warburg and Dillon Read and Paine Webber

Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia which had acquired Wheat First and Prudential Securities (which acquired Kidder Peabody from General Electric)

Credit Suisse acquired First Boston and DLJ

RBC acquired Dain Rauscher

CIBC acquired Oppenheimer

and that’s how investment banks almost died

 

Just wanted to add that Credit Suisse acquired First Boston and Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette, and DLJ inherited the core of Drexel Burnham Lambert.

  • First Boston had to be bailed out for financing the LBO of the Ohio Mattress Company when HY crashed.
  • DBL was forced into bankruptcy due to Milken's crimes 

Although it's a prestigious ancestry, it seems the strong legacy of fucking up is carrying through to today!

 

Wow fantastic recap. Wonder what the next decade of acquisitions and consolidations will look like

 

Great thread, love the wonky history of finance, especially investment banks. IMO, you can understand a lot of our current economic/financial malaise by understanding the change in the structure and function of major financial institutions.

My one gripe is that you left out the most important part! The evolution of dealers and their integration with investment banks. For those interested, the bank holding company act of 1956 was in many ways a spiritual predecessor to Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999. In most of the ways that mattered, we had the universal bank long before the 1990s.

"Under the terms of the original 1956 act, one-bank holding companies were not required to register with the Federal Reserve, and thus, their non-banking and non-financial activities were tacitly allowed. However, the 1970 amendments brought one-bank holding companies under the control of the Federal Reserve, as well as allowed multi-bank holding companies to participate in selected non-banking and non-financial activities. Hence, the 1970 amendments not only effectively constrained the permissible non-banking and non-financial activities of one-bank holding companies, but also effectively extended the permissible non-banking and non-financial activities of multi-bank holding companies, all at the same time.

The BHC Act Amendments of 1970 made several significant changes. Most importantly, Congress amended the statutory definition of “bank,” which reduced the reach of the original 1956 act. The BHC Act Amendments of 1970 added a second prong to the test of what was a “bank,” which required an institution to both accept demand deposits and make commercial loans (i.e., loans for business purposes, not for personal purposes) to be called a “bank.”

The 1970 amendments had a significant, practical, yet largely unforeseen influence/impact on the development of the US banking industry in the next few decades. Basically, the 1970 amendments created a crucial new opportunity for legislative and regulatory arbitrage, whereby a company could establish a so-called “nonbank bank” and effectively supply banking services without becoming a BHC. Functionally, these “nonbank banks” were very much like regular commercial banks. While they had their own bank charters, they did not fall within the classification of “bank,” because they limited their activities to either accepting demand deposits or making commercial loans (one or the other, but never both). Because these companies technically did not meet all the requirements to be called “banks,” these companies ultimately were not subject to the same consolidated regulation and supervision as were applied to true “banks.”

Consequently, the BHC Act Amendments of 1970 paved the way for future financial legislations/regulations, culminating in the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 further amended the BHC Act, allowing a BHC to register with the Federal Reserve as a financial holding company (FHC), thereby allowing such a firm to engage in an even wider range of financial activities, including securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting, and merchant banking activities."

 

Why IB history?  It makes sense to teach things like personal finance and Econ but highly doubt curriculum creators would want teach the history of banks.  It's definitely important but most kids would at least give a shit about credit cards and student loans rather than this.

 

stuff like 1933 Glass Steagall Act (and repeal), 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, BHCs and IB revolution were taught in one of my econ course about the banking system

 

Enim temporibus cumque labore harum veniam quidem maiores. Ipsum ut eaque dolor nihil doloremque voluptate omnis. Eligendi vitae explicabo perspiciatis.

Omnis repudiandae temporibus ut et sapiente. Labore est voluptatibus libero maxime et eum. Nihil aut vero quam expedita deserunt voluptatem cumque. Iure distinctio molestiae aut dolorum et.

In est nulla sunt veritatis et quas quo. Est neque ut eaque enim laudantium optio. Modi occaecati id facere autem error.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”