Is BofA EGRC that bad?

d

Is it the weakest IB group at the bank? Yes

Are there some extremely smart people in the group? Yes

Do you get paid the same base, and close to the same bonus as other groups? Yes

Are the hours (more) sustainable for an IB seat? Yes

Are there people in the group that have weaker modeling skills than people in the middle office? Yes

Probably the most “YMMV” group at the firm

My friend works at EGRC in SF and says he's constantly working til 12:30-1am. Sounds like a raw deal

I work at another BB where we have a separate group that is similar style, most of our competitors have some sort of regional/mid-cap investment banking group. The people who work in this group at my bank are either senior bankers who were not getting the MD promote in the traditional groups and pivoted or junior bankers who recruit directly into the group itself. The talent is still the same between this group and the traditional groups, the reality is it is very difficult to get promoted so even though the seniors weren’t killing it in the traditional groups they still have a home can still excel because the way the region/mid-cap group operates is different.

This isn’t a place to play pretend banking and it is sustainable given where the IB market is headed. I would think of the regional/mid-cap group as more of an repetition focused group. Since the deal size range is smaller there are many more deals to work on and many of the sponsor M&A deals fall into this size range. The focus of the group is to work on M&A deals and execute. Our traditional groups also work on M&A deals and execute but we also have to deal with covering clients and doing client service work to maintain relationships. Traditional groups win business by doing a lot of client service work and being the choice advisor when the client needs something, regional/mid-cap doesn’t do much of that and wins deals by showing up to bake-offs and winning the deal there. It is sustainable to have a regional group because there is a lot of deal flow in the size range and banks want to keep generating fees. It is too much work for the traditional groups to also have to cover mid-cap since we are already busy covering large-cap so we rely on the regional group to keep the deal volume and fees going.

I would still pick a regional coverage group at a BB over a typical middle market like Lincoln. The brand name will speak for itself and you can move internally after a couple years if you dislike your group. Our regional group can still do large-cap deals on occasion if the regional MD sources it in so you still have chances to work on large deals, you wouldn’t get that chance in a middle market that can only do deals in their range. Our firm also only delineates your regional tagging internally so externally with clients you are considered a normal investment banker if that is a concern. I can’t speak for all banks on this.

Not all middle market groups at banks are created equal. GS and JPM have these groups as well, but are much more reputable. BofA’s EGRC group is newer, and is going through some growing pains.

My personal experience with them has not been great. I came across some decent bankers, but overall the talent pool seems weaker than the traditional coverage groups at BofA.

EGRC gets a lot of hate because they’re not bringing in business, and the other coverage groups at BofA are being paid like garbage in order to subsidize the fixed salaries of everyone they hired recently (~200 people and ~80 MDs). With those numbers, the group is absolutely not bringing in the amount of revenue it should be.

Now - will this be the same in 3-5 years? I’m not sure. Maybe the group will slowly start winning share and performance will improve. But for now, they are losing a ton of business to the Bairds/Blairs of the world or GS/JP. I want to be optimistic but it’s hard for me to reconcile why a client might go with BofA over these competitors. The middle market names have the creds / it’s their bread and butter, and the GS/JP guys have the brand recognition. Not sure what the elevator pitch is for BofA EGRC. BofA is probably THE most risk averse bank in terms of lending as well, which doesn’t bode well in an arena with ample sponsor activity.

Unfortunately it is true that the group picked off a ton of coverage underperformers in the 2022ish period, and the messaging around the group has been terrible. How can you tout a group as the new hot, up and coming thing and proceed to funnel in all the bums from coverage who otherwise would have been fired? What kind of message does that send about the quality of people? To me it sends a message that BofA cares more about putting butts in seats than retaining/recruiting their high quality people.

There are a lot of people in the larger markets (NY, SF) in EGRC who don’t really do anything. But I’ve heard people get WORKED in the smaller markets, which imo is where EGRC can actually have some value if they start winning deals.

Like someone above said, the group is massive and ymmv. But, I’d recommend a solid MM bank or GS/JP over BofA because you’ll get more near-term reps and be on a more established team.

A buddy in BofA M&A told me their hours are capped at 80 per week and make similar comp to the rest of the bank. Probably not the greatest experience in terms of quality but it seems like a decent place to be if you just want to “coast” and aren’t concerned with getting top MF/UMM exits (Aside from the SF group maybe).

-

I’m sure they got sharp ppl but the ppl I met at the group in Chicago are incredibly average

If I’m primarily interested in exiting to growth or mm pe, would this be a bad spot as an analyst? Would mm bank be better?

EGRC should be renamed BBC…

Bottom Bucket City

EGRC has grown exponentially in terms of their deals and talent and they're the #3 middle market investment banking group now. Friends in the group not only have good WLB for IB and understanding team culture, but also m&a exposure and solid dealflow and buyside exits. They may be a newer group but are one of the better ones