Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +219 | Downfall of Qatalyst | 42 | 9h |
| +167 | UBS IB 26Q2 a Disaster! Advisory Revenue Down 23%, Capital MarketsDown 5% | 22 | 3d |
| +111 | UBS Americas IB: The Kids’ Table of Wall Street | 15 | 13h |
| +81 | Lincoln International Return Offers | 42 | 1d |
| +52 | so confused about 28 SA timeline | 27 | 6d |
| +51 | London IB BB is a challenge | 31 | 1h |
| +37 | momentum of Rx groups | 11 | 1d |
| +36 | Fired during interview | 6 | 17h |
| +33 | [WSO MODS] Please Delete This BS Host Books Spam! | 2 | 5d |
| +27 | VP Lifestyle at Top BB Coverage Groups | 13 | 9h |
Career Resources
? can we get a confirmation from Analysts here?
the WSO thread a few weeks ago said nothing of the sort was happening and that only Anu was being moved up rather than the M&A team being folded
Can confirm, analysts at JPM M&A will be placed into coverage. JPM is converging to the GS model.
Yes, part of the organizational restructuring is folding M&A into coverage groups the way Barclays is.
Not sure why this got MS, that’s exactly what’s happening
Yup. No more M&A, just spoke to analyst friend who got moved to HC without notice/preference
God forbid
No more M&A group, but TBD how things work going forward. Has been very little communication to current JPM employees and have yet to see M&A folks get staffed on coverage client meetings / pitches and visa versa.
.
So it seems like M&A bankers are doing modeling on the industry they want to be involved in, while the coverage folks are doing pitching. That sounds like a great structure.
Confirmed, same model as Barclays (ie no seperate M&A group)
Barc now has a standalone and allegedly expanding M&A group
Brother, taking JPM over GS was a really dumb move, irrespective of what they did to the M&A group
Summer Associate, what can you expect lol
JPM shills getting butthurt here lmao
but but but wat about da shiny new office buiwding 🥺
Ok, but what about GS being a mega-sweatshop? I don't think people realize how bad GS hours are across the bank even compared to other competitive banks
This is just wrong. Not saying GS is not sweaty, but so are other top groups at competitive banks
I’m past my banking years at this point, but think it makes sense to merge M&A with coverage. I was MS and we obviously had our separate M&A group but realistically the MDs and EDs were largely specialists to a sector. Tbh unless it was a particularly large deal, my group did the modeling and excluded M&A juniors.
That said… having M&A was nice as a coverage analyst. Modeling was the one cool thing they would pick up; other than that… manually redacting hundreds of documents and running the diligence process… no thank you.
heard the same from my friend who is an analyst there
you should consider yourself lucky
M&A group is really a BS group. You spend so much time doing admin (timetables, VDR, buyer logs etc) and develop ZERO commercial acumen
The best banking model is the one where you do everything end to end like GS /Evercore (or like JP now). The M&A group for me is the back office equivalent in a front office role. You also have 0 origination responsibilities as a senior and just have to peg to sector bankers to share some fees given you’re just cost
I did a deal once co-advising with JP. We were doing model and marketing materials alongside the JP sector team, and their M&A team was basically just scheduling calls. A friend of mine was on the at deal on the JP M&A side and described himself as a “glorified PA”
And this unified model also works better for sector bankers which otherwise have no understating of process and more nitty gritty M&A mechanics
Which banks follow the GS/EVR model and which follow the old JPM model?
As rule of thumb most large banks have a separate M&A team and most MM / EBs have only sector teams doing everything (except jefferies which also has an M&A group)
There are bank by bank specific dynamics where some teams will do more or less of some workstreams but that’s hard to tell from the outside (or eg some M&A teams will have people ringfenced on some specific sectors / some sector teams will take ownership of the model every time and leave only the admin to M&A) it all depends on the bank
It’s an awful model from a junior perspective - sector juniors spend their days doing marketing materials and comps and never see a funds flow, M&A juniors spend their days doing some more technical stuff and a lot of admin without learning anything commercial. It works from a senior perspective because sector teams need to staff half the people so they can operate leaner (you can’t have one sector analyst doing process / marketing / model - but you can have one sector analyst doing the marketing materials and borrow one M&A analyst to do the other stuff). So the bank has a “flexible” pool of generalist resources that can be allocated more efficiently based on sector team demands (otherwise you need to increase sector team sizes to staff multiple sector analysts on the same deals - but then what do you do when deal flow in one sector goes down?)
Once you have enough deal “density” within sector teams (or not enough in case of smaller banks) it makes sense to do everything within sector teams. I am not sure why GS never split it, I think they just have very large classes of sector people and retained a more “traditional” banking style
so you'd prefer coverage?
if I was forced to pick yes between coverage and M&A yes, coverage is still better. Some of the other M&A technicalities you’re gonna learn on the buy side anyway
And at least you won’t get bored to death redacting VDRs before you leave
Very accurate - having co-advised and worked across from them a number of times this was my experience as well.
Buyer sends 500 diligence requests, JPM M&A analyst hits forward and tells management team to get going. Zero thought, coordination, attempt to take a first pass, etc.
Anyone know what this means for return offer rates for both summer assoc and analyst if all the coverage teams are getting more interns
More spots, obviously, Jamie has been doing some aggressive stuff to "potentially" beat GS.
When you bring M&A in house in sector teams you naturally need to expand the sector teams to sustain staffing for the same level of dealflow
I don’t expect it to decrease
.
As others have mentioned, I think the GS/Barclays model of having M&A integrated, and only specialization at the MD level is a far better model for junior / mid-level development
Regardless of where you end up, whether it is in IBD or buyside, having the expanded responsibilities and experience makes you much more well rounded. You get to better understand how companies make decisions, how financing and M&A intertwine (for example - dual tracks for private companies around M&A vs IPO), how to think about strategic alternatives more broadly, competitive positioning vs. peers, etc. All of these skills are relevant to your ability to effectively cover companies (IBD) or invest in your space (buyside)
Can't we just list them all out, correct any of the below that are wrong
GS - Coverage
MS - M&A
JPM - Coverage
Citi - M&A
BoA - M&A
Bar - Coverage
DB - Coverage (I think there's M&A specialists in each team)
UBS - M&A
Barclays as far as I know still has a standalone M&A product team
At least when I was at MS a few years ago, would say we were trending towards this model. Would bet you see it merge into coverage in the next 2-3 years
Imo this is better model. And this will be the ultimate group ranking.
Would put MidCap inline with industrials/tech/ business services given amount of sponsor sell sides that team has. Gives a better analyst experience
congrats on mid cap!
Midcap seems too high. Really should be a tier below Latam, CFA, defense advisory, etc.
Can you explain why? It’s the only group left with a generalist experience and seems like there is a lot of deal exposure. Also isn’t it a growing group?
Et possimus quo cupiditate iure asperiores consequatur voluptates. Aspernatur iste ducimus similique doloribus vero. Odio cupiditate quis similique ut provident consequatur quo. Omnis consequatur eligendi non optio voluptatum ut ratione dolorum.
Voluptas culpa sapiente aspernatur quia perspiciatis enim distinctio alias. Corporis ratione sit alias officiis tenetur. Eligendi eligendi nisi sapiente ipsa.
Soluta inventore voluptas at non et enim. Cum similique ex voluptatem. Iste eum hic qui ratione. Accusantium soluta nihil distinctio culpa. Alias a eum facilis cumque et. Unde quis numquam quos rem fuga.
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...
Amet ut minima qui omnis ea fuga. Distinctio aliquid et eos consequatur repudiandae rem accusantium. Quibusdam illo ad sit ipsa voluptate repellat. Optio molestiae enim id est. Voluptatem magnam quis libero cumque. Consequatur facilis praesentium fugiat voluptatem et sit. Voluptatem ipsam velit voluptatem iure.
Maxime exercitationem iure necessitatibus amet sit et. Harum sunt suscipit qui voluptatem. Sed consequatur aut eos. Quaerat ut recusandae velit. Nemo odio cum itaque tempora. Iste rerum nihil dolor aut est placeat et est.
Dicta eaque dolorem ducimus asperiores consequatur nesciunt. Velit quia molestias possimus expedita ipsum voluptatem. Quia non excepturi et est iusto sit a illum. Sed qui eveniet iusto.
Et quos ipsa quibusdam nobis. Vel non odio et possimus praesentium quasi modi qui. Quia provident consequatur beatae omnis ad inventore animi. Ducimus laboriosam occaecati accusantium architecto et est.
Nobis voluptatem quaerat unde natus fuga voluptas adipisci in. Et labore minima sint. Dolor ut placeat neque est. Qui sunt repellat omnis vitae eos sunt. Omnis omnis veniam sequi voluptatem praesentium sed dolorem tempore.
Animi consequatur consequatur non ea. Aliquid dolorem aspernatur error ratione soluta. Nemo est alias ducimus aut impedit aut ullam. Occaecati voluptate praesentium qui aperiam sunt. Ea aspernatur nihil ut quia dolores. Et rerum debitis ut sed. Voluptates voluptatem natus veniam alias sed adipisci. Neque ea dicta exercitationem fugiat iure voluptatibus.
Dolores numquam dicta sit sed iure reiciendis. Et sit fuga autem quidem magni. Dolorem dolorem aliquid sit repellendus ab voluptates odit. Recusandae non ut voluptas est amet fugiat qui. In aspernatur adipisci est doloremque voluptatem non.