Lazard v. Morgan Stanley Post-MBA
Hey guys - will keep this brief. Currently a first year MBA student and was fortunate to receive offers from Morgan Stanley (for the generalist associate pool) and Lazard (choose your own adventure, probably would choose PEI and dabble in industrials) in NY for the summer, and looking for a little input. Most of what I found comparing these two is ca. 2008-2010 so would love an updated look.
Lay of the land as I see it:
Lazard: gut feel tells me this is a slightly better cultural fit, top power and utilities group on the street, marginally higher pay.
Morgan Stanley: marginally better-known brand outside of fínánce, pool lets me try multiple industries before specializing, slightly better lifestyle as a first year associate.
Any advice/opinions/insight?
I would say almost the opposite. I work at a pretty acquisitive F500, and perhaps we are different, but our general view is that when it comes to financing, we will hire a BB, but when it comes to almost any form of sell-side or buy-side advisory, we will only hire an EB because their advice is more independent. In other words, when dealing with an EB, we know the advice we receive will be purely related to the M&A transaction at hand, whereas the BB will frequently try to tie in some financing or other advice that leads to their next fee. Other firms might have their corp dev teams engage in more capital market transactions that our firm does, but even then, the M&A deals should heavily outnumber the capital market transactions, making the skillset gained from a pure advisory role much more valuable.
Again, that might just be my firm. I understand all circumstances are different.
I went through the pool program at MS and then joined their M&A group. I think the larger, more relevant question is whether you want to be an M&A banker. If you go to Lazard, you will develop a fine career in M&A. If you go to MS, unless you place into the M&A group, you will develop a fine career as a coverage banker. It depends on your personality and interests, and most importantly, which you think you would be better at down the road (i.e., 10+ years from now when you are are a senior banker and this is how you put food on the table). During my time at MS, I found that M&A attracts a certain personality and coverage attracts a different personality. My best advice to you is to know which type of personality you are and then make a decision based on that.
Would be curious to hear about the different personalities as well...
From what I have seen....at a senior level, your success very much depends on the relationships you've built. These relationships are facilitated by being able to sell multiple products as more assignments means more touch points. Coverage bankers are the ones selling these products to decision makers. They're the ones hauling ass all over the place meeting with this CEO or that Chairman. M&A bankers, at least from my understanding, are brought in when the business is almost won to help close and then to execute the deal. Now, over a long period of time, if they work with the same client on multiple M&A deals...they're able to start building relationships of their own. However, compared to the coverage guy, they will have had fewer "touches."
In my mind, at a senior level, when your success is measured by how much revenue you bring in i.e. the quantity and strength of the relationships you've built up over time, the coverage banker has the advantage.
I suppose one can argue that M&A is by far the most complicated banking product and working on dozens of M&A deals develops a particular skill set that coverage bankers won't have because they were too busy out selling. However, those "skills" can be pretty easily "forged" as it were (probably why every asshole who ever worked in coverage at a BB formed his own "sector-focused boutique" offering M&A advice, a product with low capital cost and high margins).
Lazard all the way. Started my career in the BB and would change that if I could. I am in a great place now, but my peers who started at EBs are in a better spot. Lazard (EBs in general) gives more credibility to any candidate who wants to stay in finance. A Lazard associate has way more responsibility and learns a lot more in a shorter period of time. I would argue a Lazard associate with 2 years is much more developed than a similar associate at MS or other BBs. MS will have better recognition outside of finance, but if your goal isn't to work in finance (buy-side, corp dev, entrepreneurship, sell-side) long term then why go into banking to begin with. What you learn and how you can apply what you learn is way more important than the perceived brand recognition from friends outside of finance.