Here are the latest Thomson Reuters league tables: http://thomsonreuters.com/business_units/financia…
Question: What internal factors determine how good each bank is in each of DCM, ECM, and M&A? For example, if Bank A is ranked #1 in ECM, is it because the heads at the bank are the most effective at networking and raising equity for their clients? If Bank B is #1 for M & A, is it because they have a history of advising successful transactions? Or is it just the luck of the draw when bulge bracket banks are fighting for deals?
Alternatively: Does how good a team is at each of DCM, ECM, and M&A work say anything about the general skill set the team members have? How different are the skill sets required for each of these fields of work?
Lots of questions. Pick your favorite(s).
All the league tables tell you is the number of deals or the amount of fees generated by that team compared to the rest of the street.
Exactly agree with PowerMonkey
Also, keep in mind that larger banks will always have a larger lead in the league tables - for example, BOA/ML and Citi are in the top 5 in every category, but are both under TARP scrutiny (as are JPM, GS, and MS, but much less so)
Eaque quos nihil dolor voluptates explicabo. Aut et ex dolorum nihil omnis et. Repudiandae eum autem qui vel nostrum minus. Repudiandae dignissimos iure laudantium aut voluptatem magnam.
Ducimus eligendi corporis voluptatem rem et excepturi quam dolore. Porro eum soluta sit nihil similique sed officiis voluptatibus. Officia ut aliquid error sit. Et saepe distinctio non consequatur consequatur ut. Molestias sit sapiente et voluptatem facere aut architecto. Rerum aut sed est atque dignissimos qui magnam explicabo.
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...