Lehman vs Citigroup
Which bank offers higher chances of being employed after internships? Which bank is the better to work at?
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +324 | UBS Tech MD hires Son (from no-name college) as an Intern | 57 | 4h |
| +192 | Evercore Intern Seizure | 33 | 21m |
| +89 | [Official] 2026 IB Analyst Bonus Megathread (with 2025 Consolidated Pay and Perks/Benefits) | 12 | 1d |
| +54 | Is DCM actually underrated ? | 21 | 4h |
| +50 | JPM M&A is Gone??? Purely Coverage Banking??? | 20 | 1d |
| +46 | Are all Tech / TMT groups sweaty? | 33 | 15h |
| +41 | UBS Groups Ranked by Future Outlook | 20 | 5d |
| +38 | Am I behind? 31 Year Old Analyst | 9 | 1d |
| +36 | Losing my personality in Banking | 5 | 1d |
| +35 | Associate & Above IB exits | 14 | 1h |
Career Resources
anyone?
Both top-tier.
Citi's culture is very aggressive, ex-Salomon...
Lehman is probably more chilled.
Depends on which group obviously.
As far as your change of receiving a full-time offer is concerned, I would say about the same from what I have seen.
I like Citigroup better, they are more worldly in terms of offices they have around the world.
Both Lehman and Citigroup are top-tier investment banks. Really cannot go wrong with either. However, if you were ever thinking about doing banking outside U.S. in the long run, Citigroup might be a better choice because of its extremely strong global presence.
Thanks for the comments! How would you rank their M&A divisions (think London, NYC)?
But what about Lehman's One Firm Culture! :D
Is it just a word or are there some (in)tangible benefits involved?
No intangible benefits. It's just a marketing phrase.
I don't understand why Lehman uses it.
In NYC, Lehman's M&A group is probably better, but only JUST...
In London, both are more or less equal.
In Capital Markets, NY or London, Citigroup is above and beyond Lehman.
dude, lehman over Citi any day, lehman offers career potential in the firm, citi is misery, lehman one firm is legit actually, they are HUGE on culture, u don't know what your talking about if you say that the One Firm thing is BS marketing
Necromancy
Most of the groups at LEH are big on culture, the people I've worked with on deals have all been pretty cool...except our MDs.
Lehman is a solid firm; a firm experiencing very good momentum and brand prestige. Citi is good but it lacks the prestige that Lehman has.
In terms of global reach, Citi is better in this field, but I believe that Lehman will get there in the next 5 years as it continues to build its firm presence internationally. It's strange that Lehman has been around for a very long time, but there is always a 'young upstart' image that sticks to it.
Either way, you can't go wrong with these 2 choices. Although I feel that Leh is a better choice out of the two. Citi is just too "commercialised" in my opinion.
Citi vs Lehman IBD (Originally Posted: 02/11/2008)
Hi,trying to decide between Lehman and Citi in IBD. Any expereinces/tips/advice on either of these banks would be much appreciated. I know that Lehman is more specialised and has not been affected by the credit crisis and that Citi's future is unclear. Any views would be much appreciated. Thanks. NB. This position is for London
I would take Lehman hands down, because I've always liked their work culture. Citi may have more dealflow, but I doubt you'll be twiddling your thumbs at Lehman either.
my vote's for LEH
better exit ops..Lehman is the most overrated bank on the street.
Lehman is overrated but HR is more competent there
If you like both firms equally, and will placed in equally competitive groups, I would suggest Citi. Lehman has an okay reputation in the States, but the reputation quickly diminishes once you're outside of New York. Citi has a stronger international presence.
Citi is crushing LEH in terms of revenue and deal flow this year, there was an article about it on Dealbook a week or so ago.
More dealflow = more experience (esp. modeling) = better chance of landing a better PE gig = Citi.
Interesting logic. And what if one wants to make a career in IBD, not in PE? Not everyone wants to work in PE, even given 2 options to choose from :)
does anyone have a link to the article?
i thought that everyone would say lehman over citi because they took so many writedowns.. i guess not
I'd go w/ Citi given that you don't know more about which group you'll be getting into. No offense intended at all oasising, but again I'd really advise against choosing banks for IBD based on subprime writedowns. Citi, ML, MS, have all had very large writedowns, but have tremendous IBDs. People tend to overestimate the impact on these banks' IBD performance. Citi's had a great year in investment banking.
Just wanted to put that out there. That being said, you really can't go wrong with either. If you don't have any preference either way, I'd lean towards Citi.
Lehman's actually #1 in the league tables right now.
are you looking at ytd tables? cause those say a whole nother story. Lehman is great place but intenational presence and dealflow is hands down citi.
I'm curious which league tables you're looking at because Lehman isn't anywhere close to #1.
very funny. Do YTD league tables tell you anything? it's only February for god's sake. Globally, Lehman is not really in the top 10. In the USA, it's slightly better but not top tier either.
Here is an article on Lehman's league table leapfrog landing the lead (sorry, I like alliteration): http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/02/07/lehman-from-zero-to-hero-in-one-w…
Basically advising Yahoo, CME, and Chinalco over the past few weeks all adds up to a lot of potential M&A dollars. I wouldn't let this current streak sway you one way or another, as it is hard to say whether this is a true indicator of future success or just a lucky run.
my bad, i meant to say LTM not YTD.
Citi for IBD, LEH for trading. Citi IBD places better into PE.
Lehman v. Citi won't really matter that much in terms of exit opps for the US, but for London/anywhere else in the world I would say - assuming you feel equally about the people, the environment, etc. - go for Citi. Lehman in London isn't in the same ball park as Lehman in NYC.
itd be interesting if anyone in the industry could comment on this
Having interned in London last year, I can say that the Citi name, without a doubt, is much stronger over there than the Lehman name is. Lehman might probably the weakest out of all the US bulge brackets in London. If you like the people both equally, I'd go with Citi.
I understand how the writedowns have not directly affected the IBD business, however, I wouldn't agree that there have been no repercussions from such large writedowns. A large part of winning the advisory role in a large deal is to concurrently provide a financing role in the same deal (which is why JPM and Citi historically have been able to leverage their large balance sheets into large deals). With the writedowns limiting capital within many of these major banks, they may find themselves unable to finance deals, thus will lose their advisory role as well. An example would be ML's unwillingness to finance the Vale deal (although Merrill argued that it was because the financing was economically infeasible, Lehman still promised financing) and as a result getting dropped as advisers.
Granted, I interviewed with firms that have had tremendous writedowns (Citi, ML) and my interviewers have stressed that the IBD is unaffected... but, hey... they're trying to sell you on the job; what else are they going to say?
Everyone hates Citi but they're so huge you can't ignore them. go with Citi
amen dosk, amen.
Speaking of PE exit opps - Does Citi send more analysts to top funds than Leh? It seems like Carlyle NYC takes quite a few from Citi since the office was established by Frank Yeary, who now heads Citi M&A. Also, does anyone know which group from Citi traditionally send their analysts to PE funds? (M&A, Comms)
Take Citi over Lehman for IBD.
Citi analysts definitely fare better in terms of recruiting
heres the thing both are strong but i think leh is better than Citi lehman might not produce as much rev or deal flow as citi simply because they are a smaller bank with less employees if you take a look at what they make per banker they are a more reputable and efficient bank than citi is in general that being said citi does send people to pe funds and they are still good though i disagree that exit opps are so much better if you think about how many bankers citi has compared to leh then theres obviously going to be more citi bankers moving into pe than leh in terms of sheer numbers.. but i think if you weigh the two proportionately lehman is still a better bank
Citi's IBD class is equal to, if not smaller than, Lehman's. It doesn't make sense to say that they send more people to PE because their sheer size.
Monkey is correct. Citi does have a small class..roughly 100 in the NYC office. Do you guys know if Citi's MDs have good connections, which in turn will help analysts place into top funds?
Aw, man
Citi vs Lehman (Originally Posted: 08/17/2006)
Hi there,
If you had to choose between these two banks, which one would you pick?
If anyone is familiar with their positioning in Europe, I would greatly appreciate their input!
Both offers are for IBD (M&A).
For IBD, Lehman probably would come out as my choice.
For any capital market related position, absolutely Citigroup
capital markets? lehman is just as strong as Citi (especially fixed income) those 2 are both top shops.
m&a both are solid but lehman just keeps on hiring those GS and JPM MD's. lehman is on the rise and has much better culture than citi (citi's culture sucks).
how would you describe Citi's culture?
I've worked with the lehman guys on a number of occasions (M&A and DCM). I think they are idiots. Maybe I've interacted with a bad select few, but they aren't especially bright, don't seem real motivated. just kind of lethargic and dumb.
I echo the above views on LB, they just seem to be so apathetic to everything.
On the other hand, most of the Citi capital markets team tend to be old Salomon bankers, hence the culture is predominantly Salomon, hence not to everyone's liking - aggressive, loud, etcc....
Yeah, that's what I get to hear about LB guys - they're pretty laid back. But what about the European perspective?
somebody hit it on the spot - aggresive, loud, competitive... but the bigger firm just added one more thing - politics & beaucracy (dunno if i spelled this word right)
bump
Haha i wonder if this guy took Lehman...if he did though maybe he would have gotten placed in Barclays at least. Citi is still Citi
lehman, citi, ms ibd groups (Originally Posted: 09/08/2006)
lets start ranking the groups in terms of prestige and selectiveness
what i've heard
ms m&a industrial RE
leh retail power
citi m&a consumer
ms - m&a, fsg, real estate leh - power, media, retail Citi - m&a, consumer, fig UBS - LA, healtchare, m&a, sponsors cs - sponsors, LA, tech (SF) goldman - TMT,fig,consumer DB - LevFin JPM - m&a,fsg,industrials
what is fsg and fig and sponsors
FSG - Financial Sponsors Group Sponsors - Same thing as above, different names at different banks
FIG - Financial Institutionals Group - cover banks and stuff
these are basically groups that cover PE shops and handle the associated pitch work / execution on those deals.
Non officia quod dolores. Consequatur excepturi cupiditate quasi corrupti reiciendis enim velit. Rerum ut fugiat ipsum nostrum in. Rerum dicta velit sapiente aut.
Qui est quos delectus similique et. Iste quis in repellendus blanditiis debitis quisquam. Ratione molestiae quia rerum voluptas consequatur. Harum dolorem et ad quo laborum. Aut at unde vel porro magni ut.
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...
Voluptas tenetur velit itaque accusamus voluptas. Dolorum nam consequatur quo labore. Dolor dolorem porro eos omnis in architecto deleniti libero. In unde molestiae quae modi. Pariatur et et animi voluptas ullam pariatur. Non qui reprehenderit incidunt laborum doloribus blanditiis omnis. Sed fugiat molestiae cupiditate quo.
Culpa laborum laborum est et qui. Consequatur fugiat itaque aut a nemo exercitationem. Blanditiis placeat molestiae rem eos quo. Modi praesentium quae assumenda. Dolores quaerat sed illum quia ad itaque.
Non magni ratione suscipit qui at. Ipsam qui odit sunt eius excepturi dignissimos. Ad et nihil recusandae ipsum dolores.
Voluptatum quos aut sunt. Eligendi consequatur enim omnis reiciendis et.
Consequatur est atque dignissimos facere. In sint ut aut est.
Quaerat qui deserunt sit doloremque rem architecto. Molestias minus aut odit. Laborum molestiae fuga aut mollitia doloribus quo soluta. Voluptatibus repellat numquam ut corrupti. Sed qui aut ipsa eius molestiae eos optio qui. Velit repellendus dolorem consequatur voluptas. Eos placeat asperiores aperiam voluptas.