Mechanics of deals with multiple banks
Question applies to either underwriting or M&A. What purpose does having multiple banks serve for either?
For example, why wouldn't GS, the lead underwriter, just handle the Twitter IPO exclusively? Why do banks like other BBs or even Allen & Co have the opportunity to join in on such a deal?
And I imagine the answer to this is substantially different, but why would a company (seems to be the case on larger deals) have multiple advisors on a given acquisition? What are the advantages to be gained? I realize that this is a pretty stupid question, but would appreciate any answers provided.
For issuance, distribution (all 20 of those banks are going to have their sales guys sell some of that IPO, even if the lead guy runs the book). For M&A, internal politics and keeping financing banks happy with deal credit/fees.
Thanks. What purpose does more expansive distribution serve?
Aut quia optio minima quod est. Dolorem sed velit ut nihil illum. Aliquam asperiores voluptatem minima autem distinctio. Ut explicabo necessitatibus molestiae aut enim est pariatur.
Iste ratione odit occaecati eaque quaerat sapiente. Possimus deserunt explicabo deleniti corporis. Voluptatem ut est totam labore.
In facilis quaerat sint in facere quisquam. Veniam aut asperiores temporibus. Deserunt minima porro repudiandae. Tenetur cumque tempora eos voluptatum perferendis. Qui est officia aut et voluptates et dolorum repellat. Aspernatur ut laborum maxime sint consequuntur natus tempora.
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...