MM IBD vs. BB Lev Fin
Hello all, which opportunity would be best for exit opps to PE/HF? Top MM IBD (i.e. HW, WB, ,Jeffries, RBC) in an industry group with lots of PE exposure (consumers, industrials) vs. a non-modelling BB Lev Fin group (i.e. GS, MS)
I have heard that Lev Fin at these banks are more like capital markets groups with less analytical work, however, does the brand name compensate for the lack of experience in modelling/analysis?
Thanks in advance.
I'd take MM IBD, but I'll be entering my first year this summer (read: I know nothing.)
Look at the profiles of the associates at the PE firms you're interested in. Do they come from MMs or BBs and which groups? That will be the most definitive way of telling which positions are valued more by the PE firms.
BB Lev Fin for this. GS Lev Fin places worse than a group like BAML or JPM Lev Fin, but definitely better than MM IBD.
Woah- why the spread of misinformation?
If you want to go to PE most definitely take MM IB over MS/GS LevFin- WB, HW, and Jefferies all place pretty well into MM PE (with Jefferies occassionally placing into Megafunds, though this is rare). MS LevFin is part of the GCM platform- sits with ECM/DCM and, while a great place to be, the exits are pretty limited as far as buyside goes. I imagine GS is very much the same- stil a reputable name, and PE is possible, but nowhere near placement of a GS industry group.
Not sure about that... I know GS Lev Fin sits within AFG, but I have spoken to a number of those guys, ranging from analysts to VP's and it seems like they place pretty solidly into MM PE
Definitely take GS Lev Fin. Will have better exits than top MM IBD
If you do a lot of personal investing, you probably have a good path going from MM IBD -> BB levfin -> get headhunted for the Brand -> prove that you know what investing/modelling shiet is all about to HH so they recommend to wider range of clients/exit opps -> PE. If you don't do a lot of your own PA trading etc, probably more difficult to transition out.
i would definitely take GS LevFin over any of the MM IBD options you listed. MS LevFin is significantly less legit but i would probably still take it given the options.
it took a while for me to fully appreciate this fact but it's amazing how much brand matters and how dramatically your career trajectory can be affected by it. even if it was MS Levfin i would take it and try to transfer or lateral into IBD.
Great thanks for the responses guys. Very helpful. Seems to be leaning towards BB Lev Fin. Any more thoughts?
I'll throw it out there 1 last time, but I'm pretty close with MS LevFin (and assuming GS is similar though slightly better exits) and I can tell you that MS LevFin does not place well into PE-- compared to IBD at MS a ton more stay on for 3rd years/promote to associate and then go to B-School while others go work in corporate. PE happens but is a small minority. If the goal is PE and you have a top MM IBD gig in line- that is the route to go. Yes, of course you can try to do a 3rd year in coverage banking (from GS or MS), but if the goal is 2 and out to PE, take the MM IB role- the places you named- particularly HW, WB, and Jefferies, all place into very solid MM PE shops, and I would be willing to bet have near 100% placement (save maybe in worse Jefferies groups). HH's know that PE is the route people at these banks are looking to go, and they recruit them accordingly. This is not the case for LevFin at MS (and maybe GS), and you will have to be a lot more proactive about it. My only experience with GS's LevFin group is I know 2 former analysts in the group, both of whom went to work for West Coast start-ups- didn't get the sense from them that PE HH's were banging on their doors, but who knows.
GS lev fin exits are definitely better than Jefferies or other MM IBD firms. Not sure about MS
agree. Normally Blackjack is completely on point, but claiming that those MM's have near 100% placements was a little insane. MS might be light on exit ops, so I'm marginally less confident there, but I'll reiterate GS Lev Fin over MM IBD
From what I heard HW analyst class is 100% placed for analysts looking to go PE
No group has 100% placement into PE.
May have been a bit ambitious of a claim but to clarify what '100% placement' meant (or how I meant it in this context). Did not mean 100% of analysts are going to PE- meant if you are an analyst at one of those banks in a coverage/M&A group you are undoubtedly being contacted by PE HH's as they know that this is the most common/desired route to take (for someone in this position). Essentially- if you want to get into PE you can, and the name of your firm isn't holding you back. Whether this is top-notch PE or not is another story, but the interviews will be there- keep in mind WB/HW (in particular) are much smaller banks, so small sample size.
Further, I would be willing to bet that if you looked at % of Jefferies, WB, or HW analysts going to PE after 2 years it would be a significantly higher figure than that same % for MS or GS LevFin Groups. The same track/mindset of 2 years >> PE just doesn't exist in these groups, which is why you see a ton more exits to other awesome (but not PE) places.
I'm purely making a case for PE placement- I personally would take GS or MS LevFin over any of the MM banks if I were in that position, as I think the exits on the whole are better, and maybe you could even go to better PE shops. But the track from those MM banks to PE is one that is taken so frequently and naturally that IMO it would be much easier then from the LevFin groups, where this is just not the common practice. To reiterate my earlier comment, I would state this as fact for MS, GS I have less of an idea and may be completely off on.
Will be interested to get @APEA take on this, as he has pretty in depth knowledge MS/GS placement from various groups (less sure what he knows about GCM/product side)
Fair, and clarification appreciated. In the end OP, its tough to say definitively, as #'s regarding what % are looking for PE and how many junior bankers are working at these shops / groups are nearly impossible to obtain accurately.
Honestly, I think either choice is a solid stepping stone, and if PE is really your goal and you actively work towards it, neither choice is really going to stop you.
Have a buddy going JPM Lev Fin -> KKR, semi-target under grad (top 25 but towards the back end). Work your ass off and either route will place.
To clarify, HW definitely placed 100% of its analysts (of those looking to move into PE) prior to the recession. This statistic dropped in 2009 when the recession hit. I'm not 100% sure of where it stands now, but I know that the placement remains absolutely top notch. Unless you are an abysmal analyst or have extremely specific requirements, you'll get a PE job coming out of HW.
BB LevFin vs Non-BB IB (Originally Posted: 08/30/2016)
Would like to get any opinions on my options for full time. I was fortunate enough to get to decide between a role at a non-GS/MS/JPM BB in a non-modeling / non-technical leveraged finance group as well as a more traditional IB position at another non-BB (Guggenheim/RBC/Nomura/Houlihan Lokey-level)?
I am interested in going to PE down the line, and as an international student, would like to get some input on whether going to the BB LevFin group and waiting a year or two to switch to a traditional coverage group would be better than sticking it out at the non-BB if I want the best shot at exit opps?
I realize external FT spots have been really hard to come by recently and thought maybe internal mobility would be a better route to get to a top BB group.
Appreciate any thoughts!
Deleted
bit confused as to what a 'non-modeling / non-technical leveraged finance group' is as by it's very nature traditional leveraged finance should be financial analysis and modeling-heavy. Are you talking about essentially a sort of 'sponsor coverage' team?
In any case, I think starting out that BB is the way to go....but depends on your answer re the BB group and how it works internally.
From my understanding, at BBs like Citi, MS, GS, Barclays etc., the LevFin groups do not do any of the financial modeling, as that is left for the coverage teams to do.
Sit non consequatur quis. Quas itaque voluptatibus repellendus occaecati. Suscipit ab ad provident ea.
Tempore et modi ab veritatis sunt. Rem sed unde deserunt laborum quas ratione. Velit non nihil expedita atque at. Qui dolor ducimus et sequi nihil quibusdam repellat.
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...
Placeat animi quia ex nostrum sed. Sit nulla dolorum impedit dolorem velit. Qui recusandae optio rerum provident. Quidem omnis consequuntur qui. Repellendus autem accusantium numquam excepturi praesentium quae. Fugit quia porro quia et perferendis similique quo. Blanditiis facilis possimus quaerat qui.
Rerum et nihil neque molestiae enim est nemo autem. Earum doloribus sit deleniti quo. Ad sed dolore voluptatem non cum sequi. Esse iste odio nobis architecto beatae exercitationem.
Illo non beatae ut qui exercitationem ipsum laborum. Deserunt voluptatem provident maxime harum ipsum earum temporibus. Et eveniet voluptas officiis optio. Et ex tempora enim id itaque ipsa ullam. Eos cumque quis itaque culpa.
Dolor rerum quas et dolores modi odio autem enim. Unde qui voluptates et dolore. Et aut consequatur ut eum et iure et voluptate. Dicta ea voluptas qui sed. Sint fuga blanditiis eveniet consectetur exercitationem.