Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +189 | Americas M&A League Table Q2 Updated | 75 | 15h |
| +142 | New Article: Dramatic Slide as UBS #22 (US) & New Leadership Desperately Needed | 36 | 8h |
| +118 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 31 | 10h |
| +87 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 41 | 4m |
| +75 | A COMPLETE GUIDE TO SUMMER INTERNSHIP RECRUITING | 12 | 2d |
| +57 | Woman who emptied Knicks trashcan on street then stole it was DEI exec, worked at JPMorgan Chase | 12 | 13h |
| +51 | Boutique firm wants access to my LinkedIn? | 40 | 1d |
| +40 | Investment Banking is Hard | 17 | 1d |
| +31 | PWP vs BofA | 24 | 6h |
| +30 | AI + Financial Modelling | 8 | 1m |
Career Resources
Depends on the approach and dynamics. GS and others have publicly stated that they are interested in capturing some of the MM share and are aggressively targeting sponsor business.
If a particularly strong BB (e.g. GS, MS, JPM) starts to move downmarket, the brand and M&A strength may allow it to capture some nice $500-$1B transactions. However, often deal teams staffed on smaller deals end up running poor processes and clients seem aware of this (heard this second hand FWIW), so if that doesn't change, PEGs are going to prefer the Jefferies or Blair attention and deeper deal team than a lean BB one that isn't able (or willing) to give it the proper attention.
BofA, WF (not a BB, but up-market from a CB/LevFin standpoint) have tried to serve MM clients for years with poor success. There are C team MDs that have few tombstones and a mediocre track record leading the regional coverage for MM IB opportunities. So, the concept isn't necessarily new and also hasn't borne fruit.
That's why I don't think MMs are that concerned. A good MM coverage team > generalist/product (M&A)/corporate banker since MMs do mostly industry M&A.
Entirely depends on the group. There are industry groups with 5+ MDs that have most subsectors within an industry covered. There will be some stronger ones and weaker ones, but even with weaker ones, I'd expect them to outperform the BB's regional coverage team on most pitches. The MDs I've seen leading those efforts wind up there for a reason (its still a nice gig though).
No, but there is another MM that will. For instance, if there's a food deal that for whatever reason HL doesn't want or isn't as strong in, LMM, Blair, or HW will likely have good creds. My point is, almost every subsector of the MM is covered well by at least one MM firm, not necessarily the same shop.
In my example above, why couldn't Lincoln beat out the BoA coverage team with generalists, product bankers and corporate bankers? None of them can speak to relatable processes and buyer behavior as well as Lincoln does because BoA's overall experience is with far larger deals/processes/buyers.
People forget how long it took for Goldsmith to get integrated. There were lots of losses because inevitably, as what happens in many of these types of acquisitions, deal fee expectations increased. Goldsmith bankers that were used to $750K fees could no longer get those mandates approved once fee minimums rose to $1mm and then $1.5mm. Another huge issue is relationships and how those are handled. LMM had some strong MW corporate relationships that LAZ wanted. You can imagine the friction that causes.
GHF saw the same thing when BMO gobbled them up, left with a shell of the former group. If GS were to acquire WB, it would need to make sure that it didn't try and push the bankers up market. Although there is an explicit need to service the MM, Blair needs to be able to do $150mm transactions, not just work on $250mm-$750mm or wherever GS decides it will cut itself off at.
Anyway, those were some rambling thoughts about complex subjects.
It's a fair question and I don't have an answer, but let me play devil's advocate. In this hypothetical, GS buys WB for some large sum. If 50% of its MDs are going to quit or be pushed out (maybe not day 1, but within 2-3 years), you've arguably overpaid.
Secondly, those that do remain probably cost more than those that departed because they have greater leverage and options.
Third, how much cannibalization will occur in terms of relationships and deals in the gray area $400mm - $1.5B EV range?
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense long-term, just that there are some complicated elements to a transaction when you are buying talent and that talent has certain limitations.
Poaching top industry bankers is an option, though likely expensive itself (will have to buy out stock of all top MDs) and probably challenging in general (leaving safety net and strong franchise for an unknown where the parent is the elite name in banking). I don't know anything about Waldron, but Cohn was the type of personality that may have been able to do that.
Either way it is done, I'm curious about the branding. Does it remain GS, a premier brand that everyone knows, but not one that is known as much for doing MM M&A? If they were to acquire a firm like Blair, PJC, HL, etc. those groups have strong enough MM brands that it may be worth keeping it.