Official Investment Banking Rankings: Boutique and Bulge Bracket Prestige
This is for IBD in the US (NYC specifically) and as of November 2014.
Bulge Bracket & Large Banks:
Tier 1a: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley
Tier 1b: J.P. Morgan
Tier 2a: Citi, BAML, Barclays Capital, Credit Suisse
Tier 2b: Deutsche Bank, UBS
Tier 3: Wells Fargo, Nomura, RBC, HSBC, TD Securities, Mizuho
Boutiques:
Tier 1: Blackstone, Lazard Freres, Evercore, Moelis, Greenhill, Qatalyst, Centerview, Allen & Co, Perella Weinberg Partners.
Tier 2: Rothschild, Houlihan Lokey, Guggenheim, Macquarie Harris Williams, Jefferies
Tier 3: William Blair, Lincoln International, LionTree, Stifel, Oppenheimer, Peter J. Solomon, Robert Baird, Pipar Jeffray
Most Prestigious Investment Banks and Boutique Banks
This is a compilation of comments on this thread and on various forums. However, it’s always important that, for these rankings (as @MrF notes):
"Best" of course being relative and completely dependent on your culture preferences and the type of experience you're looking for.
And when evaluating offers, it’s always to note (@ArcherVice) that
Your focus should be on pay, work, location and how you fit with your group. If you aren't going to mesh with your group, it doesn't matter how "prestigious" the offer is, at least if you are weighing multiple offers.
These are primarily US rankings. In addition, these rankings change every year and are to a large degree subjective (they can be based on M&A volume in dollars vs number, or on headhunter reputation, etc). However, tiers can help differentiate the following:
- Deal flow: both in terms of number and type of deals that you will see. If there is a good deal in your industry group, it is more likely that you will be involved if you work for a BB.
- Future prospects: First, many employers -- especially those that don't know investment banking as much -- will value a bulge bracket experience, because they don't know what some of the boutique's are doing and how much you learn. Second, sometimes your contacts can be significant. Third, coming out of a BB you are likely to get exposure to better headhunter opportunities and referrals from your bankers to better private equity jobs because of their contacts.
Investment Banking Tiers
- Tier 1: Best Mega fund and exit opportunities, top in prestige
- Tier 2: Most Mega funds opportunities, some people take middle market opportunities,
- Tier 3: Many middle market opportunities ,and still decent mega funds interviews, but not as much prestige and opportunities as above
Top Bulge Bracket Rankings
Includes large banks
- Tier 1a: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley
- Tier 1b: JP Morgan
- Tier 2a: Citi, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse
- Tier 2b: Deutsche Bank, UBS, Barclays Capital
- Tier 3: Wells Fargo, Nomura, RBC, HSBC, TD Securities, Mizuho
Top Boutique Rankings
- Tier 1a: Lazard, Moelis, Evercore
- Tier 1b: PJT, Greenhill, Centerview Partners, Perella Weinberg Partners
- Tier 2: Rothschild, Houlihan Lokey, Guggenheim, Macquarie Harris Williams, Jefferies, Blackstone, Quatalyst Allen & Co
- Tier 3: William Blair, Lincoln International, LionTree, Stifel, Oppenheimer, Peter J. Solomon, Robert Baird, Pipar Jeffray
Senior Thoughts on Best Investment Banks
@mergersandacquisitions78 offers some great, qualitative insights on various investment banks based on his senior-level experience:
Note: from 2014, so things might have changed.
- Goldman Sachs - still the gold standard in the business. Pay is the best, reputation with clients is still the best, hiring good people is the easiest. The one caveat is that it makes no sense to go to Goldman Sachs as a senior lateral, unless a) you are coming as a PMD and b) you have a very powerful Rabbi. They stick to their own.
- Morgan Stanley - the difference between MS and GS has never been larger, and MS is more like an old ML. Effective but non-spectacular investment bank that pays their people in effective but non-spectacular ways. Business model driven by strong retail network.
- JP Morgan - organizationally effective but don't pay people all that well. Well managed but bureaucratic. Great for organizational men. More of a traditional investment bank in Europe than in the US, where it is essentially the old Chemical Bank.
- BAML - on the rise. Comp is higher than MS or JPM. Very powerful platform when it all works. Can poach easily from MS or JPM when needed.
- Citi - also on the rise. Stronger internationally than BAML, but a bit weaker in the US. Comp can be very good for strong performers.
- Credit Suisse - U.S. business has remained surprisingly resilient while Europe has withered. Comp is a bit of a wild card but they manage to pay top people very well, and can attract / hire.
- UBS - Have really made a strong comeback. The team in Europe and Asia is excellent, and they have hired good people in the U.S. Management understands they need to pay bankers well. Am a big fan of their strategy.
- Barclays - Not a happy relationship between the U.S. and U.K. Unstable platform with issues paying people.
- Deutsche Bank - Investment banking business trails fixed income importance. Some pockets of strength but overall, a mid-tier place where not many people are happy.
- Lazard - still a very powerful name in the business with top bankers. However, there are two classes amongst the MDs. The top guys get paid well indeed. Not, so the second grade of MDs.
- Jefferies - Attracting lots of lateral interest from the other banks, but not everyone fits on. A throwback to old Wall Street and culturally very similar to the old DLJ. Well positioned to grow. Pays top of the street for those who can leverage the platform.
- Guggenheim - See Jefferies. Smaller, but very similar business model. Great team and growth trajectory.
- Evercore - Good M&A business. Deeper bench than other boutiques. Not sure what they are doing on institutional securities.
- Moelis - This has been a great year, and their business model is very highly leveraged to a market upside. Pay their senior people very well for performance.
- Greenhill - Lost market share and revenues relative to peers. Not sure its temporary. Losing out on recruiting relative to E / M.
Centerview - Most profitably of the boutiques, but I understand there are definitely differences in how partners are paid.
NEW 2017 UPDATED RANKING FROM A RECRUITER PERSPECTIVE (former) *this is strictly about how many INITIAL Emails and Quality of Buyside shop opportunities you get. * does not reflect true stats of who goes there but initial conversations
BEST- Mega fund opportunities, always will be small % mm Tier 1: Lazard, Moelis, Evercore, "><abbr title="Goldman Sachs
">GS,msAlmost Best- Most Mega funds and start see some people take mm fund opps Tier2: pjt, cs sponsors, Barclays natural resources nyc, Greenhill, Centerview Partners, JPM <abbr title="mergers and acquisitions
">m&aClearly second Best- ton of mm funds,and still decent mega funds interviews you can get, obv not as much as above. not as risky as below tier3: <abbr title="JP Morgan
">JPM (we also didn't look at ton bc of the size of the class)Third Best- you still got a shot at mega funds but will be 1-2 per group or even none, can be risky here tier4: cs, Citi, <abbr title="Bank of America Merrill Lynch
">bamlNot as good as Third Best - You get the realization most people don't go to mega funds from this level, and start convincing yourself that mm funds will provide more learning opps Tier 5: Barcap, UBS, DB, Jefferies, HL bad groups from above like fig, real estate, some niche group
Not the Last - when you get into the mega funds, people will say i always root for the underdog Tier6: Wells, RBC, BMO, RBS (yes RBC they are same)
LAST: Bairds of the world, small boutiques you never heard of, accounting firm bs, Capital One ib none sense
It's all about the prefteege guys
EDIT: Add Perella Weinberg to the list
I like how Simmons & Co doesn't even make your list.
Your focus should be on pay, work, location and how you fit with your group. If you aren't going to mesh with your group, it doesn't matter how "prestigious" the offer is, at least if you are weighing multiple offers. If you find distressed debt interesting, are you really going to tell me working for Houlihan in restructuring is a "tier 2" option?
Stop trying to make this site college confidential 2.0 or US News for ibanks (who ranks based on rejection...), take your circle jerk to the on-campus clubs no doubt devoted to this shit.
Sure, brand names matter for your resume, but so do the bullet points on that resume, the skills/exposure you get while working there and the contacts/network you build. If you're ever the guy that gets 2-3 offers from ibanks, your perception of prestige will be the last thing on your mind.
Food for thought kemosabe.
Agreed. Go to the best place you get an offer. "Best" of course being relative and completely dependent on your culture preferences and the type of experience you're looking for.
I feel like all these ranking lists do is make people feel like shit because they're not at a "tier 1", whatever that even means. It's completely pointless to rank the best of the best. Do you know how many people would've killed for a chance to work in ib at all anywhere? This kind of reminds me of when I see people on this site say they're at a "lower tier ivy"... Why do we feel such a need to break everything into classes so that one group is superior to another when all they are is different and all great in their own way?
Yea I get your point to be humble and all but let's face it - those who are on WSO are usually very ambitious college grads who would like a sense of knowing what's "top tier" and not. I mean what you're saying is like "you should be thankful that you are able to attend college when thousands of kids in Africa and poorer nations will never get more than a middle school education!", and I totally get that but like it's just to the general student population's interests to know what colleges "are top tier" and not, just like how those in WSO would like to know the tiers of each firms, based on how they're regarded.
I thought I would add a bit of senior perspective to this thread. I normally think prestige rankings are a bit silly, and they have little correlation to compensation, experience and exit opportunities. I do realize that the senior MD view is different from the analyst view, but here are my two cents.
Some thoughts on the various firms.
Goldman Sachs - still the gold standard in the business. Pay is the best, reputation with clients is still the best, hiring good people is the easiest. The one caveat is that it makes no sense to go to Goldman Sachs as a senior lateral, unless a) you are coming as a PMD and b) you have a very powerful Rabbi. They stick to their own.
Morgan Stanley - the difference between MS and GS has never been larger, and MS is more like an old ML. Effective but non-spectacular investment bank that pays their people in effective but non-spectacular ways. Business model driven by strong retail network.
JP Morgan - organizationally effective but don't pay people all that well. Well managed but bureaucratic. Great for organizational men. More of a traditional investment bank in Europe than in the US, where it is essentially the old Chemical Bank.
BAML - on the rise. Comp is higher than MS or JPM. Very powerful platform when it all works. Can poach easily from MS or JPM when needed.
Citi - also on the rise. Stronger internationally than BAML, but a bit weaker in the US. Comp can be very good for strong performers.
CS - U.S. business has remained surprisingly resilient while Europe has withered. Comp is a bit of a wild card but they manage to pay top people very well, and can attract / hire.
UBS - Have really made a strong comeback. The team in Europe and Asia is excellent, and they have hired good people in the U.S. Management understands they need to pay bankers well. Am a big fan of their strategy.
Barclays - Not a happy relationship between the U.S. and U.K. Unstable platform with issues paying people.
Deutsche Bank - Investment banking business trails fixed income importance. Some pockets of strength but overall, a mid-tier place where not many people are happy.
Lazard - still a very powerful name in the business with top bankers. However, there are two classes amongst the MDs. The top guys get paid well indeed. Not, so the second grade of MDs.
Jefferies - Attracting lots of lateral interest from the other banks, but not everyone fits on. A throwback to old Wall Street and culturally very similar to the old DLJ. Well positioned to grow. Pays top of the street for those who can leverage the platform.
Guggenheim - See Jefferies. Smaller, but very similar business model. Great team and growth trajectory.
Evercore - Good M&A business. Deeper bench than other boutiques. Not sure what they are doing on institutional securities.
Moelis - This has been a great year, and their business model is very highly leveraged to a market upside. Pay their senior people very well for performance.
Greenhill - Lost market share and revenues relative to peers. Not sure its temporary. Losing out on recruiting relative to E / M.
Centerview - Most profitably of the boutiques, but I understand there are definitely differences in how partners are paid.