Prefer Elite Boutiques or Bulge Brackets?
I'm a senior at a target, coming out of the internship well with a solid offer in hand. Friends and I were discussing about the attractiveness of different EBs and BBs, especially during campus recruitment events and are genuinely curious as to which has the greater pull in terms of career interests from students around the US and UK. Usual EBs suspects like PJT, Evercore, Lazard, Rothschild, Greenhill, Centerview, Perella, Moelis.
Welcome any input from the community. We want to organise some events for risings juniors and seniors in college but don't have the capacity nor the time to establish all the connections needed to secure all attendees from every firms. Need to prioritise!
Go to a semi-target where most BB don't recruit at our school however I believe many people prefer the EB > BB.
I believe most people in my school would pick GS/MS (or certain specific BB groups) over the EBs however most people would pick the EBs over the rest of the BB.
I personally will be taking an EB offer over a BB offer (think MS/JPM/CS).
Musta been tough turning down that MS offer...oh wait I mean CS
hahaha so obvious when you group shit like that; like oh yeah I go to a target think (Harvard/Wharton/Cornel)
Relax, I was still excited when I got the CS offer and I was seriously considering them over an EB just because I really liked the people in the group.
Let me know what offers you get though
A boutique bank absolutely has to be right people and the right fit. Unlike a BB, where you can head there and get a lot out of it even if you don't love it because you get good deal flow, great training, and good exit opportunities, boutiques are very much hit or miss. If you get a top boutique and you like the people and the group you're in, you can absolutely make a killing, get amazing exits, and love your experience. But if you take a boutique and it isn't the right fit, it can be really shitty and you might have to deal with a bunch of shitty work, bad deal flow, and miserable people. Boutiques are risky high beta assets - the upside can be way better than a BB, but the downside can also be miserable. Just my 2 cents.
An EB guy will beat the average BB guy 9 times out of ten. Way more learning and is as close to a meritocracy you'll find in IB. They aren't as lenient as BBs when it comes to technical competency so you know everyone there had to know their shit.
(delete)
Generally at my target GS/JP/MS is chosen first unless it is PJT RX, then toss up between EBs and BAML/CS/M&A at a BB, then rest of BBs because everyone here values the great branding of the top BBs over the slightly higher pay as later on in life it should be pocket change. For example, if you were choosing someone to be a CFO I think more than likely someone from the top BBs or even the other BBs would be looked at more than people from EBs because no one would've really ever heard of your firm unless they were deep in finance too. Even my friends at MBB don't even know any EBs other than maybe Laz/Ever and thats only because classmates work there. I also believe it is easier to move from a top BB to an EB than vice versa.
You don't know what you're talking about if you think any BB below JPM garners more respect than Evercore/Moelis/Lazard/Pwp etc
First of all chill dude, I said what most people at my target do, so that doesn't mean what I personally think. Second of all, I clearly said a toss up as in worth considering. For example, I do think Baml M&A, LevFin, Fin Sponsors as well as CS M&A, LA, Fin Sponsors are definitely worth considering in comparison to Laz/Ever/Moelis if not definitely taking over EBs like Greenhill given how small their deals have been the past couple years. All in all, you should work on your critical reading skills as understanding English and how sentences are articulated fully is vital for banking and life in general.
...
Agreed, except swap CVP and HL Rx. Also, whoever said EBs are more meritocratic- blatantly untrue at least for analyst recruiting. Usually about half of the 5-7 H/W interns at every EB have a strong personal connection to an MD/partner
xxx
im at a so called elite boutique and if i were to do it again I would go BB. You learn more at a BB.
probably Guggenheim lol
Knowing what I know today, my advice to my 21-year old self and to anyone on here who cares is this: if you get a job at GS or MS, take it. You will do just fine. However, if you are not one of the lucky few (most of us), the next best thing for you to do is to go to the firm or group where you can work in their M&A group or in a coverage group that executes its own M&A, whether that is at an EB or BB. This is a personal decision. Go to the place where you feel you can get the best experience and where you can stand out. The incremental prestige of one firm or group or office over another is highly irrelevant, even though it may not seem like it. Nobody aside from the people engaging in that debate cares or even thinks about it -- nor is there a right answer. I think it would be a mistake to wholesale choose EB simply because EBs have a higher perceived sense of prestige over random BB. I should add that the exception would be Moelis LA and PJT restructuring if you want to go down that path. Hope that helps.
PJT RX has incredible exit opps. The post-BX classes have had continued solid exits, though a couple of their analysts did struggle this past year. PJT has commonly had analysts go to Baupost, Elliot, and various other top HFs. The points made in the above post seem solid and knowledgeable, but I think it's way less clear cut between HL RX/EVR RX and any of the the BB than the post makes it seem. As mentioned by another poster, the culture at Wharton certainly would be to take an EB over a BB, including GS/MS, but maybe that is because Wharton kids know they want to do finance for a longer period of time than most undergraduates.
This makes it sound like you are either 1) lying about working in the industry or 2) simply are ignorant of how the industry works now. Because for the most part, you aren't working on larger and more complex transactions at BBs. And you definitely aren't simply doing MM M&A at EBs. Look at the transaction list of LAZ/EVR/CVR/PwP/PJT. Those names are right along side BBs at all the largest and most complex transactions. And you can bet they actually did a lot of work on them, because unlike JPM/BAML/etc they can't get their name randomly thrown on a deal because they promised financing. These banks aren't getting hired for anything but their expertise.
You are right. EBs work on a variety of deals and when I was at MS M&A, I worked on a handful of small deals as well, so I stand corrected.
To be clear, I am not crapping on EBs. I have a lot of respect for them. I have worked with and sat on the other side of the table against Lazard. I have two close friends who are MDs at Evercore. They would not have spent as much time at the firm if they did not think it was a good place. I almost lateraled to Moelis when I was a VP before moving to the buyside. I have been on deals with PJT, the person, and have worked with two current PJT MDs from their time at MS on various transactions.
My main point in my previous post is that, unless you are at GS/MS, people shouldn't make decisions based on prestige rankings. They should make decisions on where they can get the best experience from a deal/skillset perspective. I have learned from this thread that there is no right answer, and people feel quite strongly about it. If you think the best platform to do that is EB, then go to EB. If you think that is BB, go to BB.
Being (much) older, there is one thing I am certain of. In the end, no matter where you go, you will do fine. Nobody is "being left behind" if you don't get into GS/MS. My non GS/MS analyst classmates have all gone on to do great things, including starting their own funds, rising up the ladder in corporate, founding and selling their own companies, etc.