Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience

Disclaimer: not meant to be a rage-bait or troll post. Genuinely interested in opinions given how highly the seat is touted on the forum.

Have spent time across credit and equity side. More recently, the RX / non-performing side.

Anyone else feel that RX is not some immutable, technical beast that it is often marketed as?

I was coming from an M&A background (strong one at that in terms of types of transactions covered). I was told the nuances of RX are such that most people would struggle staying afloat.

Interviews were generally fine (nothing you cannot learn in a week or two with a few dedicated hours each day). On the job, the level of knowledge required for the technical (i.e., not fundamentals based) knowledge of credit derivatives / CDS is perfunctory at best.

Most of the nuance is in the legal documents. And this nuance is not something that bankers lead the party at (even at the better places). Yes, good senior bankers are adept at initial views on feasibility of a drop-down, uptier, double-dip or some combo of these but the real perimeter of play is being defined by lawyers which then determines the viability of options being proposed.

Moreover, with democratisation of information most capable interviewees (even college kids) turning up can readily bulk-up on RX stuff much like the old days of BIWS and WSP guides (i.e., quickly going down the same path). To be clear, I think this is is a good thing because if the mystique is simply due to information asymmetry on where to get info or the lack of accessibility, then with the utmost respect, that’s not because the concepts or seat is difficult. It’s just lack of availability .

Curious to hear if I am oversimplifying things but so far it’s been a bit of a letdown.