Top BB vs Top EB for long-term career in IB
Know there have been a lot of posts in general about BB vs EB but wanted to get latest thoughts from people who have switched between BB and EB or the other way around at the VP level. The comparison here would be GS/MS/JPM vs EVR/PJT. Purposely excluded CVP because i think it would tilt the scale significantly while EVR/PJT may generate a better debate. I know general consensus is BBs are easier to make MD in but wanted to get a temperature check on whether anything has changed or is changing at EBs regarding growing their own MDs these days.
Comp at BBs (GS/MS) so far have been abysmal, in a record year for both firms, relative to EBs. Do VPs/SVPs at EVR/PJT really feel like the realistic path to MD is to switch to a BB or are they hopeful they will be at their firms for the long haul?
Nearly every SMD / partner at the EBs comes from a buldge (not even necessarily just the top ones). That’s because having a balance sheet puts you into the room with the client and the client in some way needs you. The tradeoff, as you noted, is comp that can be materially lower, so many ppl at EBs that are homegrown make it to MD (this is the stage right below partner and is essentially a senior director depending on the EB) and clip their $1mm per year with potential upside in a good year if the SMD is willing to throw you a bone. It’s not a bad life at all but you are clearly in the execution seat vs rain maker seat.
This is less spoken about, but the EB partners love to brag to clients ‘if you hire us, I’ll be involved in every aspect of the deal versus a BB which will have the VP run everything and you won’t see the MD after the pitch’…clients love hearing this, but you can imagine it doesn’t bode well for you personally if you’re the VP on that call. The client will always view you as the execution monkey and it’s really hard to step out of that frame.
ignore title, i second this
I won't ignore your title, actually. Who the fuck are you?
Do you think this is more extreme at EVR and PJT though? They didn't get the nicknames Goldman North and things like that for no reason.
Moelis claims that more than half of their MDs are homegrown, and I imagine that's similar at CVP.
Yes but making MD is like getting called up to the majors, nothing more. Most of the homegrown MDs at Moelis work for the real rainmakers who are BB guys. That’s the culture and the incentives.
CVP is very different. There are genuine stud home grown partners there. They develop their talent better than almost everywhere.
Guggenheim, EVR and PJT are pretty weak (other than RSSG) and PWP is the worst at developing home grown talent.
Isn’t the fact that nearly all senior MDs or partners come from BB just because of age of these firms? Most MDs at BBs have 20+ years in IB and back when they started their careers these EBs barely existed, or were still building up. Given how established they are today, could there be any ongoing shift? Interesting to hear that Moelis now claims ~half of their MDs are internal promotes. I wonder if EBs will forever keep this “going out of business” model for BB rainmakers.
Having recently recruited for lateral roles with a few EBs, the sentiment I've gotten from seniors I spoke with is that they want/need to shift away from their old model of poaching rainmakers from BBs and developing that talent internally, as it is cheaper and more sustainable. Could be hollow words as a recruiting tactic, but it would make sense that some of these newer EBs that grew through aggressive hiring plans need to shift their model a bit.
I expect some of the EBs like MOE/EVP/PJT will try to push to occupy that same area GS and MS do in terms of lending without going full commercial like JPM & BofA, while others will continue to try and play the more pure advisory like they have been historically.
IDK how many MDs you want PJT to home grow when they are only entering their 10th year.......
They were a spin off of BX’s advisory business so it’s a longer tenure. RSSG develops home grown partners, M&A is very bad at it
Can’t paint this with a totally broad brush. CVP is great at developing home grown talent. MOE is mediocre to ok at it. The rest are awful.
What specifically makes CVP good at developing home grown talent?
bump
What specifically makes CVP good at developing home grown talent?
Only thing I can think of is they work on so many marquee mandates and run lean that as a rising banker you get deal creds that give you credit (as BB bankers do) and actually get to run things (out of necessity).
That is precisely how talent get develops. Pretty much the only way.
Et autem sed autem dolorem consequatur accusantium aliquam. Autem commodi quae cumque dolorum voluptatum soluta et. Neque et nulla voluptates ducimus.
Fuga facere laudantium neque expedita qui aliquam. Possimus sint libero commodi magni occaecati. Sit ut commodi ratione doloribus consequatur sed sint ut. Et quaerat iusto earum. Sequi in et aut esse.
Quia non qui dolores possimus aliquam. Quia sit ea et praesentium distinctio nihil totam. Perspiciatis pariatur sunt omnis libero reprehenderit numquam. Iure nemo assumenda aliquam.
Eum molestias eius nulla et. Consequatur aliquam atque rerum velit ab nihil consectetur. Quis debitis consequatur et nihil.
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...