Curious about everyone’s perspective on what makes bankers really stand out as exceptional. Is it just being really good at seeing that two boxes are misaligned by one pixel or one logo looks a little bit too big? Idk but I’m interested to hear what other bankers think.
Trending Content
| +159 | How to stop feeling like shit for not making it in IB? | 58 | 36m | |
| +117 | If Tik Tok is forced to sell, what banks do you think would be involved in the deal? | 59 | 1s | |
| +83 | Updated LA Banking Scene (2024) | 60 | 55m | |
| +39 | Ranking banks that went under | 22 | 2s | |
| +37 | Burnt Out M&A ASO | 19 | 2s | |
| +35 | Relevance of A-Levels for U.K. London recruiting | 24 | 1h | |
| +32 | A strategy for SA applicants late to the game like myself | 15 | 22h | |
| +27 | Series 79 Help / Tips to Pass The First Attempt | 11 | 2d | |
| +26 | Intern Ettiquette | 4 | 1d | |
| +23 | What are hours like at BBs in London? | 47 | 23h |
Career Resources
Ability to be super detail oriented but stay sane enough to actually provide thoughtful inputs on topics that aren’t black and white.
It's all in the eyes of the beholder, who seek the same for themselves. Absolutely no one gave two shits on the provision of thoughtful inputs on topics that aren't black and white in my case, it is more "we like how black and white works", go be the retard we wish we had hired and doesn't make us waste our breath on leaving the simple spectrum. This is where corporate America and culture comes in...
Edit: If someone tells you to be a superstar, you're fucked. It's terrible advice and they have no intention of quantifying it until a dagger is in your back.
Following
I think stamina is a huge part of it. Being able to be nitpicky after 65th hour each week and can put a coherent sentence together once in a blue moon when your input is asked for something. Getting the process early and pre-empting repetitive tasks so your associate doesn’t always have to ask you to do every little thing every single time. Playing the politics well enough to be a real team asset (see: output the dirty work like a machine with a smile) without coming across as a know-it-all or brown noser.
Be an interesting and respectful person who isn’t wound up their own ass. Technical ability means absolutely nothing in winning business. This really shouldn’t be a question people have to ask tbh
Professionalism
I mean it really depends on what level you’re at in your banking career - what makes an analyst “superstar-level” is very different from an MD. In summary here’s what I’d say (echoing what others have said already) -
Analyst - consistently is hard worker with a good attitude, always trying to learn and improve their understanding of a deal structure/how to model etc. Will anticipate the needs of an Associate before they even ask (eg an email comes through from a VP asking for a change to the deal structure, a great analyst who is cc’d on the email will start making those changes before the Associate even comes to him to ask).
Associate - same as above but with the added ability to “run the deal” where required, ie manage external parties such as lawyers, accountants, the client as required. This is primarily the VP’s job but they might be delegating (eg if they don’t have capacity due to working on multiple deals). Ie an Associate should be able to anticipate what a VP would ask - for example a client asks what is the IRR impact of a certain change to a deal, while the VP might take them through it the Associate should already have a solid understanding of the deal structure and so be able to tell the analyst what model/doc changes are required.
VP - a VP’s job is basically to be an “execution guru” - ie run the deal from start to finish pretty much. Lazy/incompetent VPs add very little value to a deal - but equally superstar VPs I’ve worked with are worth their weight in gold. Whilst these guys won’t be knee-deep in models anymore, they will have a good enough understanding of the deal/model to know high-level what the impact of certain changes will be, and thus can guide the Associate (who can then guide the Analyst) as required. A great VP will also have tons of previous deal experience so will anticipate ahead of time any potential roadblocks/issues that will come up on the deal, and how to handle them. Ideally the MD brings in a deal, and pretty much hands off 80-90% of the day-to-day execution to a VP (only getting involved as occasionally needed and at closing).
MD - bring in business, that’s basically it. Doesn’t matter if you’re the smartest MD in the world, if you can’t bring in business/clients you won’t last long. Usually you will bring in business as an MD because clients know you’re good/smart - but equally I’ve seen mediocre MDs do well just because they have a great team (VPs/Associates etc) underneath them who always deliver.
I disagree with a lot of this. This is how to be a good "Average" banker who just executes deals. anyone can execute deals.
the really good ones are the ones who give insightful advice, know all the answers the clients bring up in meetings, know the buyer landscape like the back of their hand, understand the industry on an equal footing as their clients, and have the ability to truly influence groups with their opinions.
doesn't matter if you are a VP/MD or associate. the best bankers give incredible advice/insight and can walk their client through any complicated situation with ease.
I mean I agree with you about a good Associate (especially VP) knowing the industry etc, but that’s part of what I was referring to when I said a VP should be able to anticipate any issues/roadblocks to a deal (perhaps I could have expanded on that more). Their ability to take a deal from start to finish and anticipate/plan around any obstacles is based on their deal/industry experience. Also yes if a client asks them a question/wants some additional analysis the VP should be able to use their industry knowledge to pass on the right instructions to an Associate.
Not so sure I’d agree about an Associate being at that level - admittedly in my career I have encountered a couple of times an Associate who knew as much/more than the client about their industry, but in those rare instances either the Associate was a megastar in a very lean deal team (ie working on a deal just with an MD), and/or they had a “dumb client” (respectfully some clients are just less sophisticated and require more hand-holding).
But in many (most in my experience) instances an Associate won’t know as much or more than a client about their industry - how ever good the Associate is, they simply lack the years of experience at that point to be such an expert. And even rockstar Analysts have limited strategic/industry knowledge - again not because they’re not great at their job, but they just haven’t worked long enough to get that knowledge base and deal experience. In most industries you only become a deal guru through repeatedly working on deals, and that’s something you can only get with time. So in summary I would stick with what I said in my original reply, ie experience/your level of seniority absolutely does matter.
what is a "smart" MD in this context?
I would say a “smart” (ie great) MD is someone who basically knows the sector/industry like the back of their hand, ie all the major players/deals and also the senior management who work there.
So for instance a client/potential client could have a call with the MD when they’re just spitballing ideas eg possible acquisitions (I’ve been on a few of these in my IB days) and high-level the MD will be able to say what will likely work and what won’t pretty much straight away. Mainly on deal economics but also the MD could say “this would never work for legal/regulatory reasons, from what x lawyer had said in the past” or “knowing the management of that company they’ll never sell a division like that at a competitive price.”
Obviously if the client wants to take it further then the team would need to start running models or consult external lawyers (if there’s a legal/regulatory roadblock). But the value the MD adds is from their experience and knowledge they just know instinctively what makes sense and what doesn’t from a high-level perspective. It’s then up to the rest of the team (associates/analysts etc) to run the numbers and prove out these concepts/theories.
Also in internal meetings with smart MDs, while they’re not running models they often know what outputs are correct and which aren’t. Eg if there’s a model bust the associate/VP have missed, the MD would look at the outputs and say quickly “this doesn’t look right, can we check.” This is obviously easy to spot if it’s some egregiously wrong output, but sometimes the impact on the outputs can be quite subtle/easy to miss if you don’t have an in-depth understanding of the industry/sector and its players.
By contrast, I’ve worked with weaker IB MDs (both in IB and now on the other side in PE) who I’m sure are smart people still but are really just “relationship guys” with an excellent team who support them - ie they have good contacts/relationships in the industry (basically a prerequisite to be an MD) but don’t really add much value but instead just delegate to their VP. This only really works with if the VP is a rockstar - otherwise a weak MD with an average VP/team probably won’t win much repeat business from clients.
Distinctio ut saepe minima placeat voluptas voluptatum deserunt quae. Asperiores voluptatem consequatur ea cum voluptatem. Ea soluta occaecati ratione voluptas accusantium eius. Natus eaque dolorem et. Similique sint odio facere id eius et magni sed. Est fugiat reprehenderit iste quaerat. Natus molestiae est quis.
Possimus ex iusto magnam architecto velit eligendi. Officiis magnam eius quam eum fuga. Sapiente cum magni sed.
Repellat cum aliquam ut repellat labore ab. Voluptate odio voluptatum eum.
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...