Hey fellow monkeys,
As I constantly see people talking on the forum about importance of gaining trust and subsequently being staffed on "good deals", I wonder what's considered a "good" deal? M&A > financing deals? Or does this really depend on your desired exit opps?
Also, worst case scenario if I'm being staffed on bad deals, how much worse do I look against my peers staffed on "good deals"?
Appreciate any insights here!
| +214 | Coverage Banking is Paradise | 24 | 19h |
| +75 | My Motivation Is At An All Time High | 13 | 1d |
| +68 | London Recruiting is Paradise | 30 | 2h |
| +62 | Lost all ambition / don’t care at all anymore | 28 | 11h |
| +46 | Are Canadians still get jobs in the US? | 26 | 1h |
| +30 | Is 7 years in banking enough to retire, or am I delusional? | 23 | 3h |
| +29 | MM IB --> NYC IB? | 14 | 20h |
| +24 | Negotiating VP Sign-On Bonus (NOT Tied to Deferred Comp)? | 19 | 47m |
| +23 | Lawyer moving into Banking | 18 | 1d |
| +21 | "Don't include firm in Cover Letter's file name" | 9 | 6d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Depends on the bank. I know someone who wasn’t staffed on a “good” deal in their first year then was the sole analyst on a mega deal their second year
Generally speaking, being staffed on a “good deal” means a high-profile (aka high fee) m&a deal.
These are also the worst to be staffed on as there is unreal pressure to perform from not only your group + ownership, but also senior leaders at your bank.
Being in the space, I view a good deal as an m&a transaction with i) competent management, ii) easy to work with sponsor, and iii) the company is actually a desirable asset.
Just do well on whatever you work on. You can learn 10x more on a small founder-owned sell side vs a $30bn mega deal with 50 people on the deal team
Awesome! appreciate the detailed response.
To your point, being book runner for a large IPO client, as famous as that client could be, is typically less of a good deal than an M&A?
To answer this point, I think it really depends on what you’re interested in.
If you’re at a top tech group and are exiting into growth / VC, you’d rather be on a big-ticket IPO versus a large, high-fee M&A deal. Also, a few banks / groups have a monopoly over big-ticket IPOs (ex, GS / MS are lead on basically every large tech IPO), so in general IPO experience is more scarce and people focus less on it.
Last line is absolute facts imo. I honestly like smaller deals because my MDs give me more autonomy and I can take more ownership of the process. This both lets me learn more, get closer with the client rather than being a drone, and have a more seamless process of putting together materials and such.
Anything m&a that has a solid chance if going through (sellside/buyside) is a good deal
Quidem ipsum molestiae occaecati quas blanditiis nulla. Vitae est ex repellat doloremque optio. Ut quia nemo dolor dolores minima nisi quia. Sint consequatur porro id amet non et quidem. Aut quam sequi blanditiis et aut nihil.
Repudiandae id nemo atque in numquam assumenda et. Explicabo velit iure unde enim aut voluptatum. Quasi ut minima qui dolore rerum aliquam. Quaerat itaque maiores non praesentium.
Corrupti aliquid qui voluptas ut quam vero. Earum perferendis voluptas temporibus harum sed ut. Quia consequuntur qui dolorem necessitatibus. Dolor pariatur fuga facere optio. Id corrupti labore fuga consequatur aut sed. Vero sint omnis sit sequi deserunt.
Voluptas rerum harum distinctio ad asperiores et quo. Inventore et et assumenda qui commodi. Rerum aspernatur beatae maxime minima accusamus quia. Qui rerum magnam fuga earum optio veniam ullam. Voluptas et facilis nobis architecto eaque.
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...