title
i mean seems interesting and more fun than general m&a, but why?
is it to open doors in distressed investing or activist funds like elliott?
apart from pjt, is there a significant difference in exit opps between a firm like lazard’s m&a and rx
| +178 | Americas M&A League Table Q2 Updated | 73 | 6h |
| +132 | New Article: Dramatic Slide as UBS #22 (US) & New Leadership Desperately Needed | 25 | 2d |
| +107 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 26 | 5h |
| +74 | A COMPLETE GUIDE TO SUMMER INTERNSHIP RECRUITING | 12 | 1d |
| +69 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 28 | 7h |
| +51 | Boutique firm wants access to my LinkedIn? | 41 | 22h |
| +39 | Investment Banking is Hard | 17 | 17h |
| +29 | PWP vs BofA | 23 | 3m |
| +23 | Who pays the highest right now? | 14 | 4m |
| +21 | Excel macros for QOL formatting | 0 | 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.
Restructuring (RX) offers a unique and dynamic experience compared to general M&A, and there are several reasons why someone might choose it:
Broader Skillset: RX bankers develop all the technical skills of M&A bankers, plus additional expertise in credit, capital structure, and legal/negotiation aspects (e.g., reading credit agreements, merger agreements). This makes RX analysts highly versatile.
Exit Opportunities: RX opens doors to distressed hedge funds, special situations funds, and even traditional PE firms. While M&A is more directly aligned with PE buyouts, RX analysts can transition to both distressed and healthy-side investing. Firms like Elliott, Apollo, and other distressed-focused funds highly value RX experience.
Job Security and Compensation: RX is often seen as a "counter-cyclical" field. In downturns, RX thrives as companies face financial distress, making job security and compensation more stable and often higher than in M&A.
High-Stakes Work: RX deals often involve existential crises for companies (e.g., bankruptcy, defaults), making the stakes much higher than traditional M&A. This can be intellectually stimulating and rewarding for those who enjoy problem-solving under pressure.
Generalist Experience: RX allows exposure to M&A and capital markets advisory (e.g., distressed sales, capital raisings), providing a more well-rounded experience compared to pure M&A roles.
Regarding exit opportunities between Lazard's M&A and RX: While both are strong, RX provides a more niche skillset that aligns with distressed investing and special situations funds. M&A, on the other hand, is more tailored to traditional PE buyouts. The choice depends on your long-term career goals—if you're interested in distressed or activist funds like Elliott, RX is a better fit.
For more insights, check out this thread: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/investment-banking/wharton-kids-f…</a">Wharton kids favor restructuring/distressed investing?.
Sources: Wharton kids favor restructuring/distressed investing?, Wharton kids favor restructuring/distressed investing?, Top firms for distressed investing. Solving for brand and deal experience more than ability to growth within the organization., Most Active / Top Distressed Hedge Funds, Credit Hedge Fund opportunities
Earth shattering thought here - Maybe, because they like it and find it the most interesting?!?!
If you want to do credit, you have to be familiar with the debt documents. When you’re doing m&a and the acquirer is investment grade, you’ll never get that experience/understanding.
Oh ok makes more sense
The first person I ever spoke to in Rx told me that he did it because all of the cool upperclassmen he knew were doing it and he figured he'd do the same thing as them. He doesn't like it very much and is counting down the days until he leaves
rip
Equities dont make sense to me. Debt does. Who doesnt love good creditor on creditor violence or being on zoom calls when a CEO finds out hes losing his business.
moelis should introduce a new dispute negotiation technique where diff creditors must box for their claims
A couple of reasons
1) Prestige obsessed hardos think restructuring is more bigbrain, and after investing all that time studying for pjt rssg which you read about as a freshman on wso, you're gonna recruit for the other rx shops too.
2) yes, distressed/credit has many rx alumni, some enjoy that stuff more, may have come from prelaw background, may just not have interest in traditional m&a to buyout. would say there's definitely differences in some firms between m&a and rx like HL, Gugg, jeff, but because rx is mostly done at EBs you wont see the biggest differences there besides PJT of course and EVR due to m&a class size
3) for me personally, getting an offer done asap was nice, wasn't a rx hardo and had some other processes ongoing but just wanted to chill and enjoy college, so decided to wrap up recruiting early instead of looking for marginal differences in prestige
yeah makes sense, can you recruit for RX and M&A at rhe same time?
you'll recruit for rx first most likely just based on timelines, can def accelerate m&a interviews with rx offer/spd
As an undergrad it sounded cool because there's game theory and people getting fucked over. Really glad I didn't end up in RX ultimately because it's really depressing to work with shitty ass businesses all day and people are stressed all the time. (my experience working with the RX team as a coverage banker)
fair lol
Sometimes its the only offer you have. Know someone who was in this situation (I think they wanted to go into coverage but didn't get any offers).
yeah not a bad gig at all
In RX, solutions are precise and logical. It’s about thinking inside the box, but the box itself is more complex, with countless avenues and methods to resolve issues. Someone's gain is someone else's loss. It's a zero-sum game, and that’s the essence of the box. It appeals to those who are systems-oriented/logical/focused on working within defined limits.
On the other hand, M&A is more optimistic. It's about what could happen. Here's a DCF with our forecasts. Do you like the numbers? Yes? Great. But nothing ever goes according to those numbers, and that’s not even the point. The objective is to persuade someone to do the deal.
If you're more skeptical, you could argue that in M&A, all the financial models are practically useless. Their real value lies in identifying the key drivers of a company's profit, acting as a tool to educate bankers about the business they’re dealing with, which on its own helps bankers feel more confident in the advice they give to clients and somehow the client gets carried on by this charisma or confidence to act on a decision.
M&A also has a more selling-oriented personality: Relationships are important, how you present the company to buyers, etc. which in RX is non-existent. RX may develop more technical skills, but may fall a bit short on a more holistic development business-wise.
Neither is inherently better or worse. RX might be a better fit for the more detail-oriented/logical aka nerdy types/finance nerds. M&A suits better the deal-closers and sales-focused guys. RX also may be a better fit for conflictive personalities, meanwnhile M&A lmay be a better fit for collaboration-focused people. It’s all about personal preference.
also, fuck your title, pure clickbait.
Enim voluptatem nobis corrupti et nostrum corrupti. Nisi reiciendis tempora molestias asperiores aut totam cum aut.
Voluptas itaque quisquam et animi beatae. Sunt sed quo eos expedita similique sunt vitae. Suscipit delectus temporibus doloribus animi.
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...