Why the BB vs EB why so much EB glaze?
Top BB groups offer the best exits in the street with maybe EVR M&A and top RX groups comparing but have a much stronger brand name.
I understand comp and culture, but from an exit and career standpoint a top BB group sweeps the floor. Go on the website of H&F or any other MF of choice and it's apparent that there is a clear BB / EVR swing.
Am I missing something? This forum seems to have a huge preference towards boutiques, often recommending PWP, MOE, or CVP over top BB groups, wondering why (objectively it has an exit discount through quick linkedin or PE web search).
The preference for Elite Boutiques (EBs) over Bulge Brackets (BBs) on forums like WSO often stems from nuanced factors that go beyond just exits and brand name. Here's a breakdown of why EBs get so much "glaze" despite the strong exit opportunities from top BB groups:
Deal Experience and Technical Exposure:
EBs like Evercore, PJT, and Centerview are known for their leaner deal teams, which means analysts often get more hands-on experience with modeling and deal execution. This contrasts with BBs, where larger teams can sometimes limit an analyst's exposure to the full deal process.
Guaranteed M&A and Restructuring Focus:
Many EBs specialize in M&A or restructuring, ensuring analysts work on high-profile, technical deals. At BBs, group placement can be a lottery, and not all groups (e.g., ECM or DCM) offer the same level of exit opportunities or technical skill development.
Compensation:
EBs typically offer higher compensation at the junior level, with bonuses often exceeding those at BBs. This financial incentive can be a significant draw for candidates.
Culture and Work Environment:
While both EBs and BBs are demanding, EBs are often perceived to have a slightly better culture, with less bureaucracy and office politics compared to the larger, more hierarchical BBs.
Exit Opportunities:
While top BB groups like GS TMT, MS M&A, and JPM Healthcare dominate exits to mega funds (MFs), EBs like Evercore, PJT, and Lazard also place exceptionally well. The difference in placement is often marginal, and for many, the trade-offs in culture, comp, and experience make EBs more appealing.
Prestige Within Finance:
While BBs have stronger brand recognition outside of finance, within the industry, EBs are often seen as equally prestigious, if not more so, for their specialization and deal flow.
Fit and Long-Term Career Goals:
For those aiming to stay in banking long-term, EBs can offer faster promotion tracks and a more entrepreneurial environment. BBs, on the other hand, are often seen as a stepping stone to the buy-side.
In summary, while top BB groups undeniably offer stellar exits and a strong brand name, the preference for EBs on forums like WSO often comes down to the combination of better comp, culture, technical exposure, and comparable (if not equal) exit opportunities for many candidates. It ultimately depends on individual priorities and career goals.
Sources: David and Goliath: The Boutique and The Bulge Bracket, David and Goliath: The Boutique and The Bulge Bracket, The Case for Elite Boutiques over any Bulge Brackets in 2022, why are there so many guggenheim shills on this forum?
Per capita exits are much better at EBs
Thread is about top BB groups so not sure if your point still stands. "Top BB groups" have better per capita exits than most EBs with the exception of PJT RSSG and maybe Evercore.
Let me know if you would change this ranking from a buyside pov:
1: PJT RSSG, EVR RX/M&A, GS TMT, MS M&A, JPM HC
2: MOE, LAZ, MS other, GS other, PJT M&A
3: CVP, JPM other, PWP
To be honest, from all the banks you put up there, it should be up to the individual to convert. I would regardless choose top BB over any EB just for the sake of the brand name which I think matters.
Yeah dude, CVP is definitely bottom bucket.
Maybe per capita realized exits. Even at EBs there is a quota at MF. Many ppl will give up one fund if they hear someone in their class got an offer there because they know they aren’t hiring two. CVP is not one of these EBs and many funds would be happy to take on however many CVP analysts as long as they pass the interviews
Beyond the per capita exits, the analysts, on average, are much more hardo about finance. This is good and bad. Good is the chances of you having to carry the weight of an absolute retard is lower. Bad is the chances of you working with a hardo psychopath is higher
EBs are where all the hardos go and where all the $$$ is. It’s the closest thing to the “true” IB days.
You will get absolutely cooked tho
not sure what "true" IB means. Also, $$$ spread is like 10-20k post tax when comparing EB to BB – should a recent grad make a life-long decision and forego brand name/stability and corporate side exits for the 10-20k?
very true, but post associate years it starts to make a huge difference to where for example people at EBs get paid double of BBs
It’s because the bulge bracket title has been diluted by glorified retail banks like Deutsche Bank and UBS that don’t actually do any M&A. After the GFC, the true bulge brackets (GS, MS, JPM, BAML, Citi, etc - notice the trend here?) were hamstrung by stringent regulations after the systemic risk failures of their trading and securitization desks.
The rainmakers (Moelis, Effron, etc) saw the writing on the wall, and made the decision to start their own firms because true, value-add advisory work doesn’t need a balance sheet to guilt clients into giving them mandates.
There’s a reason why even MMs pay associates, VPs and MDs more than bulge brackets. Their margins aren’t diluted by S&T desks, commercial lending, retail banking, etc. The one and only coherent reason to ever work at a bulge bracket is to use and abuse the platform to establish your own relationships before you leave to a boutique who actually values you as a contributor to the firm. At a bulge bracket, you’re just another number to some braindead DEI hire in the HR department, no matter how much $ in fees you bring in.
I followed a couple of my MDs that escaped a flailing European BB (don’t even try to guess which one, because pretty much every European bank with a balance sheet is a joke thanks to their Byzantine regulatory environment), and this is what I was told by every single VP, director and MD that left with us.
Makes sense to choose a EB if you are doing career banking and looking to get a greater cut of the fees. If someone is doing two and out (which is 90% of people at top BB groups) comp structure dynamic at the topdoesn't really matter – esp since top BB's clear the league tables from a deal volume perspective.
This thread is mainly comparing top BB groups (top cov of GS/MS/JPM) to EBs not the lower BBs.
I picked a top group at an EB over a top group at a BB and I’d do it again 100x over.
My friends at BBs get actually trash experience, it’s where the jokes of aligning logos on a page come from. At an EB you actually get to handle a lot of deal execution with 3-4 person deal teams, run the model as a first year analyst, etc. you learn so much more.
While deciding between my offers, I was put in touch by a very successful family member with VPs/principals across UMM/MF PE shops to talk it over and universally they told me to go with the EB offer as I’d have better recruiting prospects (they know we’re doing relevant technical work vs at a BB it can be a bit more spread out/divided). The reality is yes on nominal terms sure more BB kids place into MFs but there’s also 10x more BB kids than EB kids.
Tbh though if you go BB it’s way better for exits if you want to go do like corp dev or smth non hardo. Also sounds sexier at bars.
Do not agree BB sweeps the floor with EB. As people have mentioned, EB is a lot better at Aso+ for comp. This matters because it opens another viable path to $$ by staying in banking. It's a completely different discussion, but I'd argue staying in banking has become more attractive than exiting in recent years.
Will say WSO seems to have a heavy leaning towards the boutiques. Not saying one is better than the other but sharing the tradeoff and my personal leaning. Tradeoff is two-fold:
At the end of the day comp and exit spread seem pretty negligible, but would argue that a BB provides a brand name that will stick for the rest of your career (one that is undeniably stronger).
Yeah, fair points.
Don't disagree, but a lot of times we are discussing very marginal cases. Is it better to go GS TMT over EVR M&A? Who knows. The only certainty is that a candidate that has both offers will have a career comp better than 99.x% of people.
In general, go with the higher comp. Your career will be fine, and the market/experience/culture is uncertain 12 months down the line. a bird in the hand > x
Exits aside, it's more about M&A focus and quality of experience.
Beyond the top 3 BBs, I would say pure M&A exposure at an EB will likely be of higher quality and deal flow (probably skewed towards sponsor sell-sides but still a great learning ground to get to know how the process works). It's not an insult or a bad thing to suggest the likes of UBS / DB / RBC are not 'M&A banks' ; UBS even before acquiring CS wanted to cut it's IB by a lot, these banks identify they make much more money from wealth management and S&T than M&A fees where the market is much more cyclical and timelines for processes are becoming longer. Having a huge balance sheet to underwrite and engage in Lev Fin / DCM is where these banks optimise profitability.
There’s an argument that the junior experience is higher quality at a quality EB. Obviously, comp is a no brainer.
For non-finance exits, BB has the brand name / laymen edge.
I do think that being a homegrown career banker at an EB becomes challenging as there are typically less touch points for you to have with clients and I don’t think the model even really favors homegrown talent rather than poaching proven talent from BBs.
Most of you all are not thinking about that because it isn’t noticeable until your VP years.
del
"think LAZ/EVR/GUGG"
This is a horrible take. Other EBs aside, CVP + Allen & Co you can print money at if you want to build a career in the sell-side and arguably get some of the most interesting mandates (for instance at CVP you cover a specific company and do everything related to that space including buy-side, sell-side, fairness opinions, corporate strategy work, anti-takeover defenses, etc.). Hard to argue with a firm that's paying A2A bonuses that they are and who are in the room as a trusted advisor with F500 leaders.
This is the exit - you're not going to CVP + Allen to go to H&F to enter the rocketship of life of trading up every 2 years to re-prove yourself, you already have a seat on Apollo 11 and can continue to build leverage around and beneath you as you scale at the firm.
Nihil modi quasi id quae. Ex illum consectetur expedita inventore architecto. Perspiciatis quasi unde ut occaecati. Odit laborum iusto qui a sit.
Impedit beatae illo exercitationem unde hic. Fugiat inventore impedit voluptas ratione. Non aliquam iusto possimus optio. Odio et ratione nesciunt optio eligendi ut. Modi autem similique quia molestiae non qui.
Iste et perferendis omnis ut quae neque odit. Rem voluptatibus odio ut quia atque ducimus possimus. Ratione occaecati enim delectus voluptatem. Sed molestiae non est tenetur nihil.
Voluptatem veniam quidem ut. Est facilis sint sed.
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...
Dolorem dolore aliquam voluptas odit. Voluptatem vitae amet ipsam dolorem suscipit. Impedit recusandae voluptatem eos autem eveniet eum. At laboriosam velit sed labore ut dignissimos dolor. Sed ab architecto corrupti. Enim voluptatibus facilis id facere rerum velit sit.
Libero modi minima dolores et voluptatem. Unde blanditiis aspernatur dicta dolores et exercitationem aut veritatis.
Cum sapiente amet magnam quaerat. Ullam sed ea officia non nesciunt dolor.