Worst slides ever?
Have a buddy that laughs everytime he gets a book from Piper Sandler. Very curious to hear what other banks have ridiculous looking decks.
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +374 | Which Offer to Accept: UBS Analyst Role or Part Time Cashier at the Local Taco Bell | 44 | 3h |
| +291 | Roku-Fox Deal - UBS Misses Out on yet another deals after years chasing this deal | 31 | 3h |
| +269 | AI is insane | 37 | 2h |
| +264 | I Snuck Into UBS Office And Took A Shit On The Floor | 26 | 6h |
| +254 | TPH V.S. Mizuho [HOU] | 32 | 2h |
| +220 | Best Power/Renewables/Energy Teams? | 35 | 1h |
| +202 | Useless associates | 36 | 2h |
| +184 | Differences in Restructuring Teams? | 33 | 3h |
| +182 | Actual EB List | 26 | 22m |
| +177 | Centerview HC group falling off? | 28 | 3h |
Career Resources
bump
I got a Triple Tree deck recently that felt like it was made by interns. Had two typos in the first sentence on the first page.
Who the fuck are Triple Tree?
Basically anything SoftBank churns out
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvg94x/these-delusional-powerpoint-slid…
Wow. Atrocious
Holy shit this is the worst deck I’ve ever seen
That deck looks worse than any of my middle school presentations.
Was it target?
Surely this is satire?
Agreed. Still worked though, which says something about how important pitch decks really are.
It looks like something that would be distributed to LPs if your LPs were batshit deluded oil rich saudis who don't actually know shit about fuck but like the spectacle of being involved in huge global deals.
Softbank playing chess not checkers. Laugh if you will, but they never run out of money to raise or spend.
not gonna lie this reminds me of the type of sh*t I produced for one of the interviews - I cringe thinking of that though very sweet memory :)
This can't be legit surely.....
That looks like something the gang on Always Sunny would put together to pitch one of their scams
I always thought UBS decks were ugly because of their unfortunate color scheme. Brown, dark red, dark orange, yellow, grey color scheme always looked bad no matter what was on the page.
+1 for SoftBank. The “Valley of the Coronavirus” image on slide 51 of the deck below is legendary.
https://group.softbank/system/files/pdf/ir/presentations/2019/earnings-…
what the fuck?
Holy shit is everyone at SoftBank smoking crack?
their executive coach is Ozzy Osbourne
The entire deck is insane.
wow...this feels like a fake deck they'd put together for a bit on impractical jokers
If bankers had a sense of humor that would be a good punishment, just have the guys present a normal pitch deck
LMAO that looks like some shitty game ad on instagram
It's because they're presenting to batshit crazy Saudi royal LPs and not typical pension / endowment / PE FoF groups based out of the US
Their fundraising speaks for itself
I think it's worth mentioning that we very rarely read the slides.
This was exactly my thought. Literally was thinking how much do I really read the slides that are in any powerpoint (or how much does anyone really?)
I always would talk with colleagues about the usual adage of "I can't wait to put XX hours into a deck that will literally be thrown into the garbage"
I giggled out loud once when someone actually threw a deck I made away in front of me. My boss then told me never to giggle again.
That's not what cajole means.
Lincoln international makes terrible slides
Can you elaborate?
They just look terrible? Not visually pleasing at all. Lots of white space. I’ve seen some of my ex finance professors make better PowerPoints than lincoln’s decks
How they only make slides?
Lincoln International's analysts (generally, with exceptions I'm sure) are not allowed to touch the model, that's associate-and-above responsibilities. As such, analysts and SAs are disproportionately working on these decks, which may explain why you dislike the slides. I haven't seen them first-hand, but this reasoning could explain why.
Not sure where this is coming from. Worked at Lincoln and we have had professional slides developed for every deck we produce. Have had clients talk about how clean our slides look saying it’s one of the better ones they’ve seen
GS always reminds me of a shitty website in the 2000s. The content is great but something about colors and layout of the page just seems off.
Barclays with the bright blue box with the big white hole on the cover drives me crazy. They also keep sending me decks that are vertical.
Heard KKRs are pretty bad
Second this, saw a few of their slides and they look like they’re using 2005 MS Office
Switching it up, what firms consistently made great decks @everyone?
I've seen a few pages from Deutsche Bank and, believe it or not, they're pretty nice looking. Text can be a little small at times but otherwise decent
Baird and BofA are very aesthetically pleasing
Goldman can be atrocious.
I’ve never had a problem w the EB’s tho.
Not a firmwide thing, but the head of O&G at Raymond James is seen as a thought leader in the space so he's always giving a speech or lecture on the O&G macro and he puts together his own slides and god they are terrible. Effective, but aesthetically awful.
I'm going to paint with a broad brush here, but coming from MBB consulting, I'm confident in saying that, with the exception of a couple one-off decks, *all* of you bankers have the worst slide design for premium professional services.
- 4:3 vs 16:9
- Multiple fonts on the same slide
- Title on the slide isn't the main takeaway
- Iconography that looks like it was made by epileptic gorillas
- Colors don't match across slides or tie to each other (e.g., if the bar for revenue for X company is blue on page 4, why tf aint it blue on slide 5)
- Utter disregard for margins
- Boxes everywhere instead of crisp row and column headers with no whitespace, looking like an early 2004 middle schooler's deck
- Not using the unified text boxes and bullets, changes from slide to slide
And more
Maybe MBB should focus more on addressing the most important diligence issues than graphic design
Hey, I'm not saying that we're not peddling shit, I'm just saying that it's gourmet looking shit
This comment shows how fragile bankers' egos are lol, couldn't take some criticism from the consultant.
keeping this in my back pocket for what not to do
Hahahaha hilarious
Now we know why Tiger loss so much after paying Bain $100 million annually to help with due diligence
Hahah that’s the MBB MBA value add 😄
Obviously I agree with consistent fonts, colors, layouts, and such, but the rest of the differences are largely because banking slides serve a different purpose. 1. We use a LOT of quadrant layouts so 4:3 just works better. 2. Each of our slides often needs to be a standalone thing, so we don’t just have one idea per slide - they often have multiple ideas, so we can’t do the headline thing. It’s good policy, but we need slides to be more standalone.
Glad I'm not the only ex-consultant who finds it funny to see bankers dunking on each other for slide-making skills. Like that's our thing, you guys are supposed to be making the spreadsheets.
Laz slides are quality imo
Saw one Laz deck and I was taken aback. Very impressed. (M&A at a regional)
On the other hand, Baird makes beautiful decks that say nothing. Amazing graphic designers, but they take 110 pages to tell me no more about a business than I can learn in a teaser.
Its called providing "premier pertinent foremost leading" customer service to "artificially synthesize and systematically develop" "leading outsized returns for standalone customers.
hahah what a dumb thread. It’s the audience who should care not a MBB assessor given TAM “assignment”. recolor that globe and make sure that the contours aren’t offensive to anyone on the zoom
Moelis makes a pretty fire deck
Jeff ones look like they’re from 2007.
Care to elaborate?
GS is one that surprises me. I wouldn't say that the slides are terrible but very generic average slides. Nothing special.
Some random shops with consistently really good slides in my experience: RBC, Jefferies, and Barclays.
Call em a bottom tier BB, not a BB, an in-between-a BB, whatever you want. But by god can those RBC monkeys spit out a pretty PowerPoint slide.
Barclays is not a "random shop".
Seeing SoftBank's slides made me wonder whether how much the quality of your slides actually matters. Not to say that SoftBank had been doing well, but was wondering how SoftBank was able to get away with making slides looking like this while all major financial institutions were making slides of a completely different style/caliber
ppl invested in softbank because of masayoshi son, not some ppt deck
LionTree sucks, DB is very solid
From my personal experience of seeing a bunch of banker decks over the past few years
Best: RBC, Lazard, Allen & Co., Moelis - consistently well-formatted and aesthetically pleasing slides, usually accompanied by higher quality information (or better thoughts/ideas in relation to pitches)
Hit or Miss: BofA, UBS, DB, Evercore - usually aesthetically pleasing, sometimes a bit wonky depending on content (UBS has a terrible color scheme which alone puts them in this category for me); some good ideas and others poorly thought out
Worst: MS, GS, Jefferies - consistently hideous and an eyesore to look at. Straight to the trash if it's a pitch
You're sending pitches straight to the trash just because you don't like the formatting??
Maybe the MDs anal about formatting are onto something lol
Ha - have you ever seen MS slides, mate? Their format and aesthetic are barely a step above the default Microsoft charts & tables. I guess they do an ok job with CIMs and whatnot when put in the seller's format, but their own internal format needs a serious overhaul. It's an assault on all of my senses.
See some absolutely atrocious books in the LMM. One bucket shop used comic sans...jail time!
Funny thread...and its true some decks are just embarrassing.
That said, I've been on the buyside decision making end of several restructuring bake offs and no one pays attention to the decks and often the worst decks win the mandate because you're hiring a relationship not a presentation. Brutal for the poor analysts and associates that make them perfect, but that's the reality.
Yes exactly, people on this forum have very weird misconceptions. Believing that a nice deck is gonna bring in fees is purely stupid. Everyone here should take a look at Centerview's deck to realise that
Lol, that is exactly of who I was thinking of. Horrible decks...mandate winners.
Anywhere in particular you would suggest to have a look on different decks, the ones that are available for public view of course...?
Nomura and Nomura Greentech 🤣
SoftBank announced earnings today, and once again its deck did not disappoint. Slide 4 has a “frowny face” to summarize the quarterly results.
https://group.softbank/system/files/pdf/ir/presentations/2022/earnings-…
The best of the whole deck is the appendix because they cant fit goofy shit
Whoever is approving these slides needs their eyes checked
what in the fuck is this
.
.
Eius aut assumenda magni consequatur aut sit molestiae et. Error pariatur expedita velit cum et qui eum ut. Reprehenderit quod eius magnam quod rerum modi. Perferendis officiis rerum facere quo.
Ea aliquid voluptatum dignissimos sit excepturi eveniet porro voluptatem. Laborum iusto ut dolore accusantium ut maiores non. Sint omnis necessitatibus nulla voluptatem blanditiis.
Vero eum est quas aperiam aperiam. Velit minima qui ut rerum. Quia nostrum voluptatibus et ipsam delectus rerum. Quia est sapiente qui ducimus ab rerum est.
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...
In qui vitae minima repellendus eum qui. Qui voluptatem modi consequatur sit.
Laborum voluptas corporis ipsum consectetur. Amet cupiditate et harum repellendus. Qui cupiditate dolore quae dolor suscipit sed. Labore assumenda qui et dolor dolorum ut porro.
Sequi eveniet voluptatem est veritatis facilis minima ducimus. Deleniti dolore incidunt sed animi. Officia sunt iste officia doloremque beatae voluptatem maiores et. Recusandae saepe natus quidem nesciunt ea nulla nostrum. Impedit ea sed assumenda magnam nemo recusandae unde molestiae. Voluptatum voluptatem voluptatibus maiores sunt fugit ut dignissimos.
Temporibus earum voluptas alias explicabo recusandae et id. Sed ut velit laudantium ducimus. Voluptas eius unde tempore nulla inventore ut. Ut et occaecati libero eaque quo ex.
Et sit sint impedit et et. Esse molestiae tenetur corporis iusto sunt blanditiis aliquam. Repudiandae voluptas eos quis officiis rem sit distinctio.
Id odio sit qui voluptate nemo. Dolores ratione enim modi illum. Neque et saepe fugit sint. Fugiat sint atque consectetur qui cum eligendi voluptas eligendi.
Eligendi non at ipsa minima itaque. Voluptatum nihil voluptas et quibusdam omnis rerum. Laborum qui eaque quas laboriosam odit. Labore et fuga officiis quis quis. Reiciendis nihil possimus ea vitae.
Dolor velit dicta nisi molestiae aut. Aut est assumenda molestiae expedita omnis. Consequatur et aliquid esse ut. Qui maiores similique porro incidunt facilis tenetur quis. Beatae eligendi sunt omnis. Impedit molestiae nihil harum tenetur placeat ea.
Et rerum ab non exercitationem quam amet. Labore sed error magni maiores. Eaque et et accusantium praesentium. Illo provident incidunt minima ut fugit. Eum corrupti sequi eligendi voluptatum explicabo.
Consequatur non et minus praesentium distinctio aliquid voluptate. Magni doloremque perspiciatis fugiat et dolor nobis modi. Quo similique nulla rem molestias.
Exercitationem dolores iure et qui. Nesciunt occaecati sit corrupti quia. Laboriosam voluptate aspernatur rem necessitatibus velit voluptates.
Iste corporis nulla iusto et qui quibusdam. Vitae voluptatibus et atque in. Error quas nisi voluptatem aut minima. Iste est provident animi ut eius et quo. Aliquid amet modi suscipit ut culpa vero perspiciatis. Repellat suscipit sed consequatur incidunt hic dignissimos.
Unde nobis perferendis reiciendis cupiditate. Perspiciatis omnis porro et sit consequuntur eum. Id quis voluptatem est totam.