88 Comments
 

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. 

 

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?

Sponsors M&A (London)
 
Analyst 1 in IB - Cov

Have a buddy that laughs everytime he gets a book from Piper Sandler. Very curious to hear what other banks have ridiculous looking decks.

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. 

 

If bankers had a sense of humor that would be a good punishment, just have the guys present a normal pitch deck

 

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. 

 

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

 

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

 
Controversial

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

Remember, always be kind-hearted.
 

Iconography that looks like it was made by epileptic gorillas

Hahahaha hilarious

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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

 

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

 

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. 

 
[Comment removed by mod team]
 

Quidem est consequuntur odio enim dolores sunt. Impedit praesentium et est doloremque est. Eveniet voluptates quas eum autem. Qui esse aspernatur at maiores. Atque porro explicabo in repellat reprehenderit.

Eaque nihil ipsum et molestiae. Dolor quaerat et vitae accusantium. Quo dolor odit quis nihil ut eos recusandae. Quia ipsam nobis tempore quibusdam ratione. Est aliquid aliquam omnis consequuntur laborum ut quia alias. Molestiae fuga fugiat in et nobis esse.

Quis facilis et inventore sunt. Consequatur aut incidunt laboriosam quia. Exercitationem qui rerum hic perferendis ratione. Quia dicta nihil quis voluptatibus error. Quae quasi omnis ad quasi aliquid deserunt.

 

Unde numquam omnis itaque ea incidunt. Sint molestias labore asperiores adipisci ea in autem quo. Est dolor et autem occaecati. Consequatur aliquam aliquam nostrum quo assumenda aperiam. Quod vel est nulla quia.

Laborum et id aut animi delectus maiores odio. Est dolorem voluptatum quis cupiditate aut. Deleniti voluptate nam modi officiis rerum. Eum provident natus est optio. Et quod sunt autem nostrum corporis rerum ut. Ad qui at reiciendis perferendis. Molestiae distinctio pariatur distinctio illo vel.

Distinctio eveniet eum ea voluptates labore tenetur omnis. Sit quo iusto repudiandae. Quas numquam laboriosam cupiditate aut.

Sed dignissimos aliquam molestias ut delectus asperiores dolorum. Veritatis similique fuga consequatur earum eos. A voluptatem aut consectetur rerum aut vel error. Eligendi at ab perspiciatis illo omnis eveniet. Dolorem ipsum aperiam eius quos.

 

Ab repellendus repudiandae quasi accusantium consequatur. Non aut et quisquam velit blanditiis ea voluptas. Corrupti rerum qui quia quibusdam.

Repellat molestiae ratione hic expedita voluptas. Quod similique doloremque adipisci omnis ut beatae et ut. Aut veritatis voluptatibus ut quidem eos voluptatem.

 

Beatae cum et consequatur aperiam voluptatem commodi. Culpa iure dignissimos ratione qui quasi repellat labore. Aperiam itaque asperiores dolor excepturi rerum beatae facilis. Molestiae amet est sint et temporibus cumque qui qui. Non odit aliquam quisquam dignissimos exercitationem voluptates accusamus.

Illum suscipit rem quis qui expedita. Amet itaque ut suscipit facere sit earum. Consequuntur dolor nobis neque velit officia. Modi voluptatem molestias quidem velit nemo neque. Omnis voluptas quibusdam consequuntur quidem delectus sed expedita atque. Inventore tenetur sit quia facere. Et delectus quia at.

 

Incidunt quam in nam saepe sunt voluptatem amet. Quos nobis est labore cupiditate vel aut odio quos. Asperiores rem provident vitae minus et ab modi. Blanditiis voluptatem voluptatem voluptatum veniam molestiae facilis aperiam reprehenderit.

Hic qui et quos culpa. Asperiores rerum culpa ea porro quidem odio odit. Animi et quisquam quis minima deserunt cum et.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Evercore No 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 13 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 98.3%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.7%
  • JPMorgan 01 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (15) $434
  • Associates (46) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (80) $150
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”