2006 Bulge Bracket - as seen by Goldman Sachs

I'm not a huge BofA supporter but they are much better than everyone else in their "tier." I'd argue they are better than Barcap in alot of areas, as well.

Agree with JPM in the BB though.

wow i never thought HSBC would be a tier 2 bank. figured it would be higher end tier 3.

You can't go by league tables alone. Lazard and Rothschild are much smaller shops than BofA so obviously deals announced and closed are going to be smaller. The fact that they are even in the 10-13 range in the league tables speaks to the amount of revenue they generate on a per banker basis.

BofA is definitely not BB, they still have a long way to go. Credit Suisse and UBS are definitely pulling away from Deutsche in the Americas, so I can buy that they are borderline BB.

JPM is definetly BB. It's a dawg eat dawg world.

HSBC is tier 2 - in the same prestige/class as ABN, Dresdner etc...its definately much better than Rabo and HVB...

there was just 4 posts on this thread within 10 seconds! this is obviously stuff people care about

I guess you are right...but I prefer to be associated with a firm that generates top revenue and pays top of the street. BofA might not have been around long, but that's the beauty of it. They went from being unknown to top of league tables in 5 years. I think that says a lot.

The only time the phrase "bulge bracket" should matter to you is when you're looking at job postings that don't mention the firm name, so you can get a grasp of what banks you're dealing with. Just an FYI, but from a recruiter standpoint BB means "top ten bank (JPM, MS, GS, ML, Leh, CS, DB, etc.)."

If they want to represent the top 3-5 banks they say "top tier" or "top tier BB." So the discussion about what BB is not really relevant, unless you're trying to impress some B&T chick.

I think we're getting a bit mixed up - this is NOT a general list to be used to classify various investment banks - rather its ONE bank's view on who their main competitors are and how they grade the INTENSITY of that competition.

I'm quite sure that other banks may carry similar lists and they would differ quite markedly beyond the usual suspects (GS, MS, ML, Citi, Leh, UBS)

love B&T chicks...Jersey girls are hot.

Tier 3 should merely read "everyone else", because none of those banks would compete with GS to any relevelant degree. Maybe unless its 2002 again and GS bankers are trolling in the MM.

What side of the Atlantic are we talking? In Europe, BoA is precisely nowhere, and merits the position. Equally, JPM in Europe I would consider top tier. But then again so is Deutsche. And BarCap is only relevant on the debt side (and derivs / commods) where they beat the crap out of almost everybody in Europe (except Deutsche and Citi)...

So it's an interesting perspective, but not something to get your knickers in a twist over.

this also depends on the industry/product don't forget. No one cares about "overall" rankings becuase they don't make sense in pitches.

Wachovia as a tier 2? No way - more like tier 5 or 6...

Would you rather work at HLHZ over any of the Tier 3 and maybe some of Tier 2?

The MDs at GS must be screwing too much analyst chicks to know who their closest competitors are. The way JPM and Citi use their BS to win deal mandates is something which the other BBs can't replicate.

Bear is awesome. They gave me an offer after one round.

i agree- Citi is definitely one of the best on the street and is very well positioned. It competes directly with GS and is probably beating MS at the moment. lots of momentum and definitely has more room to grow this year. Won't be surprised if it beats GS this year in IBD.

ofcourse that is your assessment, CITIBANKER

this is the best thread by far on this forum.

btw, Lazard is the shiat

You just can't look at last year's Thomson league table. Rankings have prestige build ins too. Brown is a better name better overall school than Michigan but Michigan possible sends plenty of top candidates into wall street.

I agree with JPM in this tier 1. Although I like to call BB tier 1A and the tier 1 here tier 1B. BofA will get to tier 1B soon. But right now grouping them at tier 2 is still fare. I do NOT agrees with putting UBS at tier 1A (BB). They should be ranked along the lines of Deutsche Bank.

I disagree with the comment of "practically the rest others." Jefferies, CIBS, and Piper (solid MM) are way better than "everyone else" this third tier list is fare but the rest of others should go into a tier 4 or unranked category. BB&T, Keybank, SunTrust should be amongst members of this 4th tier.

why did you say the exact same thing in two different posts?

probably replied to 2 different posts without looking at what I just wrote.

Looking back its crazy how much perception has changed.

Piper Jaffray was still 3rd tier.

PLEASE READ THIS

banker88, I do not work for piper jaffray, first of all

Second of all I really suggest that you and others stop going through so damn much trouble to point out piper, jefferies and other banks are so horrible when in fact they are not

i could diss on all the banks with some true facts if i wanted to but most of you and others keep on keeping on for no apparent reason highlighting banks you want to diss

why are you wasting everyone's time, as we have limited time to surf around and I am goign to keep calling you and others like fembota and fordhamaster and 1styearbanker and others and i will comtinue to defecate on you and those who can't just be cool and have fun

kids have to put these firms on their resumes and anyone that gets a job at any of these firms is doing well for themselves and i can tell you many stories of flunkies who worked at goldman sachs and great bankers at jefferies and piper jaffary

so, not trying to waste anyone's time whatsoever, quite the contrary, so let's all do what we can and even those that will be normal human beings and stop using this board to try so damned intentionally to unnecessarily and inaccurately bash other firms

if you work at goldman sachs, then what good does it do to try to denigrate other firms (see their business principals) and if you're denigrating other firms, you're just proving that you don't belong at arguably the best firm in the world

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/careers/our-firm/basics/index.html Our business is highly competitive, and we aggressively seek to expand our client relationships. However, we must always be fair competitors and must never denigrate other firms.

also, i suggest that you and anyone else reading this post also go over to this thread and see what the owners of the site and some of us more experienced gorillas are saying about people like I've mentioned in this post

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/signing-out