Q&A: VP at Morgan Stanley to Leading Corp M&A Department

I really appreciate this first question re: why transition & was there no path? The path piece has a lot of components to it for any banker, but the most important to me was do I want the path laid out for me? The more senior I became as a VP, the more I observed the challenges and stress that MDs face. As I put myself in those same shoes, the role became less and less appealing to me. I also lost two of my key mentors nine months and six months respectively before I chose to leave, and their absence was a meaningful influence on why I left.

In terms of comp changes, it will depend heavily on what role you land, size of company, their incentive structure (public vs private), and what firm & level you are leaving. Most companies understand there is a quality of experience & access they are seeking, and will pay accordingly. It is more likely the shift to corporate will see a pay cut, but I have known senior bankers to receive a pay bump. On paper, I took a pay cut, but with leaving NYC for Chicago, my lifestyle is markedly improved given I keep 7-8% more of my income and my cost of living is significantly less. I also sought a compensation level that would be competitive today but had room for promotion within 18-24 months.

I love the CPG space because consumers are finicky and ever changing, so things remain interesting as it relates to my interests. My opinion is there are no recession-proof industrie, just recession-proof people. "If you trade passion for stability, you basically trade one fiction for another. Both are products of our imagination." - Esther Perel

I'm really glad you asked the question re: if not Consumer, which group? For Morgan Stanley, so many groups have fantastic team cultures, it would be tough to flag which one. Within the associate program, Morgan Stanley is the last firm on the street to do a generalist Associate pool. While it can insight fears for MBAs in terms of getting their "top choice" group, it is a really wonderful way to address group culture and group fit. Besides, how do you know if a group is really your "top choice" if you haven't worked with them?

My short answer is the Consumer group was wonderful for me, but would have been not so wonderful for some of my peers. There are other groups that are highly regarded, but I wouldn't have liked working in them. The cultures are quite different group to group, and it doesn't have much to do with Tech vs Industrials vs CPG. I did have a lot of friends in our Transpo group, so if I had to go to a different group, I would have picked Transpo.

In terms of being a woman, to be truthful, I don't know if and how it impacted my career. I'm not sure if I was included in meetings/pitches/deals/teams or excluded in meetings/pitches/deals/teams due to my gender. I knew there were clients that didn't want to work with women, and if I ended up on a project on that account, I worked through it and rotated off where I could. There were accounts that preferred women (generally clients that were women), so I tried to take advantage of those opportunities. But truthfully, I'm not sure I'll ever know if being a woman in IB impacted my career. For me, what mattered and why I chose to stay so long, is I saw a path for my career that excited me. I felt supported by my male colleagues and supervisors. I saw other women being promoted and supported while growing their families. I felt pressure to do more than the guys in terms of handling more accounts, deals and projects, but I'd point to the Sheryl Sandberg "Lean In" effect and the terrible burden placed on women from that book more than pressure from my firm.

In terms of college to today and what I would have done differently, I would have pushed back on my parents only allowing me to go to an in-state public university. I was the last of three kids to go to school, and I would have chosen to take on student loans to go where I wanted to go. Career choices are limited if you are operating outside the Ivy League. Would I have ended up in IB right away? Who knows, but at times I feel I'll always fight my undergrad institution (Ohio State) in accelerating my career in M&A. Beyond that, every step of my career path has made me who I am today, so it is tough to change any part of it because I love where I am today.

As for MS, being technically sound as a junior is the most critical part of moving ahead. If you are going in as an associate, run the models, spread the comps and get as many reps as you can in a short period of time so you know the analysts role back and forth. Own mistakes quickly, early and with humility - and don't repeat mistakes. Overall, sharp elbows at MS are frowned upon - learn to play nicely with others across all functions, teams and the like. They pride themselves on being the nice guys on the street. And, based on what I've observed from other firms I do think they've earned that rep.

Thanks, Rocafella. While I'm still feeling this out for myself, I've noticed a consistent framework. Because I work for a publicly traded company with a RCF/Revolver, we need to pay our banks who lend to us. If an M&A assignment is extremely complex, and the banks we have who can handle the assignment are conflicted, we will go outside the bank group to hire the right talent. Rarely does a bank bring us an idea that we haven't already pursued or point to a company that we don't already know. If they have an inside track on what's going on inside the company and how we can best position ourselves, or can bring a unique relationship angle to provide better access, that's different.

The trouble with EB (Elite Boutiques) is they don't have capital markets execution capabilities for buysides or mergers. They can't tap into teammates who can get a read on how the credit ratings, bond markets and equity markets may view the deal. In large-scale buysides and mergers, advice on how much debt, at what cost, where equity investors will land, etc, is much needed in those situations. Therefore, it is difficult to justify bringing them in unless they have a unique relationship angle.

If we were to pursue any divestitures, EBs would be fine, but again, would go to feed our bank group first (assuming bank group is capable and conflict-free.)

In general, we handle most of our transactions in-house and only contract withwith outside legal counsel. Maybe 10% of my deal flow now involves outside bankers.