BAML M&A London - Exit opps? Hours? Reputation?
Hello fellow monkeys! I have just gotten a full time offer as analyst 1 in the BAML M&A team in London. My long term objective is Long/Short Equity, although to get there if it is really necessary I would be willing to do PE first (been told going to HFs from PE is a lot easier than going there from banking).
How is BAML in general and the M&A team in particular positioned for exit opps into L/S Equity?
How about exits into mega funds PEs and well reputed middle market PEs?
Let’s be conservative and assume I will be an analyst ranked mediocrely or average - How are the opportunities? Do I need to be top bucket for the nice exits?
Also, How are the hours? Did a summer in IB GS/MS/JPM and found it absolutely brutal (2-5 am every night). Is it going to be the same at BAML as analyst? I am definitely a hard worker but I do need to sleep at least 6 hours a night on average, I can survive on 4 but not for more than 2 weeks.
Thank you all in advance for the contributions!
Anyone? I need help fast
First of all I think you should really think through whether you want to do banking. If you do not want to work long hours then get a job at KPMG or some other shit. Second, BAML is no GS and getting into HFs will be very hard
Ahahaha thank you for the positive attitude. I guess Wharton is no HBS so everyone who goes there has no chance. Also, just because I want to remain sane it does not mean I am not willing to work hard...Go back to your college room as you are 100% a student who does not know what he is talking about. Is there any serious person that can help me make my decision with serious info? Would be highly appreciated.
Anyone?
BAML in London is growing really fast, it seems to be be trying to compete with GS/JP/MS in the short term by expanding their classes and poaching MDs from these firms.
Nevertheless, it still hasnt taken place, you wont have problems to place into PE as long as you are good and speak other languages than English.
In any case, you will find competition and you will have to face it. Wouldnt say that M&A is the top team at BAML, but you will get interviews with top funds
Thanks a lot for the response! I only speak Portuguese fluently (my grandma) and then English. Would that be enough for top tier PEs. How are my chances for equity hedge funds?
Cant tell you exactly for equity HF but for PE thats more than enough, as you are bringing some language benefitial for Iberia & Brazil
And yes, hours are so brutal at the analyst / associate level
Oh also something else. You mentioned being good. How important is the bucket you place in? Let’s say there are 5 buckets 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. If I place in bucket 3 or 4, would that meant the end of me in terms of buyside recruiting? I have really solid finance knowledge and a good personality but I am very slow at Excel and Power Point compared to my peers as I had never done any of it until this summer. Would that hinder me a lot bucketwise?
Man relax. You have an offer from an American BB and speak a second European language. Dozens of people just like you make it to the buyside every year.
I am just trying to understand whether to accept that or a place as an equity analyst at Schroeders given my dream to eventually work in L/S Equity
I am uncertain between these two offers and I need help
If you don’t think you can hack the lifestyle go for Schroders but from AM moving to L/S HF will be tough. Work will be closer to investing but surely more long term thus not QoQ approach that many HFs have
BAML M&A is a good team but mostly exits to PE as it is a very process heavy team and they are one of the teams that work the longest hours at BAML. I don’t see that many people moving from PE to HFs in London compared to NYC but that is because less funds are 2 and out funds. Most of the MM or SM here recruit straight after banking so you’ll have to explain your move well and you may take a pay cut/title downgrade back to what they would recruit out of banking after 2/3 years.
Industry coverage at BAML have historically sent more people to L/S HFs directly.
Agree with the above, Schroders is really not a common stepping stone for HF exits (neither for Single or Multi Managers) with IB/M&A/RX being the most common route. In London, HFs are obviously often quite small and therefore often appreciate the tight knit culture/structure and high level of personal responsibility of EBs with for instance Moelis having strong HF exits. If at a BB, an industry team is preferrable (actually quite often FIG due to the highly technical nature) as deal experience is a much less significant factor compared to industry knowledge/industry-specific technical knowledge.
BAML M&A is (among) the best team(s) at BAML London as, while definitely also doing process work (however, mostly on deals with no mid-level people from the team, so only Analyst-MD), juniors get more deal flow than at any other team (consistent modelling if you do a good job in the beginning). PE Exits have been probably the best at the firm (Apollo, TPG, Advent, Apax, Providence, CDR, ) but HF exits are very rare. Hours are among the worst at the bank as a function of working mostly on live situations (but note that long hours means strong learning to HHs)
Hey, thanks for the info. Do you have any experience on the matter? I am getting so much conflicting info. Lots of people tell me that as a long only equity analyst in the buyside it is not that hard to get to be a long/short equity analyst citing more relevant experience, markets knowledge, and the fact that you have almost no peers as AM recruiting is so hard (got 4 banking offers but only 1 in AM after 4 rounds). On the other hand, people cite the fact that AM could be too long term and hence say it is better to get the generalist experience in banking. I must say though that the second point is less convincing. If HFs were concerned that AM is too long term then why on earth would they hire someone from PE which is even more long term? PEs look at companies in a 5-7 years horizon, AM 2 years, HFs 2 months. Do not see how PE is closer to HFs. People will cite the modeling experience but even that seems weak as many HF people have told me they do almost no modeling. In general I think there may a misconception based on two factors: (i) IB Hours sucking which results in every banker recruiting like crazy just to get out of there while most people in AM are happy and do not recruit at all (ii) IB classes being so much larger. My estimate is that there is about 400-600 new analysts every year doing IB at reputable banks while about 20-50 new recruits doing AM at reputable funds with more than 200bn in AUM, hence no wonder you see more bankers when looking at the number of people in HFs in absolute value.
What do you think?
I’d go with schroders if it’s a proper investing role - where you are generating alpha through fundamental stock ideas. The skill set is a lot more transferable to a L/S HF than banking.
I would think that too. Do you have any direct experience? What is your role? Or are you just making a decision based on logic?
X
Hey, thanks for the info. Do you have any experience on the matter? I am getting so much conflicting info. Lots of people tell me that as a long only equity analyst in the buyside it is not that hard to get to be a long/short equity analyst citing more relevant experience, markets knowledge, and the fact that you have almost no peers as AM recruiting is so hard (got 4 banking offers but only 1 in AM after 4 rounds). On the other hand, people cite the fact that AM could be too long term and hence say it is better to get the generalist experience in banking. I must say though that the second point is less convincing. If HFs were concerned that AM is too long term then why on earth would they hire someone from PE which is even more long term? PEs look at companies in a 5-7 years horizon, AM 2 years, HFs 2 months. Do not see how PE is closer to AM. People will cite the modeling experience but even that seems weak as many HF people have told me they do almost no modeling. In general I think there may a misconception based on two factors: (i) IB Hours sucking which results in every banker recruiting like crazy just to get out of there while most people in AM are happy and do not recruit at all (ii) IB classes being so much larger. My estimate is that there is about 400-600 new analysts every year doing IB at reputable banks while about 20-50 new recruits doing AM at reputable funds with more than 200bn in AUM, hence no wonder you see more bankers when looking at the number of people in HFs in absolute value.
What do you think?
I
x
d
Anyone else?
?
M
Stop posting these dickish comments to boost your post and accept your BAML offer
You are right, I am sorry about that. Do you think BAML would be better than Schroders for hedge funds? Do you have any direct experience on the matter? Thank you
It is a very good team, historically, probably the best at BAML in terms of PE placement.
Pros: - Great deal flow (usually juniors will have among the most transaction experience) and exposure to financial modelling (especially the more demanding parts) -> juniors are often overrepresented in the top-bucket - Ability to work across industries (the team primarily works with the standard industries such as Industrials, HC etc.) -> simultaneously generalist but also ability to become the go-to M&A guy within a (sub)sector after having done an RFP/deal; also able to build a broader network within the firm - Generally nice people, work very efficiently - Track record of strong exits in private equity (funds above are correct) - Have their own area with nicer desks and day light
Cons: - Lifestyle can be quite stressful because most things are live -> will be a lot harder to schedule private affairs 2/3 weeks out since you never know what can happen (obviously also the case for industry teams during deals but definitely very consistently the case in M&A) - You will do process work -> often juniors will have one situation in their first year where they basically do a lot of the process after which that tries to be avoided by the staffer; in the latest analyst class there is a pronounced focus on avoiding situations like that all together -> personal judgement call whether that is worse to you than non-deal related grunt work in industry teams (product/process vs industry "expertise") - If you are looking for a party team, this might not be the team for you as the atmosphere can probably described more so as friendly/collegiate and professional - Depending on what you want to do long-term, you might benefit from not going with a product team but rather specialise in an industry right away; for PEs with clear industry silos as well as certain HFs, it would probably be beneficial to join one of the good industry teams such as Industrials or FIG/HC
Thanks a lot for the very useful and detailed description. How important is Power Point quickness and ability? How about Excel? I know corporate finance well but I am slow/not good at both of these. Am I destined to be in bottom or mediocred bucket?Also, how good is it for HFs?
Illo voluptatem in sapiente eos. Amet et ut cum esse consequatur. Harum illo doloremque omnis dolore omnis aliquid.
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...
Nulla a in quia voluptas velit non sequi. Eaque enim ratione illo autem minima ullam quasi.