BB vs. EB

Hm, interesting. I think that it depends more on the person and the firm one works at, than in what group one is working. There was a guy recently who went from Jefferies to Blackstone. According to WSO, the universe should collapse now, as this was never thought to be possible, especially since he was not part of that former USB HC team or metals & mining or any other "decent" group at JEF.

Money4Life:

^^
I 100% disagree. Having worked this summer at a GS/MS/JPM, I saw first hand that at any group other than the top 1 or 2 groups, most people at BB banks don't place well. Moreover, I really only think that GS TMT/FIG and MS M&A and Media/Comm have any true advantage over the EVR/LAZ group. JPM placement, yes even in their M&A group, is frankly not that great. Full disclosure, I am going to a boutique for FT.

Agree with this assessment. Top boutiques tend to have better placement on balance than solid groups at top BBs. Only top groups at top BBs outplace shops like EVR / LAZ. Especially when combining that with the better lifestyle and comp at EBs, I would lean EB.

Suffice it to say, "junior analysts" know a whole lot more about what banks are better suited for prospective analysts (i.e. have good placement, treatment of analysts, hours, etc.) than do MDs.

Can tell you that this year, LAZ / EVR / GHL had analysts go to KKR, which should invalidate the dated WSO post you linked.

The argument for an independent advisory firm: - Part of something that is growing (in most cases), exciting momentum behind the firm etc. - Often generalist analyst programmes; breadth early on makes sense for most people - Often offer restructuring services that BB firms do not - Senior bankers are typically ex group heads at BBs, not just former MDs (i.e. high quality) - Superior job security: no chance some prop trader will cause your firm to go bankrupt, or that a new CEO is going to refocus the firm on retail banking or wealth management - Competitive advantage in some complex transaction types (e.g. cross-border M&A) - Normally M&A heavy with some ECM and restructuring - Compensation is often higher - Lean deal teams means exposure across the deal process (1 analyst per deal) - Senior bankers more likely to take an interest in your development - Stand out a bit to headhunters if you are looking to go to the buyside - Typically more collaborative cultures - Entrepreneurial types will thrive by making the most of the lack of bureaucracy/structure - At least in the UK: attracts people genuinely interested in finance rather than prestige whores (culture benefits) and the list goes on...

Here are some thoughts:

If you work at an independent advisory firm: 1) obviously the focus is on M&A/restructuring advisory, and there generally won't be financing work if that's not your thing. also, you don't have to worry about group placement 2) relatively fewer resources and smaller teams mean that, in general, that there is less bullshit work (company profiles etc) and you tend to interact more with the senior guys. on the other hand you're not tag-teaming with a team from the coverage side so when it gets busy, you shoulder the burden entirely 3) smaller analyst classes and concentration of talent has historically meant less tiering/bucketing and having less competition for headhunter attention; unsure how this changes today as some of these firms expand (Evercore M&A, for instance, is now ~30 analysts a year) 4) on the buyside recruiting note, more of the EBs still have a 2-year program with the expectation that you will recruit in your first year for PE/HF, with senior bankers either not interfering or even helping you in the process; do not underestimate how much stress this lifts off during recruiting season 5) comp tends to be higher, not that this should be a key consideration at this stage in your career

On the other hand, if you work at a BB: 1) there are simply more people your age, IBD might have 80 analysts a year as opposed to an advisory shop with 10 guys in M&A. you will simply build a larger network, which is very valuable down the line whether you remain a career banker, jump to PE/HF, or do something else entirely 2) by and large the names GS/MS/JPM etc. tend to command more respect in the corporate world as well as in other fields that you may be inclined to pursue after your banking stint. the branding/stamp of approval is powerful and makes it easier to move into a broad set of opportunities (outside PE/HF) post-banking 3) if you are on the coverage side, you tend to absorb a lot about the industry you work on (say, natural resources), which makes your experience an easier sell if you want to jump to the energy group in a PE shop, an energy/infrastructure focused fund, or do biz dev for an oil major or chemicals company or something

I will not talk about culture/hours because they are so highly variable across each BB and EB and across groups/teams within each group so I do not think you can generalize. In the end, this choice really comes down to 1) your longer-term goals and 2) personal fit, but I hope the above points are helpful.

Some boutiques (CVP/MC/EVR/BX) have higher bonuses

if you get a 10k bonus, you may as well not show up. you have to be extremely bad to get a 10k bonus, so wouldn't let that deter you

I've worked at both, and echo the prior comments; here's some things that you may understand if you have even 1 month in the industry that can truly change your analyst experience. If not, take it for what it's worth:

EB: - No bs memos or committee work, ever. This will shave about >20 hours /week of work over the course of your 1st year as an analyst. Trust me - No room for error, especially if you work on a very lean team. Good/bad to this; no associate to cower behind if your mistake shows up at a meeting, good in the sense that you work directly for some very senior bankers in the industry. - Noticed in the boutique model, it's intellectual capital over financial capital. Always think about this: when one of the boutiques get hired for some m&a role, it's strictly for their advice. I found that at full-service firms, many times , firms will get hired because they have a checkbook with them (underwriting equity, debt, etc.) rather than the firm's employees having knowledge that adds value to the process/management. Thus, it's correct to assume that the level of intellectual quality at a boutique is inherently higher since they bring in deals based on what they can provide intellectually rather than what the firm can contribute financially. From my personal experience, this has been the case. - Less % of your work gets 'killed'. But I think this is because the deal teams are leaner, and many times as an analyst you will be running processes and submitting work directly to MD's. - Less resources. Not in terms of technology, because I firmly believe technology is literally crappy everywhere to a certain extent but let's say you want access to some database online that you have to pay for? Tons of hoops to jump through to get the firm to pay for it/get you access. Onboarding is a tedious, tedious process at my particular EB. I pretty much did HR's job for them. Recruiting is horrible too - I personally had to write out rejection letters to candidates, schedule the superday, lots of random administrative work that needs to be done that most full service firms will have divisions do for you.

BB/'Full-Service' Bank: - Brand name. As much as everyone wants to downplay the fact that this does not matter, let's be honest with ourselves and just accept that it does. Though saying you work on "Wall Street" or as an "investment Banker" is probably not what it used to be, it is still something most people who get the offer letter take great pride in. Even if you work for even one of the well-known EB's like I do, 99% of people outside of the industry won't know what the firm is. This leads to having to justify what you do at family events, etc. Just annoying. - Resources: when I first started I had access to everything; capital iq, factset, everything. If you want access to some random site? Easy, fairly seamless process. - Memos and committee work f*cking sucks. Trust me. You will do a TON of work that clients never see, and it will sometimes force you in on the weekends to do them. It blows. - TO me, capital markets transactions are extremely boring, so I miss nothing about working at a BB/Full Service Bank. I'd say the ONLY thing BB's can provide an analyst extensive experience on that an EB cannot is in Leveraged Finance. But even then, the only part EB analyst miss out on are the bank book/etc., basically just the 'process' and nothing mindblowing. This also applies to IPOs, though its the same as a LevFin transaction. Only thing as an EB analyst you miss out on is the 'process'. As an EB analyst, you will do an IPO model to show clients and learn them pretty much inside and out as well. M&A isn't just about telling companies to buy/sell themselves all the time. You will be covering the whole range of strategic alternatives.

All I can think of for now.

BBwayne do you think it's easier to be promoted in a BB vs EB?

Zaoui & Co. and Paul Taubman's shop

Bump, anyone else?

Thanks for posts above. To add context, I am already doing ib at a global bank and want do get an MBA and possibly return to banking, and am curious about the differences at BBs and EBs from a long term career perspective

Personally I'd say PJT Partners, Centerview, or Lazard if I was interested in IB for the long term

from mergersandacquisitions78 discussing building a career at an EB vs BB

I've thought about and recently when I took this particular position, I was evaluating going into one of the firms you mentioned above in a senior role. Ultimately, I didn't do it when I was a younger banker because it is virtually impossible to make partner at an EB as a homegrown banker. EBs are full of very good execution Directors or non-partner MDs who simply do not have the platform or the opportunities to develop their own book of business. You will note that the senior people in EBs are never homegrown and were almost all senior guys from BBs. I didn't move as a partner because I like the broader network, platform, resourcing in my current firm. At this stage in my career, I'm more interested in running the top team in the street in my area, than doing a couple one-off deals at an EB. Restructuring is really the only area where you see homegrown partners.

2. I think you get great training at an EB, but you do as well at a top BB group, so its a hard call as an associate - really depends on specific groups. But for reasons noted above, unless you are doing restructuring, you should move to a BB as a junior VP in order to have a path to make MD.

I will say whIle it's a double edged sword lean deal teams are great in that I own the entire process for every project. I don't have to hand off to coverage, m&a, sponsors, etc. Downside is I have to read PIBs whenever I pick up something new to get up to speed

This is one of the places where I am always surprised at how shortsighted people are. I would make a few comments:

• I can think of 2 bankers that have had truly successful careers having grown up at the so-called EBs. One is Robert Pruzan who co-founded Centerview, the other is Michael Price at Evercore who started his career at Lazard. There are execution MDs at these shops who are at best on $1.5mm-$2.0mm a year to execute deals for other bankers, or there maybe some who have built mid-market advisory careers. This is hardly a prize, particularly since many of these bankers are very talented and could have been more successful working elsewhere. And these are the lucky ones. I have seen too many peers who are highly talented bankers see their careers fritter away at these firms and not even get to that stage. They have no clients of their own and can't transition to a BB.

• There are some exceptions to this (Lazard in London or Paris, Rotschild in London or Paris, etc.), but no one really considers Lazard or Rothschild a boutique in those markets; not to mention that these firms do not pay particularly well outside the U.S.

• Restructuring is also a specific exception, although the road is long, difficult and very market dependent.

• There is no chance Michael Zaoui could have become Michael Zaoui or PJT could become PJT or Blair Effron could become Blair Effron at their current firms. They were able to get there because of their careers at Morgan Stanley, UBS, etc.

• Virtually 100% of the real moneymakers at Evercore, Centerview, PWP, PJT etc. and even Lazard in the U.S. built their careers at the real investment banks.

• The skillset you develop at an EB is narrow, and will limit your relevance to clients over time.

• This is not to say EBs are bad firms. They serve a purpose to their clients, and the top guys are making substantial multiples of what they would have had they stayed in their present roles. Even the next rung of partners are probably on average flat relative to their past with far less work / administrative headache.

I view one's career in banking in four stages:

• Analyst / associate: This is when you are building the tools to do your job well. You want to work in a team that will have the best deal flow, where there are people who care for your development, and you won't burn out. I'd argue the EB's do very well here, and I consider them very good choices, but I will say that the depth of experience at any top BB group will be greater, and if you have thick skin, those are the better choices.

• VP / Director: This is when you are setting yourself up to MD. The most important thing is to build a platform where you can develop your own book of clients, and be perceived to be a credible advisor / banker to those clients. This is virtually impossible to do at an EB, where you will still be under serious pressure to do an execution role, and you don't have the institutional platform to win clients as a junior banker. These are the levels where it makes all the sense in the world to go to a BB, the sooner the better. I would also say that firms treat homegrown bankers better than laterals so if you transfer, you will initially be at a disadvantage although this dissipates over time.

• Ambitious MD: Here, you are running a silo or even a larger team. The key here is to win as much business as possible and be on the most important deals to establish yourself as a BSD in the industry. Virtually impossible to do at an EB because even for the most productive bankers, deal volume is lower, you have fewer resources at your disposal and financing matters.

• Settled MD: You are at the top of your field. There are several clients where you are their first call. You don't have to work as hard for your deals. Here, you can be a sr. group head or Vice Chairman of a BB if you like the big firm or join an EB as a partner, if you are sick of the politics and the administration. If the latter, you had better be sure that your client's view of you matches your own inflated ego. I've seen a lot of bankers make the move, and fail miserably because they didn't realize how much they relied on the brand / platform of their BB. If you are truly exceptional (like PJT or Blair Effron or Michael Zaoui), starting your own firm will make you substantially richer.

Hope this helps.

mergersandacquisitions78 - would you say this may change in the future due to increasing regulation for real investment banks (as opposed to so-called advisory shops such as Evercore)?

mergersandacquisitions78 question for you: Why don't BB bankers face the same execution pressure as EBs? If deal volume in general is lower at the EBs, shouldn't that mean there is more time for mid-level people to be out there in the field building a client base?

I guess in general, if you could describe how VPs and Directors can build their own client base while executing their MD's deals that would be interesting to hear. Is it a matter of waiting till your MD retires to take over his clients? How can mid-level bankers possibly win large corporations as clients assuming they are already well covered by all of the other BBs?