BB vs. EB
Solid group at top BB (GS/MS/JPM) vs solid boutique (GHL/Centerview/EVR) for FT?
See a lot of talk about comp not mattering at junior levels but to focus on what would position you the best...so which of type would give "better positioning"?
What ever group you connect the best with at that point in the game your pulling hairs between the shops
is this MS vs GHL?
Ghl in my opinion.
Honestly the top bulges tend to have better placement (maybe with the exception of Blackstone) - a larger network with the headhunters, more exposure to using balance sheet, more establishment in the industry, among other reasons.
Nothing wrong with the boutiques - you often will get a better lifestyle, less bureaucracy, more compensation, and better quality work.
^^ 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.
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.
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.
Are you at a BB or EB atm?
Since all of you are either college kids or junior analysts, here is a link to a post from an MD on these forums. But I wouldn't know any better honestly since I'm a corporate finance analyst at a fortune 100 company. I've only had friends in banking, but the MD sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
www?wallstreetoasis?com/forums/investment-banking-experience-questions#comment-336290
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.
^ False. Everyone knows EBs are better and I don't need any proof or support because this is just the truth.
I currently work in pe at a mm firm. Don't know why folks are saying that they are too many college kids in this thread.
Junior analysts absolutely know better than MDs which banks place better, etc. Again, I think the point worth reiterating here is that EBs are actually incredible. In the past, I really never saw that sentiment on this forum (which may be because I didn't look hard enough).
Last year I turned down offers at EVR and LAZ to summer at a solid group at a "top" BB and let me tell you that in terms of hours, pay, and placement that decision made no sense. I had friends at Evercore getting off consistently at 10 with no serious weekend work while I was working 7 days a week till 2. You can look into pay but my friend at Centerview made around 200K this year and while they are the outlier for pay, the other boutiques definitively pay higher bonuses than GS/MS. Placement can be deceptive because boutiques are smaller and so by default will have less people at solid funds. However, I see Lazard and Evercore (and obviously BX) coming up consistently at every major PE fund and I can't say the same for anywhere else except the tippy top groups at GS and MS.
I think people get the wrong idea because they see Journal headlines about JPM and GS almost daily whereas Lazard seems to never really get talked about. I have friends at GS and MS...also in solid groups...who are all leaving for the boutiques because their track record really is by far and away better than your standard BB. And I really don't think this difference is overstated.
Check: //www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/former-ms-ma...
The guy posted (this is a data point from just KKR, other PE firms might have slightly different preferences)
"Appreciate it, god only knows how much filth is spewed in this forum. I've been a reader for quite some time and can't begin to explain how much misinformation is shared on this website. The elite boutiques are good for megafunds but the top groups are as follows:
GS TMT far and away #1 GS FIG / BX Restructuring MS M&A
After that, it's good to be in any of the major M&A groups (or other industry groups at GS/MS), merrill's legacy m&a group which is now in BAML is pretty good, citi M&A is pretty good, the boutiques are also good (Lazard and BX M&A are terrific although Greenhill and evercore are a step behind in recruiting, moelis also does well since UBS LA had a strong track record of placement on the west coast at tpg and kkr west coast). The fact of the matter is, if you are not in one of these groups, it is an uphill battle. If you are in one of these main groups that I've mentioned, recruiters contact you, and all you do is submit your resume, and the rest is history. I never cold called a fund once, nor do they particularly want you to call them. They know what groups they generally want to reach out to, and they go back to them year after year. Again, is this fair? No. However, it is generally a good way to fill up a class if 8-10 people because on average the kids at GS are smarter than the kids at CS and so on. It's just a fact of life. Kids from non targets absolutely do occur, but they will need to do more networking through their own senior people, or through winning the ear of headhunters. Like anything else though, once you get an interview, the playing field is fairly flat. KKR's not going to take some bumbling fool from GS tmt over some stud in UBS just because he's from a better group."
FIG and CRG have arguably outdone it in the past two cycles (CRG takes fewer analysts, FIG takes literally double TMT's). I can and am literally happy to bust out names right now if necessary.
BX R&R and M&A place lights-out. I'll direct you to this thread: //www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/blackstone-rxma
I have worked/currently work in/know people in each and every single group I've mentioned so far and am not speaking heedlessly.
Basically, I'd argue that we're seeing a real trend toward the studs going to the top boutiques. In this post-crisis world, you are going to get paid better, treated better, see better deals (in some cases), and enjoy better exits from the strongest boutiques than the strongest groups at the bulge brackets. Couple that with the fact that you can't guarantee placement into the best group at the big banks, and it's easy to see why the best guys go for BX, Moelis, Lazard, and Evercore where they know they don't have to worry about getting into M&A (MS), TMT or FIG (GS), or M&A or Sponsors (JPM).
Let's go over some examples. Centerview, for instance, pays $80k base, $50k signing, and $100k bonus right now. Moelis pays $70k base, $15k signing (may be corrected on this), and $70k bonus. Evercore is the same save for $65k bonus. No solid info for Lazard, but imagine it is similar.
I have friends at JPM who were grousing over $35k and $45k at the end of the year (different groups). Same at MS. And let's not forget the classic 'GS discount' where they know you'll stick around for the brand and can afford to pay you less. Summers at GS don't get overtime. Analyst bonuses don't match salary like they do at the boutiques.
Now, as a reality check, realize that getting a job at any of these groups is a tremendous feat. The amount of entitlement on these forums either nauseates me or makes me laugh and shake my head depending on my mood when I read it. You're in the top 1% of all college graduates in terms of earnings, and you're set to a career where it only gets better. Obviously, human nature is to always want more and thus we continually strive for the next thing better on our imaginary little checklist, but some perspective is definitely in order. I hope we can all step back to take a moment to reflect on how privileged we are for the seats we have.
These arbitrary lists and static rankings grow really stale and tiresome. The original post in this thread was clearly derived from some (admittedly studious) trolling of countless WSO threads, but that's exactly the problem. CS Sponsors hasn't been good in 5 years, but the guy found a dozen threads from 2007-09 talking about how strong it was and how great the exits were, so he stuck it in his list. The MS M&A/KKR guy's post is also dated, and doubly so. For one, it's from years ago, and secondly, his perspective is also dated because he was 2-4 years out from his analyst experience when he wrote it.
The guy who talked in terms of 'bucketing' has it right, and even then, it's still arbitrary. I've met people at funds everyone here would give their left arm to work at who came recently from (the horror!) Jefferies, BAML, UBS, and other firms that continually get dumped on here. People care about your intelligence and competence. The firm you start at is certainly a good indicator of those traits, but you really determine that in an interview.
To wrap up, if you have the chance to work at any of these firms, congrats. You're on the path. If you're choosing between them though, I'd recommend putting some actual energy into reaching out and getting in front of/on the phone with people who currently work or recently left the places you're looking at. They'll be able to provide you real, concrete, actual info on placement, pay, and culture ... and that's remarkably more useful than coming on here to hear the same drivel regurgitated by people whose only impressions are formed by what they themselves have read here.
This might be one of the most enlightening posts I have read on WSO. Thank you APAE.
Then is there any differences now in getting into these Boutiques versus "Top Groups" in terms of things they look that or would it still be similar all around?
Extremely informative and absolutely true post. The biggest factor that makes candidates lean towards EBs over BBs is the guarantee of working in M&A.
The only nit I would add here is that your boutique comp numbers are low.
This may be the best thing I've ever read on WSO
Basically this questions should be decided by facts and statistics, rather than opinions and emotions of random college kids. Have any ballers from LAZ/EVR/GNH posted their group's exit stats somewhere on WSO? They should be compared with groups at GS/MS. Better yet if someone can consolidate that information and put it in one thread it will be a big service to everyone.
Pure Advisory Firm (EB) vs. Full Service Investment Bank (BB) (Originally Posted: 10/02/2015)
For those who are at pure advsiory firms (elite boutiques), why do you prefer this over a full service investment bank?
For those of you at full service investment banks (bulge brackets), why do you prefer this to a pure advisory firm?
In interviews with elite boutiques, I need to sell the idea that I want a pure advisory shop. In interviews with bulge brackets I need to sell the idea that I want a full service investment bank/
What are some positives (and negatives) of each?
All input is appreciated.
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...
It would be redundant for me to add much more, but I'll point to a lengthy post I did awhile ago on this. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/david-and-goliath-the-boutique-and-…
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
yeah that's not always true. BX(PJT) bonuses were never above the street. Moelis bonuses vary from a bottom bucket of 10k to a top bucket of 100k. CV, EVR, and GHL have typically higher bonuses. Lazard's bonuses might even be below the street (like the Goldman discount).
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.
Great write up on the difference. SB+
BBwayne do you think it's easier to be promoted in a BB vs EB?
Hard to say, but I would think it'd be easier at a BB as it is more of a numbers game rather than competency game. Not saying everyone at BB's are idiots, but trust me - there are a lot of bad apples. As an analyst you will learn this very quickly. Some associates are just.. lol
BB or EB for long-term IB? (Originally Posted: 10/25/2014)
If you wanted to do IB long-term, would you rather be at a BB or an EB? Why? Any specific banks you'd want to be at?
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
Centerview I can understand based on what I've heard, but why Lazard and pjt? Heard bad thing a about laz and have no experience with pjt
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.
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.
Could you touch a little bit on the career path and progression for ECM/DCM bankers at BBs?
And before I get a barrage of "you're wrong", i see holes in the reasoning above...i'm just curious.
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)?
Ultimately, raising capital is the core function of investment banks, and I don't see that changing. Firms like Evercore serve a purpose but they are fundamentally at the margins of the business, not at the heart of the business.
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?
To those in top BB groups who had EB offers...why? (Originally Posted: 01/07/2015)
This isn't meant to be glib, but I really wanted a look into the mindset that drove the decision. For those currently/formerly in a top BB group (GS TMT/FIG/ConsHealth, MS M&A, JPM Sponsors, etc.), what drove the decision to pick it over an EB offer? What, if anything, did you know about your potential placement before taking the offer? How rigorous was actually getting into the top group (in terms of networking, further interviews, etc.)? How has placement been compared to people at boutiques or other groups at your BB?
Non fuga velit atque dolorum exercitationem ea error id. Ea aliquid ducimus corrupti et. Error doloribus omnis illum qui iusto vero sunt consectetur. Facilis commodi atque deserunt.
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...
Error itaque dolor eius quia. Et ab placeat ad nemo soluta consequatur cumque. Ipsam et non voluptatibus suscipit quia explicabo id omnis. Amet consequatur debitis perspiciatis architecto.
Debitis repellat et est vel qui odit nemo accusantium. Quibusdam quam dicta excepturi in eveniet aut.
Et cupiditate quaerat accusamus qui exercitationem. Velit unde voluptas vel amet. Facilis sint inventore nesciunt repellat natus iusto quisquam. Officia vel omnis magnam fuga iure. Quia vitae consequatur itaque aspernatur. Sunt excepturi officia illo id id quia omnis.
Quia quidem veniam nisi sed accusamus. Aut quo eius labore ratione aut aut veritatis. Sunt culpa eum nisi rem.
Voluptate quidem quia minima sint. Placeat esse deleniti laborum ducimus fuga voluptas. Ipsa aut quos nobis officia non dolorem.