Citi slipping down the league tables drastically

No big deal

So you want us to predict the future for you.

Citi is no.2 one year and number 7 another. Clearly its still a good bank/BB. Maybe they will rebound maybe they wont but I would worry about that once you get an offer.

And dont worry about league tables so much, theres more to picking a bank.

Thank you guys-I understand, but I am sure all of us who aspire a career in IBD want to start off at a place which experiences a lot of deal flow so that we can get to work on more deals.

I am just doubtful if that would be the case with Citi going forward? Sorry, if im coming across as a pestering kid. But, AGAIN, from people I have talked to at Citi, things have picked up really well though no one will be ready to admit that their bank is not strong.

They were #1 in the world for last month according to: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/deal-makers-start-year-with-a-ba…

(Largely because of the AIG deal)

But really, a few large deals could make the difference between being #3 and #7. Does it really matter? In terms of reputation, for BB M&A I'd say it's GS > MS > JPM > Citi = CS > DB > BAML = UBS = Barcap, but really it's all just opinion.

You're talking about one of the largest banks in the world. They will be just fine. It's not like its UBS (kidding...kind of). The deal flow is going to be both group specific and pretty relative. Your comparing BB banks here, junior, not a BB v. a local credit union.

Get a few offers first, then you can be picky.

really? i would've put barcap a lot higher and citi lower...but wtv

If you base your decision purely off of league tables, you are bound to make mistakes in choosing your employer.

I mean, you can be sure that from the perspective of prestige, most BBs (maybe except of UBS) and EBs are strong and will open doors for you. So the next thing you need to look at is the specific group you're interviewing for, not the total $ amount of deals a bank did world-wide in the last x years.

When you look at global M&A league tables, the difference between a #3 and a #6 can be GS/MS will probably be #1 and #2 forever, but there really isn't much of a difference between the others. By no means should you ever look at one year's league table and decide a bulge bracket bank isn't in the top 5. Deal flow between groups in any one bank is much more variable and a much more important factor in deciding between offers.

whichever bank's folks you feel most comfortable, gun for that.

On Reuters Citi came in 7th but I remember seeing on maybe Bloomberg or FT Citi at 5th... I wouldnt worry about it

yea, UBS is not doing well. their top line management is departing to other banks.

Remember that this forum is more US centric, and hence the opinions are biased as well. If you are talking about UBS in Asia, the bank is definitely a top class BB (take a look at the league tables of APAC ex. Japan for ECM and M&A).

I would put UBS high up there in Asia, along with GS, MS, JPM.. To each his own though..

As Randombetech and others have echoed, the difference between no. 3 and no.7 is ususally one mega deal. Chances are you wont be working on that mega deal anyway.

And you are a pestering kid, you dont even have an offer and you are staring at the leauge tables hoping they will tell you something. Then you come here and throw out some stats of which you fail to see the underlying numbers.

"They were #1 in the world for last month according to: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/deal-makers-start-year-with-a-ba… Does it really matter? In terms of reputation, for BB M&A I'd say it's GS > MS > JPM > Citi = CS > DB > BAML = UBS = Barcap"

Would for the most part agree, except Barcap should be higher. But I hate ranking the banks and working for any BB (yes even UBS which on par with Goldman in Asia) is great.

i dont think citi is strong in europe - not as much as in the US

http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/news/business_news/12089.cntns

would it kill people to use facts instead of their false perception of what bank is best to work at. so sick of this crap.

I've been in banking for a few years now at a BB and will say that we come up and lose to Citi less and less now days. Looking back to 2005-2006 they were everywhere (in part due to the LBO boom but general advisory too) I think they have had a mass exodus of key bankers and the place has generally just declined. Anyone else in banking feel similarly?