How good/bad is working in the Middle Market?

money money money money:

What is expected pay at the listed shops throughout 5 years?

And agree with everything else above in aggregate at least, except that some MM firms can be pretty bad sweatshops too.

Stifel Nicolaus.

I would probably avoid industrial. My instinct is that capital intensive firms are more likely to go with an industry-specific boutique, and elite boutique, or a BB.

But it sounds like you'll be in the M&A group. So you'll get whatever dealflow comes through, yes?

Pick Technology. Consumer and Industrial are boring. I agree with the above poster, most firms' M&A group would belong to a Product Group and would not have a specific team covering each sector within the M&A group. Usually a senior banker would cover multiple clients that he/she is responsible for.

Pick what interests you most. And I mean, what ACTUALLY interests you the most, not what you think should interest you the most. If you like tech, go for tech. If you think old school industrial firms are cool, go for that.

Second on Stifel.

You've got to be kidding me with "Dealbook doesnt exactly cover MM deals"...

There are many other that cater explicitly to MM M&A. Mergers&Acquisitions Magazine for one obvious one.

i dont think the following are at the level of an Evercore or houlihan but..

shattuck hammond partners Miller Buckfire Lincoln International

by the way..anyone know if glocap advisors is an actual investment bank? i thought they were just recruiters all this time..

Miller Buckfire is a great restructuring shop

Rothschild

Only recruiting...

Really depends on the industry. Some other MM names I have seen are:

Simmons RBC FBR Raymond James BMO

I think you have mistook some boutiques as being middle market when they are anything but (Greenhill, Evercore, etc.). There IS a difference....

Please clarify Buck2210.

A few follow up questions, would a bank like BMO or FBR be considered a "reputable boutique" that pays street?

jman,

He means that even though Lazard, Greenhill, etc, are considered boutiques they dont necessarily focus on the middle market. Instead they compete with the BBs sometimes for the bigger deals.

Exactly. The only one I know more than the average person about is Evercore, and I know they had their average M&A deal size around the BB guys last year - not the typical $100MM-$200MM per deal like a MM player.

Harris Williams is a very strong MM firm. Savvian is another good one.

There is a big difference between a boutique and a middle market firm. For example, Moelis just advised on the Yahoo/Microsoft saga which I believe would have been the largest tech deal year to date. Note the other advisors involved.

http://www.efinancialnews.com/usedition/index/content/2449779753

Sometimes MM firms will market themselves as growth oriented rather than as a middle market firm. This is often due to industry focus. MM tech and healthcare firms will likely claim to be growth oriented where as firms that focus on light industrial or manufacturing will claim to be middle market firms. I mention this only to help as you evaluate firms outside the BB.

Lazard MM is primarily sell side M&A I believe. Cowen is focused on growth companies, in really only a few sectors (HC, Alt. Energy, Telecom, A&D)

So to add a little twist to this...

How do you evaluate what banks to stay away from? These are my thoughts: I'd probably have more career options down the line if I were at a Big 4 or F500 rather than at some mediocre MM boutique, since the primary selling points for doing the analyst stint are the perceived exit opps and compensation--both of which seem nullified by working at a mediocre firm. I know there are more aspects to the job then exit opps and compensation, but I figure if I start off at a weak place, I'm not going to be building the skill set / relationships needed to stay in the business for the long run. I won't have the name brand and experience to easily lateral to other industries nor the demand for my banking tenure. So with that, I might as well stay away from it altogether.

Thoughts?

I'd hire an analyst out of Harris Williams or HLHZ way before I'd consider someone who spent the last two years working 9:15am to 5:00pm, with an hour long lunch break, in the finance dept of a F500. If you the join the M&A group at a Disney, Intel, Cisco, Google or similar you'll be better off but still behind a peer who's gone through an analyst program. Your success and future opportunities are obviously defined by you as an individual (personality, mental horse power, etc).

Where can rankings for MM firms be found (for those of us who lack access to a Bloomberg terminal)?

Also, I agree with monkey3030. A key skill you learn in IB is work ethic. Someone in a F500 thinks they work hard, but relative to a banker - even at a mediocre firm - well, that's just laughable.

joefish - reread my post. I wasn't badmouthing mediocre firms. I said even at a mediocre IB firm, you're likely to work harder than the average person at a F500. So are you saying that the average person at a F500 works harder than the average person at an investment bank?

I've been doing this for over five years now, and there are many, many fantastic middle market firms out there, particularly for those at the analyst level. Most of them do lots of deals, train their analysts well, give them plenty of exposure to clients and other deal professionals, work them hard, and pay them well for their respective geographic markets. Your goal as an analyst should be to learn as much as possible in those two to three years, and you should choose your job based on where you think you would fit best and learn the most. It's a very big mistake to dismiss opportunities in the middle market out of hand without first doing your due diligence on a firm's deal volume and where they're headed strategically, what role analysts play on their deal teams, what exposure and networking opportunities they get, how they train them, and where they go at the end of their 2 - 3 year commitment. Try to get a read on whether your interviewers are happy, too...there's no sense in being in miserable company during some of the best years of your life. This goes for evaluating bulge bracket firms as well--no firm, not even a big one, is automatically a good choice just because you've heard of it. And honestly, if you work hard, money, particularly at the analyst stage, should be a tertiary concern if you're mature about your decision making.

Regarding the middle market, if you make a good choice, the "exit opportunities" are also correspondingly excellent if you perform well and network well: most everyone I know who has moved on from a 2 - 3 year analyst stint at a middle market firm has gone to either a very reputable buyside shop or a top business school. Believe me, future employers and admissions committees care far more about your experience, what you've learned, and (frequently) your interpersonal skills than the name of your last employer. A prestigious name can carry weight, but it's always trumped by superior experience, and the only way to gauge THAT is to talk to as many people as you can about the firm (mine your school's alumni network), do as much reading up as possible (press releases, SEC filings if applicable, etc...), and ask plenty of good questions in the interview and/or at networking events. Yes, bulge brackets are frequently good choices, but many middle market firms are great choices as well.

We'd be here forever if we tried to make a list of good MM firms, and it would be a marginal exercise at best anyway, because the point is, don't be lazy: when it comes time to find a job, don't rely on name alone or word of mouth secondhand. Do your homework and make the informed decision.