Lazard vs Bulge Brackets

Depends on which groups/ divisions you would be in.

On par with middle BB's, better than DB/UBS (lower BB)s.

^that's a pretty broad statement...

I think Commodity Bull had it right when he said that the groups/divisions would make a significant difference. Lazard is generally strong in London though, so if you're leaning towards them because you think you're a better fit in terms of culture / you like the people more, don't simply choose Citi over Laz because you think the exit ops will be better. If you are a strong analyst at any of these banks you're going to be fine in terms of exit ops. There are plenty of guys from Lazard in PE and everywhere else you want to end up.

It's really hard to say that one bank is "better" than the other in this case... and you generally want to avoid doing that unless it's extremely obvious. (clearly GS is superior to a regional boutique with 4 guys... but that's not this kind of situation)

Through my minimal contact with Lazard employees in the U.S. I've gathered it has a highly elitist culture and will work you harder than any of the BBs (although 10-15 hours here and there is really irrelevant when you're working 100 hours a week to begin with). Places very well into PE firms, but isn't as well known outside of the finance / banking / PE world so that's one downside compared with a BB.

Personally, I've always felt Lazard's corp fin practice is superior to Citi, DB. Hope you weren't referring to AM this whole time...

I agree with you guys but lazard absolutely KILLS its analysts in terms of hours. Citi is now out of gov't thumb so if they rise to the way they were (constant top 3 M&A) then it should be a good choice. DB is also a good choice for certain groups like TMT.

I'd still take Citi and DB over lazard and not just because i'm at a worse boutique. and citi is still 3rd in global completed M&A

I hope everyone is joking. Lazard is one of the most prestigious banks out there .I know people who have given up Goldman and Morgan Stanley to go to Lazard. It has fantastic exit ops and above-street pay.

A friend of mine interned in a regional office at Lazard. He said the culture was tough, and the workload was out of control. I don't think this person was cut for IB (now works for MBB), but still i do think Lazard is one of the banks in which you work the most.

Extremely snobby elitist culture. Friend worked there for two years, associate promote, got out of there and lateraled to DB.

LAZ only has three groups in London, and is (theoretically) doing a rotation for analysts, so group doesn't matter. Pay in the US may be above-average, but in England LAZ pays below street. They work you hard at LAZ London, but they'll work you hard at Citi and DB as well. Citi and DB are ok shops, not amazing. As far as the culture goes, DB is definitely more uptight than Citi or LAZ; for instance, I know MDs there who make analysts put on a tie and jacket before they can enter their office. I'm not too familiar with the culture of LAZ London, but the analysts I know there seem like nice guys.

Lazard is great at advising creditors and just like BBs they have exposure to emerging markets. Most recently they advised Dubai Holdings.

Function wise, there should be a difference between what you learn out of offering capital at a BB vs none at Lazard. I would identify what difference that makes. I believe since they offer unbiased advice to creditors, they probably have big reputation in the financing community.

Look at the long term value. Exit depends on where you want to go. Do you know who are the current buyside guys that recruit at Lazard or Citi ?

I think this decision comes down to fit. All three are good banks for M&A, but I think choosing Lazard is more to do with fit rather than League Table rankings. What differs from Lazard from all the BBs (including DB and Citi) is its culture and concentration on M&A/Restructuring.

If you want to maybe do something else than M&A in your life Lazard doesn't limit your opportunities. What Citi and DB have is the public name recognition (but so does RBS) so don't debate decisions based on will people recognize where I work.

Finally and the last thing I will mention is quality of people. I judge most organisations on quality of people and Lazard's quality of people (especially in its Senior MD ranks - look it up) is arguably the best in the City/Canary Wharf. Not that DB and Citi do not have great quality people, but you will find very few "bad" analysts at Lazard, because they simply could not survive. Citi and DB have high turnover rates and I have met people who work there that are OK, nothing special.

Finally (and I think these forums need to stop doing) is stop trying to rank these places. The difference between working at Goldman Sachs M&A and Lazard M&A is tiny. A college kid may find GS more prestigious, while a 50 year old MD may really regard Lazard as top of the heap it....who cares, if you got these offers you need to make the decision based on your experience and gut ultimately...don't (I beg you) listen to others perceptions of rankings because it is utter bullshit

Actually there is a pretty big difference between working at Goldman Sachs M&A and Lazard M&A.

Eric Stratton:

Actually there is a pretty big difference between working at Goldman Sachs M&A and Lazard M&A.

If you follow my post instead of trying to come up with "I got you" responses I was referring to the prestige/rankings people give these places.

In terms of the actual work an M&A analyst does I would still argue there isn't a "big difference"...its really about getting staffed on live deals....but I guess you would know given personal experience at these firms...

If you make a statement like the one you did you have to qualify it......

On second thought if you think Goldman Sachs M&A is much more prestigious then Lazard M&A than that's a personal opinion and maybe the majority agrees with you, but you don't make a decision solely based on this was the main point I am trying to make.....the reasons these forums become stupid is because comments like yours make people go into this rankings game......either way you probably don't work at either firm...maybe not even in IB....hopefully not

I recently met a kid whose father is an MD at Lazard. He says his father encouraged him not to start out there because of the culture. The kid is an analyst at another top boutique.

There is no Goldman Sachs M&A...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Goldman Sachs only offers industry groups and does not have an M&A group.

We're discussing London, where GS does have a dedicated M&A team.

In the US, you're both correct that there is no M&A team per se, but rather M&A groups that fall within the coverage groups.

London - and from my knowledge of this market (am a banker in London and have been since 2006) - Lazard should be top choice out of those three.

Citi - seriously seen as very damaged, joining them now is seen as pretty easy (i.e. they are desperate)

DB - ok, but prestige is nowhere near that of Lazard, and culture is also one of burn-out

Take Lazard. Trust me, that name on your CV in London will carry you a long long way compared to the other two.

IBDlondon2011:

Hey guys,

How does Lazard compare to banks like Citi & DB?

I have offers from these three in London so would love to have feedback about their respective brands/dealflow etc..right now I am leaning towards Lazard but don't know much about its culture and how it compares to bigger banks.

Also, which of these will have good exit ops for PE?

Cheers!

Congrats on the offer. However Lazard is only good in the US, France, Germany and Italy.

It sucks in London (look at rankings...)

Go for DB or Citi

I'm glad...but shouldn't be surprised.... to see the post has gone into discussing Goldman Sachs (I made the mistake of using the bank as a comparison my fault here). When I said Goldman Sachs M&A I was generally referring to its M&A/country coverage groups (did you want me to list them, maybe I should have said IBD I thought the point for comparison was clear? it was just a general comment and I think you got the point). However, if you must know, drexelalum is right they do have a UK M&A team.

In terms of Lazard only being good in US, France, Italy and Germany?..... your an idiot....many deals done in Europe and Middle East go through the London offices of banks (aka they will be involved in the process). Using your metric (rankings based on League Tables.... Lazard is doing quite well in Europe around (in the top 5 I think), yes ahead of GS!, in Announced M&A in Europe according to Thomson).

Anyways getting back to the main point of the post, if someone says DB and CIti ard better than Lazard or vice versa they are absolutely correct because it is their personal opinion, as long as they can qualify what they say. Honestly, ask people in the finance community in London when deciding hey'll give you better insight. My closing thoughts.

DB - great European brand, strong M&A team, will have good exit opps Citi - has suffered, but will most likely regain its previous standing in the coming years so not a bad choice Lazard - probably best if you want to stay in finance or do investment banking as a career

All are great offers congrats, its honestly about fit coming in at the analyst level.

If you also get an offer from GS in London this forum should definitely be helpful as well.

if you go to DB/Citi, you will find many former Lazard bankers

if you go to Lazard, you will barely find any from DB/Citi

also, if you quit Lazard a year down the road, most people will understand why since they have a notoriously tough culture. however, in a year if you quit DB/Citi/CS/BAML etc (aka banks without that very rigorous reputation), you will be seen as someone who may not be able to handle banking

just my two cents

^ This is pretty dumb. If you lateral banks you are absolutely screwed in terms of bonus, catching up to other analysts with the bank infrastructure and way of doing things (not to mention a huge change from boutique to BB or BB to boutique) and have HORRIBLE recommendations when it comes time to exit.

If you can't decide at least pick one and stick with it. Lateraling from elite boutiques to BB or vice versa is as bad as going from BB to BB. Buyside will think you are an idiot and unreliable.

since apparently you don't know how to read between the lines, allow me to spell it out for you:

sometimes in life, the place you first choose to work will not be the right place for you and people understand this. if that were to happen, I would much rather have Lazard on my resume than one of those BBs. I'm NOT advocating that you pick one and plan on lateraling to another bank later, but I am saying that in case things don't work out, you have a reasonable chance to stay in banking, due to the notorious Lazard culture.

also, nothing I say can be as dumb as you defending Citi on the grounds that it is "3rd in global completed M&A"

Just because you would much rather have Lazard on your resume doesn't mean everyone else knows what it even is. DB for example is great for S&T and has an amazing fixed income desk if he can't hack it in IBD at least he has a top 3 S&T group to lateral into.

Also, I used facts and league tables which are cold numbers. You're oppressing your own opinions on people.

yes, which is why i said "just my two cents," please READ next time

how many analysts have DB have lateraled over to S&T? I'm willing to bet not too many. also, how do you know the OP is even interested in S&T? DB also has excellent risk management, I suppose that's another big plus to go there, since you can always lateral over to a top 3 risk dept, right?

finally, you can't "oppress" your opinion on somebody.

tangentially, do you know what else is a cold hard fact? apollo is on a higher floor in 9 west than kkr, this must mean apollo is a superior firm. oh wait, that doesn't make sense? perhaps it's because I used a fact that, although true, does not necessarily have a causal relationship with my conclusion.

P.S. just to preempt your upcoming response cuz I want to get some shuteye, in the above post, I have used the following: sarcasm and hyperbole I have purposely used extreme examples that are obviously ridiculous to show how flawed your arguments are

"how many analysts have DB have lateraled over to S&T?"

A lot more than the ones who have lateraled from Lazard ibd to lazard S&T oh wait it doesn't exist. That's why it's called OPTIONS.

I didn't even touch on the fact that OP is in London which is definitely pro-DB as Lazard is not strong there (as otherse have mentioned).

"I have purposely used extreme examples that are obviously ridiculous to show how flawed your arguments are"

So all you know how to do is knock down strawmen in arguments. Good to know.

Boutique, just stop trolling kid. All you ever do here is instigate arguments and universally fail to back yourself up. It's gotten older than that blastoise kid.

CalimeSir your right I shouldn't have called you an idiot...my bad. It was immature.

In terms of regional, your right the Paris office particularly is independent (except its restructuring bankers), but the other regional offices do work together from my understanding as I have friends you work there as well.

Also check where the newly created position of CEO of Lazard International sits.....your next claim will be this doesn't mean anything....I don't know how to respond to that. And I would check your facts I believe Lazard London is the second largest European office, could be Paris, but its not something that's very obvious.

In terms of deal flow you have to compare apples to apples. The US in general has much more announced dealflow than the UK specifically (why this is because the size of the economy). You can measure deal flow in 2 major ways Number of Deals / Total Announced/Completed Volume. Lazard does actually quite well in number of deals (maybe top 10), but this year its probably only top 15 in Total Announced Volume in the UK (the AIA - Prudential and HSBC - Nedbank deal fell through which "killed" (they are usually in the top 10) their UK-specific league table standing. The deals they have done in the UK off the top of my head are Harrods - Qatar, SSL - Reckitt, Kraft - Cadbury (2009), the list goes on. Their advising the government on the sale of Tote right now. They definitely get some nice deal flow. DB I know is great in the UK big client list (Virgin for one which is cool). Citi (I am sure is like DB).

Bottom line you'll get deals at all these places.

This forum is making me sound like I am defending Lazard, which I don't even work at.If you do your homework try to find metrics like deals per analysts, revenue per banker, etc this will give you a more complete picture. Also if you want to go into PE make sure your find out where the bankers placed from the respective firms my opinion is that the placement is probably best from DB/Citi in Europe.

Also (because I really do like reading forums on WallStreetOasis because some of them are actually useful - really liked 10xleverage posts the other week and I wish the site had more intelligent replies) go along with A Posse Ad Esse claim about boutiquebank.

He first wrote in regards to the OP

"On par with middle BB's, better than DB/UBS (lower BB)s."

only to write 4/5 posts later

"I'd still take Citi and DB over lazard and not just because i'm at a worse boutique. and citi is still 3rd in global completed M&A"

It sounds like a lot of kids/"adults" on these forums

1) bitter on this forum about being rejected by firms being talked about 2) have no idea what their talking about because they have never actually been a position of choosing between offers at similar firms

If this continues quality posters (that is people from the banking community) are not going to participate in these forums and you'll see the type of advice people will receive.

Also to the creators this specific ranking is sooo important to people why don't you just take a poll and come up with a annual Vault style ranking (only problem I forsee is people with multiple accounts may just keeping voting for their banks, but at least some truths between the biases, etc of WallStreetOasis users will be revealed.)

Lazard actually doesn't do bad in PE in Europe you do a LinkedIn search and you see 3i, Cinven, Apax you also see this for Citi (but mind you when it had an amazing M&A franchise as posters previously mentioned lot of senior talent has left, not to say it won't recover but to put things in perspective), not sure about DB...

Also a point of interest is that Naguib Kheraj (former CEO of JP Morgan Cazenove) is set to join the firm as CEO of Lazard International in January...this is probably going to further boost Lazard's Europe outlook. They have also hired former BofAML senior banker Fotis Hasiotis as Co-head of European Financial Sponsors and made some pretty big UK hires in the past 2-3 years...pretty interesting you should do a search

I honestly think taking all things into consideration (yes I have inherent biases because I have worked at another "elite boutique" and respect Lazard tremendously as many in the banking community do as you will come to find out) your initial feelings of leaning toward Lazard makes sense just based on all the facts and developments.

If you decide to join Citi or DB just make sure you won't regret not joining Lazard (it is a hard place to lateral into)

Don't be mad lazard isn't that great in London. I would say go for it if it was in US.

Good point...