Lazard vs. Morgan Stanley?
Recently got extended an offer for 2023 Lazard SA (M&A/RX Generalist) and 2023 Morgan Stanley SA (IB) at their NYC offices.
This is something I never thought was possible for myself, but here I am. MS took less than an hour to get back to me. Lazard took about an hour and a half to get back to me, and I received a call from a senior banker. Couple pros & cons for each, but I can’t discern which are more impactful on both ends.
Having a genuinely hard time trying to choose between both offers. I’ve never been particularly interested in exiting to PE/HFs, but I am interested in VC and/or pursuing more higher education (maybe a PhD), or even staying in IB. I feel like I also fit both cultures decently well. But, this is in the sense that with Lazard, the culture is people I would WANT to be friends with; whereas Morgan Stanley is people I can easily SEE myself being friends with.
Go MS. The truth is both cultures will be pretty bad and you will want to leave after a year or two—that’s the nature of IB. The MS brand opens doors the Lazard one won’t and is likely better for your long term goals. It would be different if they were different locations or there were other factors you were weighing, but same location, with the goals you listed, hands down pick MS.
Also, a word to the wise: you won’t/ should avoid being friends with your coworkers. You always need to watch what you say and shouldn’t trust or treat them like genuine friends. It is a professional environment, not summer camp. They are coworkers and can be friendly acquaintances, but people in finance are too sharp elbowed/ competitive and self-interested to really be friends. I have worked a long time and I have 2 coworkers I am “friends” with despite being friendly with almost every coworker I have ever had. Ironically too, the 2 I am friends with, I got closer to after we left the firm where we mutually worked at rather than during. I’d almost argue due to competing interests for compensation, reviews, promotions, projects, etc, along with the fact that there is a different code of behavior for coworkers versus friends the relationship needs to be more guarded and you can only really be friends with coworkers after you no longer work together. That also tends to show whether the relationship existed due to proximity or if there’s actually a friendship there.
Finally, on the culture thing, it’s very hard to read based on interviewing. You likely only met a handful of individuals at each firm and have no idea what your summer analyst class will be like which is perhaps the biggest factor in your social-work experience. I’m 100% sure both firms will have kind people and absolute assholes and you will need to navigate.
Edit: Adding one thing I should have clarified in my original post--this is a hair splitting question ultimately. Both are pretty much opportunities you can't go wrong with.
On the point of being friends with other analysts, what if you were already friends in college?
Brother come on now, are you really asking a random person if it's okay for you to remain friends with an existing friend? Christ we need to get a grip here.
Also, that whole perspective on friends in the workplace is lame as fuck, however it is self-fulfilling in the sense that if you adopt it, you won't have to worry about anyone wanting to be friends with you.
Not sure why all Monkey shit, this is some of the best advice I have seen on here. I would add that being friends with your co-workers makes it hard to get away / say no when they want you to work together. IB is a tough gig already and at least for my bank, people that are selfish and not care about others have the best lifestyle.
It’s a great example of WSO being naive undergrads largely and not working professionals. It’s not even a banking thing lol, if you ask almost any white collar worker if you can be friends with your coworkers, the majority would say its really really hard/ messy. To my point too, the coworkers I did become friends with it just took until after we no longer were working together for those relationships to really solidify.
This is 100% spot on
Really, no friends w/ coworkers? Come on - you build so much comradery in the trenches and being friends with people make the long hours and brutal culture much more tolerable. Personally speaking some of my best friends are those that I've made in IB and PE - one of my groomsmen was another analyst in my group and I have like 8 people that were my former IB and PE colleagues at my wedding. And not just like a "here's a courtesy invite and it's a large wedding" but seriously some of my closest friends and I've been to some of their weddings too, see each other repeatedly outside of work and even go on vacations with together.
Think there's some merit to this. Agreed that you can't be 100% yourself around them in that you need to keep your "work persona" up. Had a good friend how who interned at the place I'm at (1yr younger). My boss seemed to really like him and I was pretty worried for my job at the time (1st year into my job) so while I interacted with him, I never felt any particular desire to reach out to him. Only after he left and went to a different firm did we begin to chat more & now we're solid friends. We can both complain and vent about stuff also knowing that it's just not gonna get back to anyone at our respective firms.
Have another guy here I'm becoming better friends with at my firm, though he works on a different team which helps. Even so, might just turn out to be casual friends in the end
I became really good friends during my 1st year with two 2nd year analysts... it can happen. Maybe because we were not in the same year so we weren't competing in that sense. But the two of them were in the same year and they were great friends. Don't think you can categorically say that friendship with co-workers isn't possible.
I made the same decision deciding between MS and a similar EB. Everyone has told me I made the wrong decision when I signed with the EB but I know I made the right decision for myself. Trust your gut feeling and do what’s best for you, NOT what other people are telling you to pick *cough cough WSO people including me
Congrats mate this is a fantastic position to be in.
Personally would go with MS but both are good choices and you can decide what’s best for you but you should be proud of yourself regardless for being in this position
Gotta follow your heart. If you want to exit finance, the MS name brand is a lot more recognizable. Exit opps will probably be the same at both shops frankly. Can’t go wrong with either.
MS is significantly better
Definitely MS
Definitely take MS and then try to lateral to GS.
Would go with MS here and not look back.
Was in the same spot and went MS. Caveat I go to a target and placement was fairly easy for me b/c of it. Its otherwise hard at MS.
Are you in the m&a team?
How long did it take for you to hear back about group placements at MS?
Congrats on both offers. I think the MS brand in NYC/high finance in general is a little stronger, and some of their groups (M&A, media & telecom, tech, transportation, etc.) are still best in class. That said, I think you'll have a stronger analyst experience at Lazard (getting to do a lot more M&A on much smaller teams, better senior exposure/client exposure) + you'll get paid a good bit more. Lazard is probably inherently a more intellectual firm if you're interested in a PhD as well.
Some puts and takes here, but hopefully helpful
I agree with this except the incremental intellectuality at Lazard (if it can be called that at all) should not at all relate to your PhD aspirations.
Lol fair, although you might get some good recs if you work with the right people (Lazard is pretty well connected across academia)
If you want to go to grad school, do MS
Feel free to DM me. I was pretty much in the same position between Lazard Tech and MS NY (and other EBs) and went with Lazard. Going to a tech-focused MF post-analyst stint and still thinking about grad / Bschool - was probably the best decision for me, but not for everyone.
The short of it is that I really think it depends on your personal goals and the experience you want. An EB is going to give you extreme responsibility and exposure due to the nature of lean teams: on sell-sides, you'll sometimes be the main point of contact between the counterparty and client CFO in the thick of diligence for a ~$1bn transaction - this will rarely be the case with the hierarchy and team sizes that exist at a place like MS. Of course, these types of personal experiences lend themselves well for recruiting when you can speak to the technical demands of large buy-side models, your personal ability to run a sell-side process and how you can communicate effectively with company executives. Almost every analyst in my past two classes interested in the buyside have placed well at UMM/MF shops and I think their broad, intense and very personal exposure is what prepares them for the recruiting cycle. Of course, the issue is that this is a bit self-selecting and there's a reason why everyone goes to PE when you're good at your job in IB. I think Lazard is slightly the better option if you're dead set on GE, PE or HF, because you'll get the same looks from HH (trust me), but might have stronger intrinsic deal experience.
Everyone else here has covered why MS and all their points are extremely valid and should be considered. You're going to impress more people at a bar when you say that name and most industry positions like corp dev are going to value MS on a resume a bit more than Lazard. But a place like Lazard has public and well-known relationships with a few large caps like IBM, Google, etc. and you'd probably have an advantage there for a few of those names.
Turned down MS / GS for a smaller bank that I thought had a better culture / lifestyle. 10 months in and I hate it. It’s hard to really gauge the culture with just interviews. Go for the best brand name if you don’t have any real insight.
Damn that's rough, sorry to hear about that. Are you planning to lateral at all? Also what led you to think the smaller bank had a better culture during your recruiting process, and any tips on getting a genuine gauge on group culture during networking/recruiting?
I am considering, but not interested in MF PE and I can get all the other opportunities from where I am at so maybe I will just grind through it.
They did a fantastic job of selling a culture that doesn’t exist during interviews. I was naive enough to drink the koolaid.
The only way to really know is if you actually know a current / former analyst that will tell you how it really is. That information isn’t always available, so it’s safer to just go with the brand name.
MS
I think it is wild people are suggesting you take MS. Lazard is just as a household of a name for any corporate or finance exit. You'll get paid a lot more if you end up staying in banking. Personal preference but I'd much rather be a larger part of a smaller deal rather than a smaller part of a larger deal. Similarly, I think an EB will let you avoid most of the mind-numbing processes that you see at BBs (credit and risk committees, having multiple fully staffed teams on deals bitching about where they are on the team page etc.). In the off chance you're interested in RX, this is only possible at LAZ and not MS.
That is correct. I'm working with MS on an IPO and every single member on their team is only responsible for a couple of pieces. Their compliance process is also extremely long.
Def MS. Lazard sells itself on small deal teams, and its advising business, but MS is going to open more doors.
Also MS wanted you immediately.
I feel like Laz only has a few teams worth joining by rep (P&U, Tech SF, and RX), none of which really are that interesting to me personally.
if I were in the same position I would choose MS
I've heard the exact opposite - RX is top group at Lazard but generally all their M&A groups are solid with no obvious weak links
Take MS and then lateral to Mizuho
Surprised nobody's asked this yet, maybe I'm j really out of the loop at this point, but how have you already gotten offers? I thought interviews were happening over the summer. Was it some sort of accelerated / diversity process?
Youre behind buddy if you didn’t know this already. Diversity recruiting is wrapping up and regular recruiting is a rat race
Yea recent recruiting schedules are insanely accelerated now, not even just BBs, I've seen a ton of MM's as well doing it.
Was in a similar boat a while back. Lazard has great brand reputation, it's the oldest of all the boutique banks with history dating back to the 1800's. You'll find that many of the transactions you work on will have a cross border element, something that is pretty rare outside of maybe Greenhill and Moelis to a certain degree. Where you will find the greatest difference is that Lazard does not do financings, at least not in the traditional sense of having a capital markets team on standby. This goes against many of the shifts we've seen with other EBs like Evercore and Guggenheim, however, it has allowed them to focus at what they know best which is advisory. As a result, the amount of consistent deal flow will be a bit less than other EBs as it's not as if you are going to be on live deals 24/7. There simply aren't that many M&A transactions to go around for that to be the case. As a result, your experience will be heavily centralized around client service projects and board materials combined with whatever active deal projects you are on. Don't take that as a bad thing. Many people get hung up on deals deals deal, they sound like Trump on reality TV shows. There is a certain value to working with a handful of the same clients for your 2 years and really building a rapport with them. It gives you a deeper understanding of their businesses, the ways different executives think about situations, what concerns are at the top of their mind, etc...Similar to in PE where many people actively seek out operating focused roles, this bears similar characteristics.
Your experience at MS will have elements of that as well, however, MS being a full service bank will have a fair share of financing work thrown in as well. Depending on the group, there may be more equity/debt components (ex. Biotech vs Ind). In addition, BBs tend to pitch a bit more often and try to be on as many possible mandates as possible rather than EBs which have historically relied on relationships to drive business flow and maintaining those client relationships. As such, you will likely be on more pitches, more bakeoffs, and that in itself can be both exciting as well as demoralizing when you lose and you look back and say "wtf I lost 3 weekends for this". Your greatest benefits will be the marginally bigger name outside finance and your opportunities at the biggest of big funds. Many MFs still prefer BB candidates because their flexible mandates mean they can be a bit more diverse with their investment strategies (ex. buying distressed, minority investments, preferred equity investments, majority stakes, IPOs to exit, etc...). There is also the slightly unspoken reality that MFs which rely on bank capital for bridge loans and term loans want to maintain good relationships with their lending banks, and banks vice versa. So they exchange talent in the same way that the royal families used to back in the pre 1700s. MDs love it when they can call their former analyst who is now a senior associate or principal and ask to be invited to a pitch, or vice versa when they senior associate or principal wants to ask for a loan for xyz portfolio company to do an acquisition. That unspoken benefit really only happens at balance sheet banks.
The final point you mentioned is culture. That's a tough one. It's very difficult to judge who you'll vibe and mesh with the most without working and truly being in the weeds with them. Many people can put on a great professional and friendly smile, but then when the shit hits the fan, they dump all the work on you. I've seen it and experienced it first hand. Try your best to be friends with your coworkers but I also wouldn't go in with a honeymoon expectation.
And finally, compensation. This is gonna come at a surprise but MS will pay more than Lazard. Lazard has historically worked their analysts just as hard as any top BB and paid in line or even less. Lazard compensation is 100k, in an era when William Blair pays 115k and the likes of Evercore pay 120k for their first year analysts. It shows a bit of lack of connectivity that seniors have with their juniors. How have they not figured it out they need to get their shit together? Or more realistically, they probably don't care. That's a dangerous mentality to work with when your seniors seem to be a bit out of touch.
All in, these are all trivial differences which can add up to greater differences. I would recommend that to both stall and gain more information, you should request to have chats with analysts (preferably second years) at these respective banks and in the groups you are particularly interested in. 1st years like myself are going through On cycle recruitment so are at the brim already and second years can talk with no rose tinted glasses on.
GL champ
Pretty good writeup, except to your pay point Lazard is going to $120k base in a couple months
Possibly, but as they say, I'll believe it when I see it
Just wanted to say I accepted Lazard ‼️‼️
LETS GO! I think you made the right choice, was hoping you’d choose Lazard too — there’s no difference in prestige between Lazard and MS in the finance world. And you’re actually going to do meaningful work with none of that mind numbing feedback busy work crap you get at a BB.
Congrats, best of luck in all of your endeavors!
laz just raised an1 base to 120k btw
It’s just absolutely ludicrous to suggest that MS unequivocally has such a superior brand. If you are planning to stay in finance (or the business world in general), Lazard will be equally well-known and well-regarded. It really comes down to whether you want to focus on M&A / strategic advisory, or full-service investment banking.
That being said, go with your gut instinct and don’t look back. The work at the analyst level will be pretty similar across all the platforms. Most importantly, people lateral all the time in this industry: if you are a lifer then you will eventually find your way to the firm that best fits your skills / interests / personality.
There's no way. There's just no way you're suggesting MS does not unequivocally have a superior brand to Lazard. They're not even in the same galaxy in terms of brands outside of finance and MS is still the stronger name in finance. Go anywhere outside of WSO and say you work at Lazard vs Morgan Stanley and gauge the absolute difference in reaction. These "elite boutique" kids man, lmao.
Tough choice between two very elite boutiques. I’d go with Lazard :)
Two? Pretty sure Lazard is Bulge Bracket bro
Was in a similar situation - chose BB and never looked back. Both are great options, choosing one over the other won't really change anything.
was this through the diversity cycle or non-diversity? congrats either way!
Would def take Morgan Stanley in a heartbeat. Lazard is a sweatshop
Couldn't imagine taking a MM volume shop "EB" over the behemoth that is MS. I didn't even think it was close.
Faced with a similar dilemma. Leaning toward Lazard due to smaller team size, and that it would hopefully translate into meaningful work exposure than would be possible as an analyst at MS.
Just 1 data point:
Interviewed with Lazard for a generalist position. Failed at Round 4. All technicals through all 4 rounds. Got dinged for behavioral reasons by an alum. People are tight. Apparently over-worked.
Working with Morgan Stanley on a deal right now: people are okay. A couple d-bags but in general not terrible to work with.
Networked with both banks.
MS people showed that "hey fuck off we are MS" with thinly veiled contempt even if we went to the same school.
Lazard people never replied to any of my messages or emails.
I think it depends on what you want:
- MS pro: has better brand outside of IB if you ever leave. MS con: you still have to go through the placement process so you may or may not end up in a group that you want doing work that you like.
- Lazard pro: you pretty much know you're going to be doing M&A/RX. Lazard con: not as well known outside of Wall Street.
Both are great firms, can't go wrong either way. Congrats!
Officiis sed earum vel iste voluptates omnis. Sint libero nihil voluptas. Doloribus sint quia quas dolores sit. Eum veritatis ut aut quibusdam similique. Sequi veniam reiciendis minus dolores. Asperiores excepturi dolore quia asperiores est magni.
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...
Molestiae occaecati reprehenderit est quia. Odit quis atque beatae est rerum ut. Aspernatur officiis nulla magni.
Et dolor nemo vel sunt libero. Qui laudantium ut ipsam temporibus. Debitis est incidunt autem eaque eveniet totam asperiores.
Maiores mollitia et sed unde et molestiae delectus. Sint repudiandae et hic aut. Consequatur ut voluptatem sed. Quia facere excepturi sit fuga odit consequuntur soluta earum. Quam aut nulla id et omnis aut.
Sunt voluptatem quam minima facilis minima. Atque laboriosam ex exercitationem occaecati.