Here are the latest Thomson Reuters league tables:
Question: What internal factors determine how good each bank is in each of DCM, ECM, and M&A? For example, if Bank A is ranked #1 in ECM, is it because the heads at the bank are the most effective at networking and raising equity for their clients? If Bank B is #1 for M & A, is it because they have a history of advising successful transactions? Or is it just the luck of the draw when bulge bracket banks are fighting for deals?

Alternatively: Does how good a team is at each of DCM, ECM, and M&A work say anything about the general skill set the team members have? How different are the skill sets required for each of these fields of work?

Lots of questions. Pick your favorite(s).

Comments (3)


All the league tables tell you is the number of deals or the amount of fees generated by that team compared to the rest of the street.

  1. Being ranked number one could mean you are good or just the luck of the draw.
  2. Having a good team and a successful track record helps you to stay at the top.
  3. There is a ton of fighting among the top tier for business, especially in non-complex deals (vanilla ECM offerings, investment grade debt rollover, simple M&A)
  4. The rank in the league table says absolutely nothing about the skill sets of the team members.
  5. The skill sets at the analyst level are exactly the same in DCM, ECM, industry groups and M&A. At the more senior levels they start to diverge.

--There are stupid questions, so think first.

Investment Banking Interview Course


Exactly agree with PowerMonkey

Also, keep in mind that larger banks will always have a larger lead in the league tables - for example, BOA/ML and Citi are in the top 5 in every category, but are both under TARP scrutiny (as are JPM, GS, and MS, but much less so)

Add a Comment