MS is no longer a Tier 1 bank.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/morg…
Morgan Stanley isn't a sinking ship -- it's a sunk ship. Yeah, their IBD is decent (with M&A quite strong) but a global financial services firm can't survive with one strong group. They're horrendous in everything but IBD -- how is that any different from DB, who is sub-par in everything but fixed income? The top banks (GS/JPM) are strong across the board. This isn't bank bashing, it's fact stating.
Tier 1:
GS
(still a significant gap)
JPM
Tier 2:
BoA-ML/MS
CS
DB
Will MS continue to place well because of its huge alum base in PE? Yes. Is it losing prestige and respect and losing it quickly? YES.
In 3 years all of this be forgotten.
Aren't they good for prime brokerage?
be prepared for lots of flaming
Why would OP get flamed? He didn't say anything false.
Humblethyself... who are you? Do you have a job? Do you work at Bar cap?
Maybe not tier 1 when it comes to trading, but if they can still offer Megafund exits, who really cares?
Winners versus losers. MS in between...
GS JPM CS DB BarCap
BoA/ML Citi UBS RBS
Seriously how did you come up with this?
sorry for cancelling our job offer to you humble guy, but please don't post crap on anonymous forums, thx
lol owned
agreed. you must've noticed all those MS folks flocking over to Piper Jaffray's new NY office, clamoring for a job. Piper Jaffray is now tier 1.
Dude RBS? RSB!!!
Don't mention RBS with UBS or Citi.
BAML's investment bank revs are in line with JPM and GS. They just need to stop giving credit cards to homeless people.
Repwise MS is the best along with GS.
Any of the 8 or 9 bulge brackets are great, some are still better than others of course.
"Seriously how did you come up with this?"
I am talking about winners versus loser instead of purely BBs. BoA/ML is definitely a loser instead of a winner, but some posters have different opinions about this, because they refer purely to the leauge tables as of today instead of looking at the long term. MS has a lot of reputational damage these days, so please do not compare it with GS or JPM. There is a clear separation, therefore my previous post. And DB, CS and BarCap are much better positioned and therefore have more potential compared to UBS, Citi and BoA/ML.
Btw stop with dude dude dude. RBS can be mentioned with UBS or Citi based on their problems and restructuring requirements. It is not only about comparing BBs with each other, there are more aspects which you have to consider.
This has got to be one of the most delusional posts I've seen on here, and with such confidence. Get a clue.
Btw, Marcus is right.
Through Q3 of this year:
League Table of Financial Advisers to Global M&A (Value):
(RBS is #19 lol)
League Table of Financial Advisers to Global M&A (Volume):
That's a crude way to look at tiers, but given that MS is either #2 or #3 in M&A worldwide (depending on how you want to look at it), they're definitely still tier 1.
I'd put it this way (just a combination of the two rankings):
yeah JPM is the new star.. but Im sure MS will be alright if not better.. just got to see how their new strategy works
anyways a few years down the road.. no one cares about this
MS will return but JPM will be the bank to watch
None of these rankings/league tables even mean anything to anyone except for college students.
Tier 1, Tier 2? This isn't fucking News Week College Rankings.
Halberstram, how is bank performance not relevant? You're an ass clown. Seriously
You obviously have no clue how deal mandates are given, if you think anyone gives a shit about what banks are considered "Tier 1" by college Sophomores. As if anyone is going to give their M&A business to Goldman over Deutsche Bank because Goldman's prop desk killed it last year.
These "rankings" are used by incoming analysts to feel good about themselves. The league tables serve the same function but for people already employed at such firms. No business is given out based on where the firm falls in the league table.
Its primarily based on the relationship and specifics of the deal. If you don't know that, than you probably don't work in the industry. Or you're footnoting league tables and dropping them into pitchbooks all day and all night and don't want to come to terms with the fact that your work is meaningless.
^Hear hear.
this question is directed at marcus, or anybody else who can comment. i agree with the relationship aspect of winning a mandate, but if that's a large factor in determining deal flow, how can a bank improve its advisory business? meaning, if BB 1, hasn't made significant senior hires in a 5 year period, how can their jump from, say #8 in league tables to #5, be explained? i understand a bank can become more liberal with their lending or financing or approach or whatever, but if generally speaking, the same bankers are running the same teams, how can they "improve" their client relationships and win business that was once BB 2's?
If it's the same bankers and the same teams, all things equal, the advisory business is likely won by BB 2 into infinity. In reality, things never remain equal.
BB 1 might take over a banking relationship if the incumbent BB 2 doesn't step up to a credit ask. When someone like Citi runs themselves into the ground, they aren't exactly stepping up to new credit committments. GS, JPM, MS, BAML or anyone else might be able to step in to the relationship.
Also, there are conflicts of interest (except for GS - they don't have conflicts...ever). I've seen M&A mandates lost because one of our clients pursued a target that had fallen into our credit workout group. Our legal/compliance teams didn't feel comfortable with us advising a potential buyer (in a Machiavellian world, a distressed creditor would say any price that made them whole was "fair").
Also, keep in mind industry cyclicality when thinking about overall M&A league tables. If BB 1 has an amazing Energy group, they might leap several spots in the league tables if they lead all the large deals in the industry.
Don't they have Stringfellows where you are?
This is one of the most uneducated posts ever..
BS, sorry but i have to say this
Am I the only one who thinks league tables are a "whose-dick-is-bigger" type deal?
Probably since you don't have a job and will end up going to a 100th league table boutique where you get 0 experience and pitch all day and enjoy your 5k year end bonus while living in poverty.
Your paycheck is "just numbers" too. So is the price of a 3 million dollar house. It's just numbers right? What a dipshit, I would expect this response from a loser canadian kid.
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/official-canadian-ib-thread
"Waiting. by useless (Monkey, 59 Points) on 10/4/09 at 7:15pm
Credits scott_ten wrote: bmo ibd gave offers yesterday and bmo s&t gave offers today sorry longrho Shitt... Still waitin on ARC Financial, Gateway Capital, CS Canada.. "
Et aut quam facilis ea consequatur consequatur est. Alias tempore quasi sit ducimus. Suscipit eveniet placeat incidunt et voluptatem eius molestiae quia.
Exercitationem sit eum dolorum repellat ad sit tempora. Nisi eveniet voluptatem omnis dolores tempore eum fuga. Aspernatur delectus quisquam nulla ea aliquid. Qui provident atque voluptas nihil provident beatae et.
Exercitationem dolorem dolorem dicta et. Nihil qui mollitia dolores sit consectetur omnis. Tempore delectus minima sunt enim vitae debitis delectus. Vero similique laudantium qui magnam temporibus et.
Sit aut doloribus voluptatem iusto facilis aut. Blanditiis sequi sapiente aut possimus incidunt doloremque reiciendis. Quo quaerat necessitatibus ad. Est odit veniam ipsa architecto aut amet.
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...
Distinctio sed beatae dolores molestiae qui recusandae in. Culpa laboriosam quod vero.
Doloremque possimus corrupti eius aliquid. Adipisci aut ut est neque. Dignissimos distinctio facilis nam. Quae placeat dignissimos maiores exercitationem.
Alias eaque earum autem quia exercitationem sed non. Veritatis quo quis dolorem sed eos earum rerum. Qui et aut esse quod nihil quas voluptatem.