Question regarding differences between investment banks

Hey guys,

I think I have a pretty good idea of what investment banking is (IBD, I mean). However, in the informational interviews that I've been holding with bankers from different firms, a distinction has been popping up again and again. I'll give an example:

Speaking on the phone with an analyst from Rothschild, the analyst said that Rothschild was a financial advisory firm, and not a traditional investment bank. He also said that, in comparison to a traditional investment bank, they don't have a "balance sheet."

What exactly do they mean when they say they don't have a balance sheet? Why would you need a balance sheet for IBD? I'm guessing that it has to do with the other components of an investment bank (AM, S&T, possibly PWM)?

Thanks for any advice!

 

balance sheet = ability to bear risk for the client. the bank buys the securities from the company aka the 'investment' and puts them on their balance sheet aka the 'bank' as opposed to just 'advising' on the issue, which is obvi a way more profitable business and leads to fewer shenanigans. for example look at the flopbook ipo. in the first couple days morgan stanley had to bid for like 144 million shares way higher than the average price in order to prop up the issue price. they can get away with that nonsense because they have a balance sheet and your boy at rothschild would have no part of such a thing. you may also hear it referred to as underwriting but you can say that in the context of commercial banking too

 
A Fellow Linguist:
Ah, I see, thanks, guys, I didn't consider that. Why do some of these smaller firms not maintain a balance sheet, then? They just don't want to mess around with it?

Basically, yes. If you look, these firms are for the most part smaller than traditional banks' IB arm. They don't take on the same amount of risk in lending to clients as bigger "balance sheet" firms do. That way, if a downturn hits, they aren't exposed to risky assets like "balance sheet" firms.

Good way to think about it:

Balance Sheet: all the BBs, SunTrust, RBS, RBC, BB&T, PNC, BMO, Macquarie, etc.

Advisory (although some of these shops do have PE/AM arms): Greenhill, Lazard, Moelis, Centerview, Perella Weinberg, Evercore, Houlihan Lokey, Jefferies, Rothschild, Piper Jaffray, Raymond James, Baird, Sagent, Blair, Stephens, etc.

MM IB -> Corporate Development -> Strategic Finance
 
A Fellow Linguist:
Ah, I see, thanks, guys, I didn't consider that. Why do some of these smaller firms not maintain a balance sheet, then? They just don't want to mess around with it?
For one - having balance sheet is EXPENSIVE. So called "relationship loans" made by BB IBD are often underpriced relative to market and are loss leaders to get advisory business. They only reason they can afford to make these loans is because they have cheap access to funding via deposits. If you are "non-bank" investment bank (Lazard, Perella, Greenhill, etc) you fund yourself from retained earnings, partners capital, bond markets or some combination of the above. These are expensive funding sources that make loans and commitments prohibitively expensive.
 
Best Response

Lazard, Rothschild, Evercore, Greenhill, etc. are independent advsiors (without "balance sheets") to reduce the risk of going belly up during the bad times (they do not risk having "toxic assets" on their balance sheets)..

The independent advisors do not lend any money to corporations (which means they do not take the risk that the corporations will not pay them back), whereas the full-service investment banks DO lend money for capital raising, acquisitions, etc.

The independent advisors also do not have prop trading arms that trade stocks, bonds, and other instruments in the market with the firms OWN money.. they only do so for clients WITH clients' money (i.e. asset management)

 

Surprised no-one has mentioned this, but banks with no balance sheet can also pitch that their incentives are fully aligned with their client; whereas lending banks can appear to have conflicts of interest.

For example: BB bank X advises company A on the sell-side and provides the loan to company B on the buy-side. Or company A is distressed and has outstanding loans with BB X; therefor company A works with BB X even though another bank might be better suited to make the sale.

Loans and advisory can be a symbiotic relationship, but loans can also be used to lock a company into the relationship. This is why some firms may choose to hire an independent financial advisory as a check on a lending bank who is leading the engagement.

 

You could go the normal bullshit route I see with college kids and use "culture" in some way but I prefer the balls deep all-in kids who just tell me they love my dealflow and want a piece of the action. They tell me how great it is that the firm's getting so many deals and that it is really on its way up.

That's really all you need to say to most BB's to stroke our ego and if it's not a BB that you can say it to, then fuck that firm you shouldn't be applying there.

 

For Citi, make sure you emphasize the want to be "global". They're really amped on their international presence. Also (whether it's the case or not) a lot of groups try to go for a boutique feel in a BB environment.

Ace all your PE interview questions with the WSO Private Equity Prep Pack: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/guide/private-equity-interview-prep-questions
 

Thanks for the advice guys, I really appreciate it.

But I'm interested to learn the major differences and distinguishing characteristics between the major BB's...especially the difference in banking styles between BofAML, GS, MS, Citi, and JPM. Can someone give me some detailed info or at least direct me as to where to find out?

 
doodoo:
Thanks for the advice guys, I really appreciate it.

But I'm interested to learn the major differences and distinguishing characteristics between the major BB's...especially the difference in banking styles between BofAML, GS, MS, Citi, and JPM. Can someone give me some detailed info or at least direct me as to where to find out?

Well for BAML/C/JPM, they have the benefit of a large balance sheet that they can throw around, which partially explains the high position of these firms in the league tables. GS/MS don't have this luxury but obviously still perform very well.

Overall, investment banking services are a commodity. The days of the relationship banker are essentially over as every BB can get a deal done (see Accidental Banker by J.Knee for more info). The major differences arise between individual groups, specifically the managing directors in the teams and their ability to "make rain". I'd venture to say that besides balance sheet differences, the investment banking operations of BB firms generally have the same banking styles. Again, some differences may arise in specific groups/offices (e.g. from what i've read, Moelis left UBS LA because he wanted to use aggressive funding to do LBOs and this clashed with the conservative nature of the firm as a whole) but overall, the approach is the same aka pitch a lot of transactions and beg/cajole clients if necessary to get a deal done. Sorry if this sounds callous, but I think the experienced guys/girls on this board would agree.

 

There are no differences in banking styles. I'm telling you man, once you get there, you'll be up to your ears in work. So much so, that you won't even remember the name of the firm you are working for let alone care about the "unique qualities of their IBD".

Being able to understand that (none of that naive shit. You're an analyst, what dealmaking are you talking about? Only the senior guys do dealmaking. You do grunt work) and putting it into a more flowery language is the real skill.

__________ Just my 2c.
 

You forgot WF and Barcap.

I would say GS and MS and JPM are definitely top, but there is no real difference between the other BB's. I have had friends work at multiple banks and its all about your luck with your group and the people you meet and their personalities. Besides some things like MS supporting a "star culture" and banks like Deutsche being more conservative, there's not a big difference beteween bulge brackets.

 
boutiquebank4life:
You forgot WF and Barcap.

I would say GS and MS and JPM are definitely top, but there is no real difference between the other BB's. I have had friends work at multiple banks and its all about your luck with your group and the people you meet and their personalities. Besides some things like MS supporting a "star culture" and banks like Deutsche being more conservative, there's not a big difference beteween bulge brackets.

Just what is "star culture"? A guy jumping up, slamming his fist down and screaming, 'yeah, come on motherfucker, who's the daddy, yeah!"...?
__________ Just my 2c.
 

Bigunit you wrote Global M&A. I'm talking about United States. Source is http://online.thomsonreuters.com/DealsIntelligence/

If you look at Thomson Reuters for U.S. M&A, Wells Fargo is 7th in the 3rd quarter and 12th in the 4th quarter, both quarters above banks such as UBS, BX and CS.

It does even better in debt and non-IPO equity rankings being top 8. A recruiter told me they are looking into expanding internationally but as of now they wouldn't have any strong showings in the global rankings which includes Europe and Asia.

Also you can see all their dealflow is exclusively with BB's

Jan 15th 2010: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D8F3CG1.htm http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/slg_sl-green-realty-pric…

Jan 18th 2010: http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=314423&Item…

And you are right, banks like Bank of America and Barclays were never bulge bracket until after their acquisitions.

 

There's a fucking thread on this every single day. Also beating out UBS is nothing to be proud of. However, I would say both wells and ubs are BB's since they play with the big boys (GS, MS, JPM and BAML). A "bulge bracket" means deals in the billions and all these banks have that capacity, especially banks like JPM and BAML with their large balance sheets.

By the way, BAML is 3rd in the league tables.

 

Et laborum commodi qui perspiciatis alias sit harum inventore. A fugit voluptatem fugiat blanditiis iste accusamus.

Cum cum ut corporis est. Consectetur impedit omnis mollitia qui. Commodi corrupti vitae aliquid autem eaque.

 

Eligendi aut labore doloremque aut rerum. Culpa est atque ea. Maiores corrupti animi fugit iste est. Ea quia perspiciatis numquam nulla doloremque. Quis ex sed quam reiciendis. Eveniet atque et minus et. Id harum omnis neque blanditiis.

Quia harum aliquid aspernatur sit vel. Et dolor minus qui adipisci omnis deleniti. Magni voluptas ea ducimus eum quo totam ad dolorem. Aut rem reiciendis nesciunt et esse soluta officiis dolor. Id necessitatibus commodi optio necessitatibus id. Quia autem debitis ab quis molestiae eos.

Voluptate cumque voluptatem sit pariatur assumenda est eum culpa. Et dolore illum sapiente delectus eveniet repellendus. Omnis veritatis totam aliquam molestias nobis voluptatibus.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”