Trending Content
| +145 | How to stop feeling like shit for not making it in IB? | 55 | 3h | |
| +108 | If Tik Tok is forced to sell, what banks do you think would be involved in the deal? | 53 | 13m | |
| +67 | Updated LA Banking Scene (2024) | 49 | 12h | |
| +38 | Ranking banks that went under | 20 | 2s | |
| +32 | A strategy for SA applicants late to the game like myself | 15 | 6h | |
| +32 | Burnt Out M&A ASO | 17 | 3h | |
| +31 | UBS Actual Buyside Exits 2024 Post-Integration | 9 | 3d | |
| +29 | Relevance of A-Levels for U.K. London recruiting | 21 | 13h | |
| +26 | Series 79 Help / Tips to Pass The First Attempt | 11 | 1d | |
| +25 | Intern Ettiquette | 4 | 9h |
Career Resources
no goldman? but well i agree with the top 4.. CS is known for their technology while MS and BOA-ML is almost everything..
barcap is above UBS
Goldman
Barclays doesn't have a pure play M&A group.
True
Ex Lehman
No real way to do this except in tiers. Deutsche was never really that strong in IBD, moreso in trading, but the tier system works relatively well throughout 1 year, though things are too soon to tell to rank banks yet (wait for 2010 earnings).
Here are the U.S. M&A for 3Q 2009 for those who don't have a Thomsom Reuters Account:
"http://online.thomsonreuters.com/DealsIntelligence/ReviewsAndAnalysis/R…"
If any of you read the question, it asked for the best pure M&A groups on the street, which disqualifies GS, as they don't have pure M&A, and before you stick the Europe corollary on, remember he specified "on the street." I'd say DB is lower, BarCap is higher, but the list is basically accurate. Lists like these are pretty pointless, and while the gap between bottom and top might be quantifiable, it's impossible to do an exact ordering.
What about global M&A for Q3 or YTD 2009? Only US deals is somewhat misleading.
Pulled this from bloomberg. Global M&A activity YTD.
Top 15 names, ranked in order of greatest USD$ volume. The number in brackets is # of deals.
1) Morgan Stanley (264) 2) Goldman Sachs & Co (233) 3) JP Morgan (248) 4) Citi (201) 5) Bank of America Merrill Lynch (182) 6) Deutsche Bank AG (161) 7) Barclays Capital (78) 8) Credit Suisse (182) 9) UBS (188) 10) Lazard LLC (153) 11) Evercore Partners Inc (26) 12) Rothschild (165) 13) Blackstone Group (20) 14) Nomura Holdings Inc (158) 15) RBS (67)
haha... goldman? the people who suggested this should create new usernames if they want to be taken seriously ever again. Can we get the US M&A YTD? Wouldn't that be more relevant for those of us that aren't eurofags?
Also, there is the funny question of cross-border M&A - Sanofi/Chattem for instance, European acq w/ a US target. Would anyone who worked on that deal be a "eurofag"?
Expand your horizons people.
Every other thread is about "pretige" or "rankings"...its making this website seem very uninformed and out of the know... I liked it better when people who went down the path would give advice to others whom are about to...
I can't really describe how you all sound other than .. highschoolish or childish with these rankings and prestige posts...
Strictly North American deals YTD (both acquirer and target/seller in NA). Same format as above.
1) Morgan Stanley (80) 2) Goldman Sachs & Co (88) 3) JP Morgan (85) 4) Barclays Capital (55) 5) Evercore Partners Inc (20) 6) Bank of America Merrill Lynch (74) 7) Citi (53) 8) Lazard LLC (41) 9) Rothschild (20) 10) Blackstone Group (9) 11) Deutsche Bank AG (37) 12) AlixPartners LLP (5) 13) Jefferies & Co (30) 14) RBC Capital Markets (67) 15) UBS (41)
And I got to say, I think rankings = shit. I just posted the above to amuse the people in this thread.
GS and barcap dont have pure play M&A groups and so the rest of our rankings are pretty irrelevant. focus on overall dealflow by looking at reuters
I apologize if the post was offensive and do agree with your point. I'm not a homophobe or a xenophobe - just a naturally profane person. However, you kind of have to look at country specific league tables. There are players that don't do shit in the US and are great abroad and vice versa. (e.g. macquarie, nomura, etc.) I am in the US so that is what I would like to see. A global ranking doesn't tell you much about the presence you will be participating in. Thanks Mezz.
Fucking profound man. Welcome to banking. Get used to it.
That being said I don't like the useless trash talking that goes on on this site, but having a civilized discussion about who is better at what is perfectly fine.
Thanks, but you could've gave me that welcome 3 years ago. Do you think theres a reason everyone that used these boards but now has a job, or most employed with good jobs look down upon this forum?.. Its the mentality of you and this thread. And I'm not lieing. Im actually thinking of packing up and leaving now as well, but I would like to help people with legit questions or at the very minimal point them in the right direction..
It seems to me that most people whom care about these rankings are losers that are still in college, which probably never developed the interpersonal skills to stand up to a bully let alone take charge of a pitch..
I've never stood up to a bully and was a huge pussy on the playground. Guess I'm not gonna make it in banking :-(
decal, I respect and value your intentions. please do not leave the site. you just have to understand that this is a part of it and always will be. regardless, this site still provides a huge value to prospective monkeys.
Honestly, beyond grunt work.. no..if youve been a complete loser your whole life whos been stepped on and never stood up for themselves you probably wont make it at the upper levels unless you can create some highly profitable quant model..As you probably know, higher levle banking is pretty much sales.. and if youve been one way your whole life.. do you think those skills are just going to appear?..
On a second note, just like in the other thread..only college students really care about the "prestige" of firms, just like mostly high school students check the US News rankings... I'm trying to politely inform you that you sound extremely i dunno the right word.. immature, out of the know? when people constantly bring this trash up.. its like the person that has the avatard named gordon gecko.. anyone in ibd/trading sees a 21 year old with that name would laugh...
Worry and discuss more important things.... if you have legit questions about the process or where to learn or fully understand things id be more than happy to help.. ive worked in 3 sides of the business..
I agree, unless your life goal is to go to a Megafund, it really doesn't matter which bank you're at, as long as its good work experience and by that I mean actual deal flow such as say, PJC can be a better experience if they got you on deals over say HLHZ if you just pitch all day.
I didn't post the Global M&A since my boutique only operates in the U.S. so I posted the most recent U.S. M&A league rankings. I figured most people here are not at international banks and are at boutiques as well so I thought the U.S. only was more relevant. Otherwise, the World M&A has a huge bias this year and especially within the past 2 quarters on Asia activity, so the banks that are strong in Asia such as UBS would have a huge advantage but obviously if you are at UBS in NYC or U.S., this may be misleading.
You should probably go by the region by which you are working in. For example, if you are UBS HK, by all means look at the Asia AND world league tables to see the kind of deal flow you can expect. This won't do you any good if you are in Energy in Houston to be looking at Asia or Global league tables. Especially for the real international banks as HSBC, Nomura, BNP Paribas, and even Rothschild. Would it make sense to look at the Asia M&A and think HSBC in NY is going to give you the same experience? No. Be smart about it and stick to your region and ask people in that office.
By the way, important reminder, LEAGUE TABLES ARE NOT FOR PRESTIGE, THEY ARE TO SHOW YOU DEAL FLOW SO YOU CAN MAKE A GOOD DECISION and a rough estimate on which bank can offer you a good experience. It's not about arguing over CS sucking or whatnot. People need to remember that Ibanking is a very small community (especially in the U.S. where 90% of us work) and experience is king, unless of course you are one of those kids whose entire life goal is to work at a megafund, then I guess you need to be at GS/MS.
"avatard" - i'll have to start using that.
All you need to know about league tables is that BoFA is killing it. You guys have no idea but let me give you a little insider info. Buy BAC. It's undervalued, the strongest bank out there both commercial and IBD and it is owning it up, will probably leapfrog JPM soon and compete with GS/MS. ML integration has been great and deal flow is stupendous.
The rankings should be:
MS GS JPM BofA Citi Barcap DB CS UBS WF
In that order
I'm inclined to agree, both with the buy recommendation and the rankings, although I'd say DB/Barclays are tied.
Let me give you a little insider info. 1styearBanker is starting at BofA in the Summer of 2010.
I'm fulltime bro, but you've yet to offer any credible evidence that BoA is not killing the tables right now.
BAC is killing it. is M&A in charlotte or NY?
lol dude, ur kidding urself if u think the ML integretion is great. I spoke to MDs and VPs who will disagree with u...its a shit show right now. maybe ull learn that in yr 2 tho...
1styearbanker you're joining BAC? Jeez - all that trash you talked to me certainly seems to be without merit at this point. BAC and I wouldn't count #5 as "killing it"
Yea he's an asshole but the ranking looks about right. From the leagues I might be inclined to tie both UBS and CS though.
I disagree with "ranking M&A groups = TR M&A league tables".
Personally, I'd rather cut my balls off than work at BAML M&A because the culture is like shit. Rather, I would go to WF or CS and be with people I would enjoy working with, than with the BAML dregs (all the good/quality guys have been poached long ago).
hey lorican,
can you provide some more insight on why you don't like the baml m&a culture?
do you know about their conversion rates from sa to ft?
thnx
Agree lorican. People here are so hellbent on prestige and name that they forget the most important thing; liking your group and the bank culture. I can't speak for BAML culture or anything but I know certain banks like UBS tend to have poor culture in the NY offices and banks like DB and WF tend to have happier campers and management has a more invested focus on their employees. I'd choose DB/WF/Barcap over the banks like Citi and BAML.
A good example is one of our alums from my school (large state school, kinda target) chose MS operations in baltimore over a boutique, I believe baird IBD, just because it was morgan stanley. Needless to say he is now miserable and tries to come back every weekend to visit his old friends as he has almost none in baltimore and hates the job/city.
where is piper jaffray on this
I've posted this in another thread. It's not the "whole" culture, just one team and from one piece of personal experience. I worked on a deal with them in London and thought they acted like douchebags during a client meeting. Doing a less than awesome allnighter because of that also didn't help.
I don't know about the conversion rate, but hear that in London it was quite high.
where is goldman? I think MS, GS and JPM are of tier 1
2007 Global M&A rankings non-massaged :) (Originally Posted: 02/27/2008)
Here is the ranking of banks by M&A deal volume throughout 2007 year all over the world. I know there are many people here who tend to "rank" investment banks - discuss.
1 Morgan Stanley (€461 bln., 157 deals) 2 Goldman Sachs (€446 bln., 178 deals) 3 Citigroup Inc (€413 bln., 185 deals) 4 UBS (€388 bln., 191 deals) 5 Merrill Lynch (€377 bln., 156 deals) 6 JPMorgan (€267 bln., 124 deals) 7 Rothschild (€267 bln., 267 deals) 8 Lehman Brothers (€259 bln., 92 deals) 9 Credit Suisse (€258 bln., 136 deals) 10 Deutsche Bank AG (€256 bln., 141 deals) 11 ABN AMRO (€183 bln., 146 deals) 12 BNP Paribas SA (€135 bln., 101 deals) 13 Lazard (€127 bln., 139 deals) 14 Mediobanca SpA (€94 bln., 50 deals) 15 Dresdner Kleinwort (€82 bln., 53 deals)
If I were a college student looking to choose between two full time offers, these rankings would be worthless to me (and trust me, they're even more worthless when you're on the job). If I'm working in the U.S., for example, I only care about domestic rankings. Furthermore, I only care about my industry specifically. On top of that, I wouldn't rank by volume, I'd rank by # of deals. Because at the end of the day, I only care about the # of deals I do - whether it be 1bn or 10bn, I could really care less. I'd rather be in a group that allowed me to close 4 deals over 2 years at 800mm a peice than 1 deal at 3bn.
Couldn't agree more
can someone please post a link to rankings by industry by # of deals
Would you rather work in M&A at Lazard or at Amro? Would you rather work at Citigroup or at Lehman? I think these ranking are kind of pointless, but then again, it's just interesting to see who's getting the most stuff out there...
I get your point about Lazard over Amro, but comparing Citi vs. Lehman in the same breath is moronic. Citi has an excellent M&A group, and has done some mega deals. Don't let the subprime mess there cloud your vision of what the IBDs are truly like.
I didn't know CS was so far down. On the other hand, I didn't Rothschild got their hands on so many deals.
Ivan, there's nothing to discuss here except your naivete. All rankings are massaged in some way - depends on how you cut and dice the data. Is it based on completed global deals? announced deals? Imputed fees? I don't know where you get this data from. Rothschild at No. 7? You must be kidding. Mediobanca - what's that? If you look at Thomson's ranking, it's far more believable.
http://www.thomson.com/pdf/financial/league_table/ma/4Q2007/4Q07_MA_Fin…
this is only for 4Q07---not necessarily representative due to the subprime mess
It is indeed not massaged. Entire 2007 calendar year, all regions of the world, all announced M&A deals, without minimum deal value threshold. Actually, the whole idea was just to post hard data and see what people will say. With regards to Rothischild - it's one of the leaders in European M&A and always have been. With regards to Mediobanka - well, there are many investment banks outside of the USA, you should have known :))) And Credit Suisse so far down... well, those are hard facts. Still 258 bln. euro in deal value is good.
Alright Ivan, point out your source for the data, if you are so confident that it's "non-massaged".
You are right, I kind of bashed Citi with that comparison. I actually interned there and liked it a lot. I just couldn't come up with a better example from that table, but you get my point from my first example :)
2011 M&A rankings (Originally Posted: 09/29/2011)
Here are the 2011 rankings for the M&A activities. The ranking is through September though. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/graphics-mergers-and-acquistions/ Any comments on Citi and Evercore jump?
That's # and deal value, not fees
Never understood why people didn't look more closely at the fee rankings. That seems more important to me than the actual deal value.
If AT&T/TMO doesn't go through, watch that Evercore number fall off the chart
'
Despite all the doom and gloom on this forum on UBS, they still pulled in a reasonable # of deals
Current M&A rankings (Originally Posted: 10/27/2014)
For all those interested:
http://fn.dealogic.com/fn/MARank.htm
Question -- what is considered the "go-to" or "gold standard" for league tables? I have been using Thomson and there are relatively large discrepancies between this and Thomson and other sources.
I would say Dealogic. in terms of numbers being reported to the senior executives at the BB I worked at, dealogic was what was used.
Dealogic is by far the most accurate/up to date in comparison to Thomson/FT, etc.
On what basis? Not insinuating you are wrong, but looking for understanding as to why that is.
Pretty legit that Allen & Co. and Tudor Pickering crack the top 20 despite focusing on a single industry.
Wonder how the slump in energy will affect performance in the next couple of quarters. I could see a lack of risk appetite to make acquisitions, but also a need to cut costs.
PJT killing it.
Does anyone know where to locate Leveraged Finance / DCM league tables?
thanks
M&A Rankings (Originally Posted: 04/16/2007)
M&A Rankings
I think it would be interesting to consider M&A rankings distinct from general rankings. This is a ranking of M&A quality, specifically not rewarding BoA, Citi, and JPMorgan for providing financing for deals advised on by other banks.
here's how I see it:
Wells Fargo should be on there.
I should amend and say this is larger banks only i think boutiques have their niche and should be judged separately
My logic for GS and MS is pretty straight forwrad. ML and Lehman provide pure advisory and did well recently on large transactions. ML i think is good adds value to sponsor clients as well better than some of the other banks lower on this list.
Credit Suisse has specialist groups that provides very good service. My logic for UBS is they barely provide financing because they are terrible and do a lot of pure sole advisory work on the sell side. Also, they were no.4 in the global fee pool. Also if you look at UBS they are liek 12th in the PE deal tables --
Bringing me to citi and jpm-- a lot of their street cred is from sponsors deals where they are almost always involved. I'd argue some parts of Citi are higher such as FIG and telecoms. To be honest 3a and b have very very little differentiation.
Bear quality woudl be higher if they did some bigger deals. In the MM they are very competitive.
i dunno man....
it seems to me a stretch to put UBS and CS on the same line as ML and Lehman
how about...
I dunno about putting Bear before DB for M&A. Where's Lazard? BoA vs Bear is interesting too. It's pretty hard to stack then but I do agree with GS, MS then ML/Leh
How about looking at the league tables?
Jack
Please scroll up, you've missed quite a bit hehe
League tables are so convoluted its disgusting. Fee pool is the best stat to look at.
ok fair enough -- from a prestige perspective not neccessarily execution. Execution becomes very very industry specific.
I dont think there s a better media execution team outside of UBS (LA). Also, I dont think there s too many better tech execution teams than CS (SF).
Overall, I'll give you those rankings on prestige. I was thinking primarily strategic M&A. Also the gap between those two tiers is ridiculously low.
I definitely agree with Westcoasting. Goldman is king of M&A, and Morgan is the next best thing. UBS, ML, CS, and Lehman are all solid M&A focused shops, whereas JPM and Citi are much more financing focused. And BofA just kind of sucks..
bumb
where do ppl get info on fee pool please? any links will be awesome thx
I'll have you know that for 1Q advisory fees, Citigroup was second only to GS. MS collected 380 million. Citigroup 460 million. The imputed fee tables in Thomson are only Thomson's only estimates as the banks do not disclose fees to them. You need to look at the quarterly earning, which is where i got my figures.
In addition, i'd like to point out that the 460 million in advisory fees is for pure advisory and does not include financing fees. Financing fees are listed under a separate category of 'banking lending' on the Citi financial statements.
So this idea of Citi only doing financing is clearly bunk.
In addition, the idea that Citi is lead in a smaller percentage of deals than MS and LB is bunk too as Citi had around the same announced and completed deal value as MS but they still collected more fees. You people are just scared because the tables are turning.
True, but how many advisory mandates were there just beacuse they provided financing?
Just something to think about. Would be interesting to see how many deals Citi did without providing any financing for... eh Citibanker.
But what does it matter? as long as they are doing the advising. their financing capability is an asset and another way the bank can serve clients. ultimately the goal is to meet client needs. It's just means that their busines strategy is working well, at the expense of other 'pure plays'.
what would you all say the ranking of M&A groups is today?
Vel est quod molestiae distinctio. Libero facilis voluptas occaecati earum assumenda.
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...
Cumque tenetur aliquam inventore maxime non quis qui et. Libero quia et omnis quidem. Voluptas sed aut dolor explicabo laborum voluptatem veritatis.
Ea et hic quasi praesentium sint. Dolor commodi autem nesciunt. Ad repudiandae quod quis non. Ab maiores reprehenderit accusantium rem libero. Aut quia temporibus neque. Consequatur eveniet consequuntur error sit.
Modi non fugiat commodi quia quia. Repellat explicabo blanditiis quibusdam qui ab quo. Aut animi eaque voluptatem est amet. Et quos architecto iure.
Accusamus dolorum corrupti accusantium modi nisi. Rem quia nihil iure voluptatem iste omnis qui. Aut aliquid aut laborum debitis consequatur consequatur iste consequatur. Quasi maxime ipsa maiores nihil. Voluptates maxime illo impedit quos officiis quasi minima inventore. Molestias voluptas ut et quia laudantium asperiores. Est quia beatae sed facilis.
Quos tenetur quod dolores est libero. Voluptas sed voluptates sint atque. Est aperiam optio eum velit eligendi cupiditate. Soluta repellendus aliquid ut omnis expedita. Quaerat nihil dolore quidem consequatur ut. Quae et nemo nostrum excepturi.
Velit cum odio veritatis. Modi asperiores magnam omnis at.
Nemo quisquam maxime deleniti molestias voluptas voluptatibus illum. Dolor asperiores natus tempora similique animi. Aut quidem consequatur error magni culpa.
Omnis quae dolor vero. Dolor laborum non et dolorem sunt velit. Facere doloremque quam reiciendis enim. Dolorum tempore velit facilis est voluptatum fuga asperiores sint.
Sed eaque dolores molestiae et in explicabo. Exercitationem molestiae nam magnam illum aut enim.