Comments (88)

Dec 22, 2009

no goldman? but well i agree with the top 4.. CS is known for their technology while MS and BOA-ML is almost everything..

Dec 22, 2009

barcap is above UBS

Dec 22, 2009

Goldman

#

#

#

The time is now, seize the day ...

Dec 22, 2009

Barclays doesn't have a pure play M&A group.

Dec 22, 2009

True

Ex Lehman

#

#

#

The time is now, seize the day ...

Dec 22, 2009

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).

  1. GS, MS,
  2. JPM
  3. BoA/Citi
  4. Deutsche/Barcap
  5. UBS/CS/WF

Here are the U.S. M&A for 3Q 2009 for those who don't have a Thomsom Reuters Account:

  1. Morgan Stanley
  2. Goldman Sachs
  3. Citi
  4. Bank of America Merrill Lynch
  5. Evercore
  6. Blackstone
  7. Wells Fargo
  8. Deutsche Bank
  9. Rothschild
  10. Barclays
  11. AP Services
  12. Greenhill
  13. UBS
    14*
    14*
  14. BNP Paribas
  15. JPM
  16. RBS
  17. Lazard
  18. PWP
  19. Centerview
  20. Credit Suisse

"http://online.thomsonreuters.com/DealsIntelligence..."

Dec 22, 2009

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.

Dec 22, 2009

What about global M&A for Q3 or YTD 2009? Only US deals is somewhat misleading.

Dec 22, 2009

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)

Dec 22, 2009

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?

"Ride your bike. Drink good beer."
- Fat Tire Amber Ale

Dec 22, 2009
bullmarket1:

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?

While it's clear that the world to you is defined by the boundaries of California on the west and the Russkies on the east, with no concept of people who don't look like you anywhere in there, there is that whole part of the world known as Asia (and to some extent Africa and the Middle East). Some would argue that Asian M&A is going to be an increasingly important driver of business going forward.

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.

Dec 22, 2009

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...

Dec 22, 2009

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)

Dec 22, 2009

And I got to say, I think rankings = shit. I just posted the above to amuse the people in this thread.

Dec 22, 2009

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

Dec 22, 2009
dacarez:

While it's clear that the world to you is defined by the boundaries of California on the west and the Russkies on the east, with no concept of people who don't look like you anywhere in there, there is that whole part of the world known as Asia (and to some extent Africa and the Middle East). Some would argue that Asian M&A is going to be an increasingly important driver of business going forward.

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.

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.

decal22x:

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...

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.

"Ride your bike. Drink good beer."
- Fat Tire Amber Ale

Dec 22, 2009
bullmarket1:
dacarez:

While it's clear that the world to you is defined by the boundaries of California on the west and the Russkies on the east, with no concept of people who don't look like you anywhere in there, there is that whole part of the world known as Asia (and to some extent Africa and the Middle East). Some would argue that Asian M&A is going to be an increasingly important driver of business going forward.

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.

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.

decal22x:

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...

fucking profound man. welcome to banking. get used to it.

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..

Dec 22, 2009

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.

"Ride your bike. Drink good beer."
- Fat Tire Amber Ale

Dec 22, 2009
bullmarket1:

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..

Dec 22, 2009

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.

Dec 22, 2009

"avatard" - i'll have to start using that.

"Ride your bike. Drink good beer."
- Fat Tire Amber Ale

Dec 22, 2009

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

Dec 23, 2009
1styearBanker:

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.

Dec 22, 2009

Let me give you a little insider info. 1styearBanker is starting at BofA in the Summer of 2010.

Dec 22, 2009

I'm fulltime bro, but you've yet to offer any credible evidence that BoA is not killing the tables right now.

Dec 22, 2009

BAC is killing it. is M&A in charlotte or NY?

"Ride your bike. Drink good beer."
- Fat Tire Amber Ale

Dec 22, 2009

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...

Dec 22, 2009

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"

Dec 23, 2009

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.

Dec 23, 2009

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).

Just my 2c.

Jan 28, 2010

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

Dec 23, 2009

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.

Jan 6, 2010

where is piper jaffray on this

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Just my 2c.

Jan 28, 2010

where is goldman? I think MS, GS and JPM are of tier 1

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

Couldn't agree more

Jan 28, 2010

can someone please post a link to rankings by industry by # of deals

Jan 28, 2010

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...

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

I didn't know CS was so far down. On the other hand, I didn't Rothschild got their hands on so many deals.

Jan 28, 2010

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/...

Jan 28, 2010
Banana_milkshake:

http://www.thomson.com/pdf/financial/league_table/...

this is only for 4Q07---not necessarily representative due to the subprime mess

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

Alright Ivan, point out your source for the data, if you are so confident that it's "non-massaged".

Jan 28, 2010

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 :)

Jan 28, 2010

That's # and deal value, not fees

Jan 28, 2010
Solidarity:

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.

Jan 28, 2010

If AT&T/TMO doesn't go through, watch that Evercore number fall off the chart

Jan 28, 2010

'

Jan 28, 2010

Despite all the doom and gloom on this forum on UBS, they still pulled in a reasonable # of deals

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

Dealogic is by far the most accurate/up to date in comparison to Thomson/FT, etc.

Jan 28, 2010
pstrat:

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.

Jan 28, 2010

Pretty legit that Allen & Co. and Tudor Pickering crack the top 20 despite focusing on a single industry.

Jan 28, 2010
ThirdCoastBorn:

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.

Jan 28, 2010

PJT killing it.

Jan 28, 2010

Does anyone know where to locate Leveraged Finance / DCM league tables?

Jan 28, 2010

thanks

Jan 28, 2010

Wells Fargo should be on there.

Jan 28, 2010
LudvigJ:

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:

  1. GS
  2. MS
  3. ML, Lehman
  4. Citi, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan
  5. Bear Stearns
  6. BoA, DB

What happened to UBS and the boutiques (Lazard, Evercore, etc.)? The top boutiques would definitely be above ML/Leh.

Jan 28, 2010

I should amend and say this is larger banks only
i think boutiques have their niche and should be judged separately

  1. GS
  2. MS
  3. ML, Lehman
  4. Citi, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan
  5. Bear Stearns, UBS Investment Bank
  6. BoA, DB
Jan 28, 2010
  1. GS
  2. MS
  3. ML, Lehman, UBS, CS
    3b. JPM, Citi
  4. Bear
  5. DB
  6. BoA

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.

Jan 28, 2010

i dunno man....

it seems to me a stretch to put UBS and CS on the same line as ML and Lehman

how about...

  1. GS
  2. MS
  3. ML, Lehman
  4. UBS, CS
  5. JPM, Citi
  6. Bear
  7. DB
  8. BoA
Jan 28, 2010
LudvigJ:

i dunno man....

it seems to me a stretch to put UBS and CS on the same line as ML and Lehman

how about...

  1. GS
  2. MS
  3. ML, Lehman
  4. UBS, CS
  5. JPM, Citi
  6. Bear
  7. DB
  8. BoA

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

Jan 28, 2010

How about looking at the league tables?

Jan 28, 2010

Jack

Please scroll up, you've missed quite a bit hehe

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

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..

Jan 28, 2010

bumb

Jan 28, 2010

where do ppl get info on fee pool please? any links will be awesome
thx

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

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.

Jan 28, 2010

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'.

Jan 28, 2010

what would you all say the ranking of M&A groups is today?

Jan 28, 2010
Comment
Jan 28, 2010
Comment

Just my 2c.

Jan 28, 2010
Jan 28, 2010
Comment

Just my 2c.

Jan 28, 2010