RX vs M&A: Breaking In?
Why do people say it is so much harder to break into RX compared to breaking into M&A?
And what do you see being busier in the next several years?
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +313 | UBS Tech MD hires Son (from no-name college) as an Intern | 54 | 1h |
| +89 | [Official] 2026 IB Analyst Bonus Megathread (with 2025 Consolidated Pay and Perks/Benefits) | 12 | 1d |
| +52 | Is DCM actually underrated ? | 18 | 7h |
| +46 | Are all Tech / TMT groups sweaty? | 31 | 7h |
| +41 | UBS Groups Ranked by Future Outlook | 20 | 4d |
| +40 | JPM M&A is Gone??? Purely Coverage Banking??? | 20 | 7h |
| +37 | Am I behind? 31 Year Old Analyst | 10 | 10h |
| +32 | UVA McIntire vs Cornell Dyson for IB | 19 | 3d |
| +32 | Losing my personality in Banking | 5 | 22h |
| +31 | Incoming IB Analyst: Best Ways to Prepare? | 8 | 22h |
Career Resources
top Rx groups are harder to get into than M&A groups. they tend to require better technical skills. usually you're not confined within one group. you get staffed depending on deal flow. or at least that's how it is at Pjt (ex Blackstone) London. Rx is def more interesting, working on the restructuring of a large comp or of a country's debt is something else.
I wouldn't say that it's tougher to get into RX than M&A. Of the four top players in the RX space (PJT/HL/MC/LAZ), you go through the same recruiting process as M&A for two of them (MC/LAZ). You're placed into RX after getting a generalist offer for Lazard while Moelis is completely generalist and you are staffed on M&A and RX assignments - sames goes for Greenhill, PWP and Centerview.
PJT and HL RX interviews are definitely tougher than their respective M&A ones though. RX will be busier if markets continue to deteriorate.
It isn't that RX is harder they are just different skillsets w/ different relevant technicals. Coming straight out of school M&A is easier since general academic corporate finance is geared more in that direction. RX is a bit more practical than academic since certain fundamentals and textbook rules can be less relevant in a restructuring.
Neither are "hard" it is just a matter of learning and reps. RX reps are just harder to get outside an RX group and its hard to get into an RX group w/o the RX reps. Its a bit of a chicken and egg dilemna. It is easier to get into an RX group through OCR than trying to lateral.
Are there less RX spots overall on the street vs M&A spots?
I was looking into it but everyone that I've spoken to has said you have to go to strong target with a strong finance curriculum like Wharton/Stern to even get an interview.
Are interviews really that technical that only strong finance kids can answer them? Can non-targets / semi-targets break in?
When I was going through recruiting my buddies and I wrote down all our questions we got from interviews. The RX interviews my friends went through seemed much more challenging to me.
If you are not a strong finance student you are not surviving some of those interviews.
Do you still have this list?
It really doesn't have anything to do with technicals so much as the number of spots relative to M&A. There are significantly fewer Rx spots up for grabs than M&A. As a result, you need to have better technical skills to be a better candidate to get a job, but technical skills aren't the driving factor in why Rx is harder to break into.
Do RX analysts travel frequently? I heard sometimes M&A analysts are sometimes roadshows or travel for management presentations. Is this case for RX as well?
So Rx is harder to get into than M&A because there are less spots. What about compensation/exit opps? What is the incentive of going to Rx?
People that I've spoke to said it's the best experience you can get as an analyst because of how much you pull apart companies searching for value, how great of understanding you get of the general capital structure of companies, and how technical the nature of the job is. Comp is same as IB but I've heard top shops like the ones mentioned above (HL, Lazard etc.) get great perks and slightly higher salary than M&A bankers.
I think the incentives may be 1) you probably will never be laid off since when people are getting laid off that's when you make money and 2) Exits seem to everything M&A / Lev-Fin bankers get + additional opportunities at distressed PE / HF and other credit / debt type funds.
On the experience side I personally agree but I am biased being that RX is where my interest is as well as all of my deals. Debtor side is definitely more technical but also more process. Debtor advisors have to run diligence for the creditor advisors, which for a distressed company is about 100x more annoying than a traditional sellside.
Does everything said above apply for MBA Associate hires?
Iusto aut dolor iusto labore eligendi sint. Suscipit vitae neque cumque repudiandae et dignissimos. Ipsa dolorem aut maiores illo. Iure ut quisquam aliquam aut qui facere quaerat sunt.
Necessitatibus est culpa autem. Soluta quam vel consequuntur beatae eos voluptatibus dolores.
Animi dolorum ut aperiam ut. Iusto molestiae dolorem et sed quasi. Sed laboriosam sunt nulla qui odit. Provident doloremque ut voluptates ut sit. Maxime et exercitationem porro et qui repellendus iure et. Et magnam est alias sunt.
Ut omnis accusantium vel eaque voluptatem officia cumque perferendis. Aperiam ut sapiente ut eum hic. Aut non est optio repudiandae omnis molestiae et. Id laborum vero nesciunt voluptatum vero quia.
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...