The rise of RBC Capital Markets
RBC Capital Markets made it in top 9 IB revenue in 2017, above UBS and below the rest of the BBs.
Can any of you experienced professionals tell whether RBC is now considered a BB in the financial world? I know they also made it into the top 30 systematically big banks this year, the "too big to fail" list. But that's probably more of the commercial banking side.
Yes they broke top 10 in the overall league table for revenues... no I would not consider them a BB.
It is my understanding that roughly 65-75% of their deals are sourced by financial sponsor activity. Very much like Wells Fargo or pre-recession CS, they completely lead with their balance sheet. I know in particular there are a couple of specific MF sponsors they have great relationships with. As such, on the coverage side, their energy, healthcare, and tech are probably the closest to "BB-groups" due to a concentration of sponsor activity taking place in these industries (as well as the capital intensive nature of energy... I'm sure you would find generous revolvers attached to any corporate deal they did)
On the product side, they are actively trying to build out their M&A and ECM practices to varying degrees of success.
Thanks for the reply. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by "financial sponsor activity" part, and why would that make them not so "BB". how are the BBs different than them?
What I mean by "financial sponsor activity" is that a large portion of RBC's "deals" are really them representing PE firms in LBOs. That's not necessarily a bad thing or even the entire reason why they're not a BB firm, it's just that a lot of people see these deals as less prestigious. This is because in representing a PE fund in an LBO, instead of a normal M&A deal where corporations are essentially paying the bank for its advice "advisory services", almost everyone at a PE fund is an ex-banker and understands the intricacies of taking over a company. Rather, the PE fund is paying the bank to figure out the financing side (both the best strategy: ie bank debt vs high yield, and the execution: ie underwriting and finding placement of the debt at mezzanine / credit funds, banks, etc..) Additionally, as you could imagine, in exchange for these "advising fees" that the PE funds need to pay banks to arrange financing, the bank will offer up some very low cost loans/revolvers to the PE fund to keep their cost of capital low and everyone happy.... essentially why you usually see banks with huge balance sheets (CS, Wells Fargo, RBC, JPM to some extent) dominate this space.
I see. So the point is RBC gets the advisory deals mostly because they are the financial sponsors of such deal, and also because they charge low for those financing. Regardless, do you see RBC IB advisory making the prestige of a BB anytime soon / in the future?
Would disagree here on three points. The most important being that you don't report how much prestige you earned on your income statement every quarter:
In 95% of M&A deals, you are not offering actual advice, but are simply helping to affect a transaction. Unless you're dealing with a small cap company, chances are that the management team knows their industry about a 100 times better than your MD.
Money is green. Who cares how "prestigious" the deal is? You earn a fee from advisory, plus a fee from the debt issuance, plus a fee from the credit facility. Sure, maybe you cut them a small deal on the debt issuance, but that's still more fees earned than just the advisory fee itself. Screw prestige - money is green.
You have to think about this full cycle. Now, that you're on that lax credit facility, you keep earning a small fee plus the company has to keep you happy, meaning more DCM, ECM (i.e. PE sponsor who may IPO down the road), derivatives trading, and M&A work in the future. Again, that equals more cash in the bank from fees. Mr. Prestigious on the other hand has to keep his fingers crossed that they'll do another M&A deal sometime soon and will use his bank.
They do a lot of sponsor deals, and a lot of leveraged lending, because it was the fastest and easiest way for them to establish a foothold in the US. However, they are also representing a lot of middle market strategics. Basically their model is to let the "bulge brackets" fight over the high-risk, high-reward, name brand clients and focus more on flow business which is moving a bit down market where the competition is less fierce and where they can establish themselves. Their sponsor activity has been a huge part of their business, but as they invest in and build out coverage groups, and bring on MD's with sponsor and corporate relationships, they've been slowly diversifying. Expect the sponsor portion of their business to decline as a percentage as this ramps up.
If you define bb by fees then I'd consider them a bulge. If you define them as advising top strategics then I don't think they are and don't think they're interested in it right now. However in a few years once the bank has been further built out I won't be surprised to see them competitive on plenty of leading deals in the market. They're already seeing that with some of their groups (e.g. Healthcare).
RBC Still Trying to Break Top 10 (Originally Posted: 04/30/2012)
Interesting article from the WSJ on RBC's foray into IBD. A friend of mine will be interning there this summer and said they have been making a very big recruiting push at MBA business schools">M7 b-schools lately. Despite a lot of effort, a favorable balance sheet compared to US peers, and an upswing in deal activity in sectors they target (mining, energy) RBC still seems unable to shake the "also-ran" label.
An excerpt: TORONTO—Five years ago, Royal Bank of Canada began a major push into investment banking, just as its biggest American and European rivals were heading into a financial crisis that would lay them low.
RBC, which emerged from the crisis relatively unscathed and well capitalized, was poised to quickly push its way into the industry's top ranks. Today, the bank is hovering at the edges of that elite group, but its efforts have come at a high cost and produced volatile earnings.
In addition, many of RBC's gains have come from business in its home turf of Canada.
All that has some analysts and investors questioning whether RBC's big bet on investment banking has been worth it.
Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023039906045773705321627888…
In the next 2-3 years, I think that RBC will be undeniably considered a BB. Even right now, a lot of people think RBC is currently a BB, depending on who you ask. Their M&A in certain groups like healthcare and technology are already competing with EBs like Evercore for mandates, and they're only going to get stronger.
IMO, 2-3 years might be a stretch. 5-10 years? Probably.
Strong balance sheet work wonders in this environment. Thanks for the article.
Yea since the new BBs post 2008, only RBC has really consistently made it into the top 9-10.
Well guess they just need to make some big acquisition of a boutique to beef up operations in the U.S.
Nope - it was a one shot pop for failing Canadian O&G work....
Maybe when oil prices reach inflation adjusted $100/bbl again (by that time it will likely be more like $200, if it ever happens) and a bunch of mudslimes and communists (read: Subhumans) get together to tank world commodity prices in an act of economic warfare against the US (which hilariously only made us more profitable while it bankrupted one of the colluding nations, and plunged the remaining countries into political chaos) and our Northern Neighbors are the only real casualty.. THEN they will be top 10.
LOL at subhumans (almost) literally throwing monkeyshit.
Could you post more of the article, or least briefly elaborate more on the pros / cons on RBC's push that the article mentions- don't have a wsj subscription
thanks!
I won't post the article, as I know WSO has rules against that, but here are the bullets: - RBC made a big push post financial crisis to break into the big leagues in IBD. They went on a hiring spree, purchased space, recruited from rivals etc. With crippled US competitors and a fortress balance sheet the firm looked prime to woo business away from US BB. - Despite all of this RBC has yet to break into the top 10 in IBD. Analysts and management were expecting large US growht, but most of the business has been coming from Canada in the mining and energy sectors. That said, they have landed some high profile deals (was on GM bankruptcy team). - Executives say they are still pleased with the progress. The unit is profitable and still has a competitive advantage to some US peers who need to meet new capital requirements and other regulatory hurdles. Canada also ranks 3rd in IBD business behind on the US and China - That said, RBC's IBD business has seen increasing cost (they have the second costliest capital markets business in Canada) and has only managed to come in 3rd place in its home country of Canada. - The foray into IBD has led their earnings, once predictable and stable, to be much more volatile.
Agreed, given the balance sheet, and the fact that RBC Toronto's M&A group is in a category of their own in Toronto, there is no doubt in my mind they will be able to grow their presence in NYC.
Don't read too much into the BB designation; frankly many people consider RBC a BB already. What matters more is the relative perception of the bank, and more importantly, of the specific group (driven by deal flow, exit opps, etc). Subjectively, RBC on the whole might be considered a mid/lower tier BB, but that doesn't really matter on a practical basis. Group specific attributes and what kind of experience you can get are the most important. So If you're asking from the perspective of whether or not it's a bank "worth joining" or one that will open doors for you, I'd say yes.
For what it's worth, being heavy on sponsor deals isn't necessarily a bad thing, and your mileage will vary from an experience perspective based on the type of mandate and the particular sponsor you're working with. The best sponsor deals are ones where you have a truly dual advisory and a financing mandate (ie. not just a tack-on an advisory credit). True, banks are likely adding less incremental value given the expertise of PE firms, but you'll still run a lot of the typical LBO analyses.
Yea what I was really asking is whether RBC is considered prestigious like BBs in finance so that RBC bankers get the same kind of exit opps, recognitions, prestiges... etc
Of the factors you mentioned, exit opps is the only really tangible one. Recognition and prestige only really matter in this context to the extent that it helps with exit opps. On the whole, people from "better" banks tend get "better" exits. That being said there will be plenty of opportunities to recruit for similar, if not the same, positions. You'd just have to just impress them that much more to overcome the branding difference.
Fig team is killer, specific to banks/depos their top 4
deleted
Thanks a lot for the input. It's very insightful. I'm not getting offer from RBC, I'm just curious about the IB industry. Since banks with large balance sheet can win IB business through financial sponsoring, can you tell from your experience which banks are usually on top for strategic mandates?
As posters mentioned above, financial sponsor business isn't necessary bad - but if you want to work at a shop that does just strategic mandates, you would want to look at a boutique that doesn't have a balance sheet at all / doesn't offer DCM/Lev Fin services, ie Houlihan Lokey, Evercore, lazard, Rothschilds, etc..
Canadian checking in here. RBC is technically a BB in Canada at least.
Yeah definitely lad, very strong in Canada/UK. Less than BB in US
Maybe not now, but definitely one of the banks that I see being one in the next 5 years - along with Wells Fargo Securities
"Skate where the puck is going."
There's a reason GS is trying to take deposits (w/out revealing they are - gotta protect that brand!), and its b/c the balance sheet is a real competitive advantage (it is a bank after all). As an investor I'm long/strong on the RBCs, Wells, JPMs (#1) and tepid at best on the GS/boutiques. You can't monopolize knowledge, so its unclear to me that advantages in 'advisory' are long-term sustainable (in fact, that's why we now have all these EBs competing with what used to be an oligopoly of GS/MS). The ability to save someone a few mil on financing = real competitive advantage
RBC's energy group is BB caliber. I would consider the bank to be a second tier BB.
Power & Utilities group also seems to be pretty high up there
Definitely. It's group by group within that firm. They have a massive balance sheet that will continue to open doors for them in other industries, too. Solid bank, just isn't universally in the lead left conversation yet.
What does a rising bbc have to do with Finance?
PE bro here. Was at BB and now large international fund ($13bn). RBC very mm - but that's not meant to be an insult. Just truth.
Nobody will care about this, but RBCCM Public Finance had a great year - moved into the Top 5 (with BAML, Citi, JPM, and MS) and was one of three firms to increase volume over 2016 levels.
Anyone know how comp compares at the senior analyst / junior associate level? Is it basically on par with the Barc, BAML, lower BB set?
Comp at the junior level at BBs and top MMs (RBC, Jefferies) is basically identical. A friend at RBC got $150k all in at the end of his first year.
EBs tend to pay a little ($15-20k) more in bonuses and have slightly higher base salaries ($5-10k).
RBC is stubbed, how did they get 150k?
I struggle to understand why the firm you work for, all else equal, matters to the person considering hiring you in this industry. Obviously I do understand that if you want to leave finance and work for, say, Disney or Facebook or PepsiCo, then its probably easier to get a job at those companies if you have Goldman on your resume versus RBC. This is because you cannot dumb down your experience nearly enough to make sense to those companies. But they have heard of Goldman and likely associate it with prestige and will assume on name alone that you are smart and competent and probably have a solid network. This is simple name recognition stuff. But if you’re jumping within finance, then the person thinking of hiring you is going to want someone with the right relevant financial experience - be it banking, research, trading. And they want to know what specific deals you were on and how you contributed and made the firm money.
A previous commenter noted that people on this website care about prestige. For a college kid trying to get the best career start, sure, and that makes sense. Beyond that, firms are not prestigious... if anything deals and relationships are prestigious. I know that RBC has the #1 or #2 internet analyst on the street. As a result they are on every deal and know everyone in tech. If you like tech, would you rather work at Goldman or RBC? It’s a no brainer you want to work at RBC in this example.
For example, say you have a scenario in which two tech bankers are gunning for the same tech PE job. One is at Goldman and one is at RBC. If the RBC banker worked lead on several more high profile deals than the Goldman banker, then RBC guy is probably getting the job. It’s all about your track record of making money for your shop, and who you know. Totally irrelevant what bank you are working for when it comes to finding new opportunities within this business.
How does having a high ranking tech equity research analyst help their M&A team win deals? Genuine question - not sure how the two complement each other
High ranking sell-side ER analysts translate to more influence in their published research reports and are better regarded by institutional investors. As such, sell side ER analysts' reports carry more weight and have heavier influence on stock prices than say a medicore ER analyst. If a bank is gunning for a client, the sell-side ER analyst will try and publish more favorable reports, updates and recommendations to make the client happy (equals positive stock price influence) to help encourage the client using the same bank for IB purposes. It's all about the relationship
Agree mostly with what you're saying, but that more applies to the perspective of a bank and being a senior banker. PE recruiting is so early these days that 1st year analysts don't even have any closed deal experience by the time it kicks off and the headhunters look at the prestige of the bank and the group. Sure, maybe the RBC TMT banker might have worked on more high profile deals but on a pure exit opp basis, every PE firm and headhunter would be much more focused on GS TMT.
As an aside, not sure if you were using the group as an example, but if you like tech and you're an undergrad, it would be a no-brainer to work for GS TMT instead, over RBC...
What you are saying is fair. We have to draw a line between undergrads/people with
I just re-read your comment and have a follow-on thought. You mention that the PE recruiting process is so early now and that young candidates haven’t the solid experience yet to really speak to. Let that sink in for a moment.... then why is anyone, let alone a PE shop, looking to hire somebody with no valuable experience? You are saying that these kids have no experience... and that hiring managers know this... yet they seek to hire them anyway. Forget the name rec or “prestige” stuff for a moment. Am I misinterpreting? What assets/skills/upside is a PE shop buying when it hires a person who worked at Goldman or JPM for only 11 or 13 months? Versus the same individual from Wells, RBC, or SunTrust even?
Do headhunters reach out to ppl at RBC NYC or do you have to be much more proactive in contacting them? Also wondering what the best groups are (both coverage and product groups).
Does anyone know what exits out of RBC look like? In particular, the M&A group.
Terrible. Lev Fin/Sponsors and Industry have better exits.
So many contradictory info which is misleading
Know several people who are trying exit from there. It's dogshit, lower MM PE is pretty much the end destination for those lucky enough to make it
RBC sucks. Quit creating these "RBC is awesome" threads to boost your ego. No one chooses RBC over any BB or EB or Houlihan or Jeffreys etc.
Nice try HR, RBC is dogshit in every way that matters. Sure, RBC broke top 10, but it's all lead with their balance sheet. They don't take lead on as many deals as other BBs, especially not in M&A (the mandates they are lucky enough to even get)
Lol do some research before posting on this site. So many misleading info on wso.
YTD 2018: https://markets.ft.com/data/league-tables/tables-and-trends/mergers-and… (Top ten M&A banks by fees, split up by region)
1Q2018: https://www.dealogic.com/insight/q1-2018-ma-highlights/
I don't give out misleading info. Feel free to provide a source that proves me wrong
This is a wild thread with a lot of misinformation lol
agree lol ppl never do some easy research on linkedin and start talking shit abt others
Can you clear some information up? Genuinely curious
Excepturi sequi sunt sint explicabo dolorum. Rerum sit omnis esse et modi libero sit laboriosam. Odio distinctio error consequuntur voluptatibus iure nemo aut delectus.
Velit maiores voluptatem atque quia quo neque. Illum quo eum aliquid saepe doloribus ut rerum. Dolorem repudiandae neque quos cupiditate cum. Ipsa velit ipsa illo et magnam velit. Quo velit veniam dicta et maxime magni. Quia vel repellendus soluta eveniet. Animi sed quia vitae voluptate.
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...
Laboriosam officiis eos hic harum. Dolore dolor sed occaecati aut perferendis nisi blanditiis. Delectus eum ad repellat labore rerum id et. Consequuntur possimus veniam aut distinctio esse tempore.
Voluptas neque magnam esse nostrum. Et asperiores consequuntur officiis eius molestias. Quae mollitia ad voluptate iste maiores nostrum. Qui rerum nemo quo cumque pariatur ducimus non iusto. Possimus unde sint nostrum explicabo.
Qui ipsam qui voluptates hic doloremque eum asperiores. Aperiam dolorum qui voluptas voluptates maxime alias sed. Rerum porro saepe eum porro quia. Fugiat ipsum rerum quae impedit. Voluptates quo eius vel voluptate doloremque quod. Nihil qui hic est optio in. Quibusdam ab ipsa iusto doloremque itaque.
In cum dolorem voluptatem quia voluptates. Omnis molestiae vero aliquam praesentium aperiam dolores.
Error sunt aspernatur numquam ut non praesentium. Aut dolore facere harum dolor. Fuga et culpa deleniti ut nobis rem.
Commodi consequuntur hic sed ut nam aperiam a. Vitae quia placeat impedit accusantium eos.
Officiis ullam omnis maiores qui. Voluptatem qui labore officiis. Quod odio placeat itaque nesciunt cum. Natus ut ipsum velit voluptatem veniam totam.
Doloribus repudiandae ut autem officiis voluptas. Qui assumenda mollitia enim laboriosam eum harum. Magnam perspiciatis commodi esse voluptatem est minima. Eum fugit sapiente dolorum et autem voluptatem eligendi.