Trends in cross-offers?
Have you guys noticed any trends at your schools in terms of cross-offers? The bulges are what the bulges are at this point (CS gets a little "culture" boost at my school, I've noticed), but it's pretty interesting to see how different EB's are doing. I've noticed some tempered interest for LAZ and, to a lesser extent, BX, whereas EVR has been absolutely killing it for my school. GHL/CVP mostly the same, but Guggenheim and especially Qatalyst have seen huge interest comparatively. How have trends been at your schools?
PJT
Not in the thick of things these days, but the high level trends are (a) EBs are now heavily favored over BBs by top kids, and (b) the top EBs are increasingly competing with buyside options for the top talent. I think everybody recognizes those trends already, but if you were someone who went to Wharton a few years, or certainly ten years ago, looking at recruiting there today is a huge contrast.
Among the EBs, EVR/BX are clearly the top choices for the 2+out crowd who know they want to go to the buyside. For BX R&R at least, honestly they don't really compete with other banks for talent, they are competing with Silver Point and Silver Lake. CVP seems to be the top option for those who are more uncertain, those who think they want to stay in banking, or those who just want to make the most money ASAP.
I haven't heard much enthusiasm for Lazard as you noted. Guggenheim is expanding at a ridiculous rate, but is not attracting the same caliber of candidates as BX/EVR. Qatalyst is a killer place to be in terms of comp and deal flow, but it is for a very particular type of person who loves tech.
Are you referring to analyst or associate? At my M7 people are going with BB over EB everyday with the idea of 2 BB for debt and equity experience and then spin off to EB if they want.
This is because there is no real long-term career path at any of the so-called EBs. The senior ranks at all of these firms are filled with bankers who built their careers at full service investment banks.
I can count on my fingers the number of people who have been organically successful at these EBs. Whereas I can point to tons of very smart, talented execution bankers who grew up in these firms who have never developed client relationships so they are in their late 30s and still being the buttboy of a partner who came from MS / CS / ML etc. (and making 25% as much money), and who will get fired and replaced with someone cheaper that day the downturn happens. Its actually quite sad.
And I don't define success as making VP / Director or even becoming an execution MD. I define success as becoming an important and relevant lead banker with significant client relationships.
The only reliable path to becoming a serious banker is through a full service investment bank.
Also PJT.
I'm talking about analyst recruiting, and at Wharton specifically. I don't know much about the trends at other schools so YMMV.
Firm doesn't have a name yet BTW.
Talking to a junior this year with a lot of options regarding Lazard, he seemed turned off by the culture, and based on everything I've heard I can't blame him. EVR appears to be on an upward trajectory as a firm, and they are also paying more than anyone else outside of Qatalyst/CVP.
agreed on all points (and this is for analyst, not associate, recruiting). Qat's paying a pretty penny as well, which doesn't hurt. Buyside dominating is definitely as noticeable as ever: sl, Apollo (credit and that 1 pe slot), and silver point have been absolutely hounded, but people don't love that KKR slot.
What do you think is driving the Evercore/Lazard flip-flop? I'm not too tuned in to recent buyside recruiting, but is that a factor? Money? Growth? On-campus presence? Slight disagreement on the Centerview comment, still feel kids who are getting that and Moelis LA are getting it, but for some reason Moelis NY doesn't feel the same love. Perella's been pretty active recruitment-wise as well, but their class is tiny
Huh. Overall my Laz experience was awesome (as was Evercore), but BX/PJT seemed kinda snooty to me at the junior levels (people not responding to networking, and not rewarding it very much either) [fwiw Centerview and somewhat Greenhill were the same way].
As to the buyside, I was surprised by how much of a "buyside is better, so the earlier the better" attitude there was among top kids in my class. Honestly, I'm a pro-banking guy all the way because I can't imagine being one of two guys under 25 in a firm (or one of four counting interns and FT). The social element of having a class matters a lot to me, even if it's a high single digits crowd, but I think that the wicked smaht kids stereotypically, but truly, are not giving a shit about the social aspect these days.
As for overall culture, recent exits, industry strengths, and senior banker movement, it's pretty hard to find that out at this level. I know forums like this have railed hard against "rank the banks" and "X vs. Y vs. Z" type threads, and I find the former particularly annoying, but I think the "come back to us when you have offers" tone has shut off some relevant, useful, and (most important) timely information. I don't give a shit about prestige, but everything I mentioned at the start of this 'graph has real implications for the junior banker experience. As it stands, though, you're more likely to find a thread about Jefferies' Healthcare group in 2011 and even the impact of Blair Effron leaving UBS than you are to find one seriously discussing how, say, Goldman's consumer/healthcare "merger" impacted their dealflow and analyst exit opps. The dynamic seems to have swung a little too far for my liking.
Some firms care more about networking than others. I think BX has always been of the mindset that they want to hire the smartest people they can find, so they get a bunch of high GPA people and put them through interviews that are almost pure technicals. But the culture there is very good and honestly probably the furthest from snooty of any group I had interviewed with.
The buyside vs banking question is a tough one. The social part that you mention is true, and you will develop a better network at the right banking group. That said, if you are someone who is completely sure you are going to want to end up in PE or HF, and you have outstanding technical skills, it can be hard to justify spending two years in banking. There aren't many people who are developed enough to really benefit from going straight to the buyside (I think fewer than the number who get offers), but at places like Wharton there are usually 2-3 kids graduating every year who already know more than most people who have completed 2 years of banking. On the HF side, Silver Point has been the only real game in town attracting top kids, but it looks like that's starting to change. If you were interested in distressed investing, I would go with SP over all but one or two banking groups. But the key is knowing as a college junior that you really want to do distressed investing. Not many people can legitimately make that call.
I can't imagine anyone taking a banking group over SP. That seems crazy.
Wasn't there some sort of concern with Evercore increasing their class sizes dramatically? Seeing how their deal flow was this year on the league tables, it seems a little underwhelming compared to how they have done in the past.
Guess there is no correlation between deal flow and exit opps if Evercore kids are doing that well. (Case in point BX).
Can confirm very similar trends at my school OP. EVR was one of the later banks to come to campus but many agreed it was their top choice after seeing the quality of people and the culture they have. Guggenheim and qatalyst also seem to have come out of nowhere in terms of desirability (Guggenheim less so).
The bulges remain the bulges and obviously GS/MS/JPM do well but I know some of the kids who are going to sign there preferred EVR/GHL/BX. At the same time, I'm sure people turn down the EBs for the GS or MS name.
Very interested in this. Currently debating between MS/JP/GS and EVR/GHL/BX, and at my school most people who had top EB offers have signed there instead of with BBs like BAML and Citi. A lot of it seems to be about the uncertainty behind group placement at places like JPM and BAML.
Curious to hear more about other schools, or maybe from the perspective of people in the industry above the analyst level.
Very interested in this. Currently debating between MS/JP/GS and EVR/GHL/BX, and at my school most people who had top EB offers have signed there instead of with BBs like BAML and Citi. A lot of it seems to be about the uncertainty behind group placement at places like JPM and BAML.
Curious to hear more about other schools, or maybe from the perspective of people in the industry above the analyst level.
I think as an analyst I would go EB, but as a associate BB. Can always go EB afterwards if I feel like it was the wrong move.
But there is obviously still a tiering, like I would consider GS/MS against anything, but Id probably go with EVR / Lazard over CS / BAML, etc.
That is if I was pure thinking about deal flow and experience and ignoring fit / culture like we tend to do on these boards.
Well I think first of all, there's a fairly significant difference between the banks in the groups you mentioned (and also potentially between groups at BX or EVR). The real issue I had with BBs is that you are making a decision without knowing what group you are joining. There will be large disparities in experience, culture, and exit opps between groups at any of the BBs you are mentioned. In contrast, when you join, say BX, you know exactly what you're getting yourself into. You know the people you will be working with, you know the type of deals you will be working on, and you have a pretty decent idea of what exit opps may look like. So as an example, if you had the choice between BX R&R and MS M&A, it'd be a fair choice and you couldn't go wrong either way; but I think the choice between BX R&R and an unknown group at MS or GS is an easy one to make. So to me, that certainty of outcome along with culture and comp is what pushes EBs ahead at the analyst level. Perhaps you have very strong relationships in certain groups at the BB, and if you do this point may be less valid, but otherwise it's important to consider IMO.
Also may matter what you are aiming to get out of banking. My goal was to do two years and then go to a hedge fund, and I knew that by the time I was making a decision junior year. If you are more uncertain about what you want to do, then the brand name of a BB may offer a wider set of exit opportunities, and also if you are thinking of staying in banking longer-term, I think the BB may be a better choice.
Et provident est voluptatem est molestiae sunt nam. Unde quasi omnis laborum et. Perferendis corrupti quia voluptatem accusantium eum quae totam. Earum et dolor quo alias omnis. Enim qui dolorem nemo laboriosam. Velit minima accusamus consectetur ratione ex modi nulla maxime. Praesentium consequatur praesentium molestiae et rem eum et.
Esse magnam neque nihil non distinctio. Quis dolores tempore consequuntur velit itaque ut repellat. Eos non eum quibusdam voluptatem omnis excepturi expedita facere. Impedit hic nostrum voluptas et autem aspernatur dolor maxime. Nemo est facere esse quaerat neque.
Reprehenderit distinctio quasi aliquid voluptatem delectus et rem. Pariatur quaerat ratione odit unde. Quisquam est sit corporis ea sequi minima et. Mollitia blanditiis asperiores ipsum et.
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...