UK Restructuring v.s M&A
Hi Everyone,
I am soon to start at a top UK independent EB/Independent advisory firm with a strong RX division - think Evercore/Lazard/Rothschild. I am very interested in RX due to the nature of the work and mainly because of its exit opportunities into distressed PE/HFs. However, I'm not 100% sure distressed investing is what I want to do down the road, because I'm also interested in MM and MF LBO funds. Therefore I have a few questions:
1) Will working in RX exclusively limit me to distressed investing or will it give me chances to work in "normal" PE funds - including MFs?
2) What can you tell me about the RX practices of the firms mentioned above in terms of placement into PE and HFs in the UK?
3) I am not from the UK and am potentially interested in moving back to my home country - how much will working in RX using the UK bankruptcy legal frameworks limit me geographically?
4) Considering the position I'm in (choosing between m&a (industry coverage) vs. RX), not being 100% certain distressed investing is for me, what decision would you make and why?
5) What resources (using the UK bankruptcy legal framework) do you recommend to read about distressed investing? I have Whitman's "Distressed Investing", but it uses the U.S.A bankruptcy code.
Thanks in advance!
I don't work in restructuring but I'll be joining a BB this year in m&a and can try answer your questions considering no one has answered them.
1 & 2) Depends which one you are going to, if it is Lazard, then they are (and i think everyone can agree) no.1 globally, in the US and EMEA in restructuring, followed by PJT/Blackstone and houlihan.
Any of the above 3 will have outstanding exit ops to all types of MF/MM funds and HFs. You can also move into government or consulting from these places.
Evercore and Rothschild will probably be more limited than the above to enter more traditional buyout funds, however they will still place very strongly for distressed focused funds but not as well as their m&a practices would place for the more traditional buyout pe funds or l/s hfs.
3) considering you're dealing with elite boutiques I'd see if they have offices in your home country, if so you can potentially ask to relocate after a couple years - you don't ask you dont get.
4) m&a is obv more broad and open so may be better if you're unsure, but as far as im aware EBs usually allow you to rotate divisions after a couple years im sure it wouldn't be too difficult to switch from restructuring to m&a and vice versa
5) not a clue
Hi and thanks for the reply. I tend to agree with most of your logic, except for Lazard's huge superiority over Roths and Evercore you mentioned - Are you speaking from a U.S perspective? Coming from the U.K and having interviewed for both firms, I don't feel such a large perceived difference between Laz and Roths, at least prestige wise. I'm likely to go into m&a in the end, but it's good to have some valid info so thanks for contributing to this very unpopular thread!
Hi, both in the US and UK.
Both Laz and Roth are fantastic, to answer your question, the reason why Laz is perceived to be more prestigious than Roths is due to the fact Laz is slightly smaller in size (I think they have 100-150 employees in London where as Roths has over 250 in London). Yet despite being smaller, Laz works on the largest deals, whereas Roths focus more on middle market deals. But imo, there is a massive benefit for Roth doing this, and that's the added deal volume. As there are more middle market deals than large deals and so if you was going Roths they would have great deal flow. This would be very good when talking to headhunters as you'll have worked on more deals than you would have if you was at another bank. To look at some data for restructuring, according to Roths 2016 annual report they ranked 5th in EMEA restructuring and Laz ranked no.1. Globally, the average sized restructuring deal for Rothschild was $1.59bn and Lazard was $2.99bn. I haven't been able to find much online about Evercore, so if you are going there PM and I'll ask my friend who works there to get his views on it.
Imo they are all top players in both m&a and restructuring so whichever bank it is that you're going out of Laz/Roth/Evercore you're going to have very strong exit opps.
Feel free to PM me if have any more questions as I said i don't work at these firms or in restructuring so don't take my word as 100% accurate but everywhere I've read has said the top players in this field are houlihan, lazard and pjt/Blackstone, followed by roths and Evercore etc..
But the difference isn't that big and I think any of these firms would be amazing to work in and place well in HFs and MM/MF PE.
1) no, plenty of rx analysts go to non-distressed funds 2) going to agree with @Just The Tip. Laz/HL/PJT are typically seen as the best rx shops. Roth is slightly below, even for its European division. 3) not sure about this one, but a good question to ask an analyst on a phone call or something 4) Honestly I'm pretty indifferent. Rx is cool because the deals are typically a little more complex, but m&a also provides you a great skillset 5) not sure about this one either
Would you not consider Moelis to be as good as the banks you mentioned in restructuring in London? Where would you place them?
1) Will working in RX exclusively limit me to distressed investing or will it give me chances to work in "normal" PE funds - including MFs?
I would not worry about that aspect, working at an EB in RX will give you plenty of opportunities to join normal PE funds. Just look around a bit on Linkedin, you will find a lot of examples who went to good funds. However, I would tend to say that the guys who choose RX usually prefer to go to more distressed-type shops rather than plain vanilla PE.
2) What can you tell me about the RX practices of the firms mentioned above in terms of placement into PE and HFs in the UK?
They place quite well - as long as you get good deal experience and are well ranked you should have plenty of opportunities. However, one word of caution at this stage: Hiring for distressed positions is quite slow currently as most funds hired loads of folks in the last couple of years expecting the market to turn, which hasn't happened. Thus, distressed teams are quite sizeable with not many opportunities being available, which isn't ideal for hiring at the moment.
All of LAZ, RS, EVR, GHL, PJT, HL, PWP will give you opportunities to interview for top funds (PE and HF) on the street. However, GS/MS/JPM have a slight edge here from my experience.
HL and PJT probably place best for distressed funds, but as I said it is very feasable from all of them.
3) I am not from the UK and am potentially interested in moving back to my home country - how much will working in RX using the UK bankruptcy legal frameworks limit me geographically?
It won't.
4) Considering the position I'm in (choosing between m&a (industry coverage) vs. RX), not being 100% certain distressed investing is for me, what decision would you make and why?
Subjective response: Personally I prefer RX. M&A gets quite repetitive after two years (if not boring), while RX projects usually excite me a little more. I also like the emotional component and tactics when working on restructuring transactions and find the work a bit more challenging than M&A. I also think you learn most of the things that you would in M&A anyway.
5) What resources (using the UK bankruptcy legal framework) do you recommend to read about distressed investing? I have Whitman's "Distressed Investing", but it uses the U.S.A bankruptcy code.
I'd probably only read the Moyer and the usual IB prep stuff and then wait until you learn what you need on the job.
above_and_beyond , Just The Tip and john1659 Thank you all for the in depth answers, I appreciate insight!
4) "Buying and selling the troubled company" from HL => first link on google This is a very good start to learn more about RX eventhough it's also US law based i guess
Error facilis animi iste consectetur quis ut voluptatem. Ullam nihil ut blanditiis. Repudiandae consequatur beatae enim assumenda corporis cumque.
Dolore facilis veritatis sunt ea consequatur aperiam officia tenetur. Labore nulla eligendi adipisci quia sunt. Velit quibusdam sit magnam omnis.
Quidem nihil animi dolorum impedit. Enim sunt doloribus rem repudiandae ab rerum. Ut quidem quaerat ducimus ab aperiam. Vitae qui iste est. Iste aperiam et aperiam cupiditate.
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...