Wells Fargo (IBD) vs. Baird (IBD)

I haven't seen a direct comparison between these two banks, and I'm just curious what everyones' opinion is.

Obviously they have different deal sizes, but they're both growing substantially. If you had a choice between the two, which bank would you choose for SA?

 
A2Allegiance:
Nouveau can you elaborate a little bit please?

Sure thing. For starters, I might need to go back and find data to support some of my claims ex post facto, but if nothing else, given two banks of similar "prestige," I almost always lean towards the privately held company.

What are the implications of being private? It means that the bank will act independently and to the extent that they do underwrite (as Baird does) they won't take irrational risk in doing so. This model naturally makes a shop more inclined to lean on pure advisory services like M&A whereas Wells is going to want to use that big ass balance sheet of of theirs to finance the shit out of everything. This means when seeking a mandate, the senior M&A banker at Wells doesn't know if he got hired because his team was able to differentiate itself intellectually or if they just got it because the Cap Markets or Corporate Banking teams had the client by the balls via staple financing or the exertion of influence via their credit facilities (respectively). The Baird/William Blair/Harris Williams/etc. players of the world will literally never have to worry about that and can rest comfortably knowing that their services are actually the driving force of their business.

To put it another way, if I had to work at a different bank, I know that my shortlist would possibly include Baird and definitely include select contemporaries like Harris Williams, but it would never include Wells Fargo.

Let me know if that clears things up at all.

“Millionaires don't use astrology, billionaires do”
 
Nouveau Richie:
A2Allegiance:
Nouveau can you elaborate a little bit please?

Sure thing. if nothing else, given two banks of similar "prestige," I almost always lean towards the privately held company.

What a joke answer. So Baird > GS, MS, JPM, DB, Citi, BoA, Wells, and CS because they're all public?

 
Nouveau Richie:
A2Allegiance:
Nouveau can you elaborate a little bit please?

Sure thing. For starters, I might need to go back and find data to support some of my claims ex post facto, but if nothing else, given two banks of similar "prestige," I almost always lean towards the privately held company.

What are the implications of being private? It means that the bank will act independently and to the extent that they do underwrite (as Baird does) they won't take irrational risk in doing so. This model naturally makes a shop more inclined to lean on pure advisory services like M&A whereas Wells is going to want to use that big ass balance sheet of of theirs to finance the shit out of everything. This means when seeking a mandate, the senior M&A banker at Wells doesn't know if he got hired because his team was able to differentiate itself intellectually or if they just got it because the Cap Markets or Corporate Banking teams had the client by the balls via staple financing or the exertion of influence via their credit facilities (respectively). The Baird/William Blair/Harris Williams/etc. players of the world will literally never have to worry about that and can rest comfortably knowing that their services are actually the driving force of their business.

To put it another way, if I had to work at a different bank, I know that my shortlist would possibly include Baird and definitely include select contemporaries like Harris Williams, but it would never include Wells Fargo.

Let me know if that clears things up at all.

Most of WF's M&A is middle market and in the MM, balance sheet financing rarely comes into play.. if anything, being able to arrange private debt is more important I would say in the MM because of smaller company sizes and less of a need to go into public market financing (i.e. syndicated debt). So I wouldn't entirely say this is an intellectual capital vs. balance sheet strength game here. If anything, at WF, you may get exposure to upper MM deals that require financing capabilities or sponsor financing transactions, which is good exp for PE.

I think the best thing about working for a private company is that bonuses are going to be in cash and that it will move less with the markets (I work at a top MM similar to Baird).

 

This.

Nouveau Richie:
A2Allegiance:
Nouveau can you elaborate a little bit please?

Sure thing. For starters, I might need to go back and find data to support some of my claims ex post facto, but if nothing else, given two banks of similar "prestige," I almost always lean towards the privately held company.

What are the implications of being private? It means that the bank will act independently and to the extent that they do underwrite (as Baird does) they won't take irrational risk in doing so. This model naturally makes a shop more inclined to lean on pure advisory services like M&A whereas Wells is going to want to use that big ass balance sheet of of theirs to finance the shit out of everything. This means when seeking a mandate, the senior M&A banker at Wells doesn't know if he got hired because his team was able to differentiate itself intellectually or if they just got it because the Cap Markets or Corporate Banking teams had the client by the balls via staple financing or the exertion of influence via their credit facilities (respectively). The Baird/William Blair/Harris Williams/etc. players of the world will literally never have to worry about that and can rest comfortably knowing that their services are actually the driving force of their business.

To put it another way, if I had to work at a different bank, I know that my shortlist would possibly include Baird and definitely include select contemporaries like Harris Williams, but it would never include Wells Fargo.

Let me know if that clears things up at all.

 

Again, roofstreet can you give a little reasoning behind your answer?

If you look at Wells growth YOY it's pretty incredible, but the culture at both banks is strong. For some reason I just feel like exit opportunities would be better at Baird, but someone feel free to correct me!

 
Best Response

Take Baird hands down. Mostly for what NR said. WF wins M&A mandates leading with their balance sheet, where Baird wins mandates based on intellectual capital. I also look at it as Baird being a top MM and WF being a low their BB. I would acutally be inclined to take Baird over several other BBs.

To add to what NR said, PE/HF exit opportunities are extremely good at Baird. I know several current analysts at WF having a hard time making a move to the buy-side. SA conversion rate is a lot better than WF. Culture at Baird beats WF. And assuming this is for Baird (Chicago) and WF (Charlotte), Chicago beats Charlotte.

 
A2Allegiance:
^^^ I thought trolls were supposed to be funny?

Not always funny, but certainly obvious.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

I would take Baird Milwaukee over WF- switching to the Chicago office is very easy (lot of people do it 3rd year), though lots of them prefer Milwaukee because COL is so much lower. You don't need to look very hard on this site to find analysts who work at WF (they won't usually say WF, they will group it with better banks) who are looking to go to PE/HF and have absolutely no options there. Baird places quite well into PE in Chicago, great culture, pays well (the all cash bonus is nice), I would take it in a heartbeat.

 

Baird no doubt. They also have a scholars program where they'll pay for your b-school and promote you to an associate. Not only is Baird more of a true investment bank, I've learned that almost the entire pool of bankers in the associate and beyond level have MBA's and JD's as it's a requirement to get promoted to associate at Baird. WF has a lot of analyst promotes without MBA's/JD's or other real outside team management experience from the business world so at Baird you'll have associates/vp's with more big picture minds as mentors who are better at instituting firm culture, teamwork, etc.

Also will say that WFS's only group that does some decent advisory deals is their energy group. Everything is else is balance sheet driven. at the end of the day, wf 's focus will always be on their mortgage and s&l business.

Elite Boutiques (Evercore, Moelis, Perella, Quatlyst, etc.) > GS, MS, JPM > Citi, BAML, DB, CS >= Baird, Blair, HW, HL > WFS, Jefferies, Piper, Cowen, UBS, > Imperial, Duff Phelps, Lincoln > Other

 

I think it really depends on what the OP is hoping to do long-term. Baird has a great program for sending analysts through business school and promoting to associate, but at WF that 2-year program would be unnecessary (read: does the OP want to do business school?). Baird has solid brand recognition in the MM finance world and would help with a transition into a MM buyside role, but at WF you have a global brand that is more widely recognized and would bode well for a move into IR / Corporate Development / non-finance role (read: does the OP want to stay in finance long-term or pursue a buyside job?)

"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
 

Expedita qui sunt magnam dignissimos maxime. Non omnis illo qui et unde rerum.

Voluptatem est laboriosam voluptatem dolores est ipsum qui. Et placeat accusamus id ducimus id sint. Temporibus blanditiis eos exercitationem aut iste. Laudantium quisquam ea qui.

Eum totam sint nisi tempora. Aspernatur ducimus omnis quas officia est qui non. Quaerat et ut eaque commodi.

Veniam saepe minus dolorem necessitatibus. Iusto suscipit est quibusdam suscipit sapiente sit. Totam perferendis esse nihil mollitia necessitatibus et earum. Voluptas cupiditate quo cum et nemo iusto. Iure hic earum recusandae.

 

Velit eos itaque facere vel deserunt. Eum corrupti ullam ipsa et nostrum nemo. Velit dolores dolorem rem.

Ut magni dolores maiores dignissimos dolores. Nihil perspiciatis animi iure quo quas enim.

Dolore ut ut rerum eum totam neque possimus fugit. Tenetur nisi ad ut eum sint illo. Atque voluptas placeat non maxime. Doloremque accusantium expedita dolorum omnis neque.

Velit rerum vel ut a sunt quod. Optio quidem et veniam optio rerum aut.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (87) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”