Who has more fun?
Hey WSO,
Just wondering if anyone could share any insights into which IB division is the most satisfying to work in (M&A, Levfin, DCM, ECM, Restruc).
Does anyone find the different arms of IB have a better work life balance or seems to enjoy their work more? (Or is everyone equally miserable across the board)
Blondes, although I have heard that Redheads are freaky....... Oh ... Were talking IB ...... Um M&A?
Redeads, if u want a fun time with someone you can have a conversation with. Blondes are high maintenance
yay STEREOTYPES
Depends on company...best way to find out is talk to people from the groups. In general, I've heard M&A is pretty challenging worklife. FSG is probably the most enjoyable culture, but LevFin is also supposed to be pretty decent. Can't speak much for Restructuring, but thats also a sweatshop like M&A I heard. DCM and ECM aren't traditional banking groups, so if you like having a more interpersonal career than these might be for you.
As someone interested in FSG, genuinely curious as to why you think they have the best culture (in general, i mean - i'm aware that every bank is different)? Is it due to work/life, dealing with buy-side clients, etc.?
From people I've talked to in a certain bank FSG group, won't mention bank but think larger BB bank, work/life balance seems much better, hours tending to be leaning more towards the 70 per week compared to M&A which is upwards of 100. Also, its generally a smaller group so if the people are great everyone becomes super close and you generally have better connections with the senior members (VP, MD). Some groups are so large that you're pretty much irrelevant to them it seems
Similar question: Does Investment Banking work/life balance vary by city?
For example, in my mind NYC bankers are working the longest hours and are the most miserable. Is it the same across the board in SF, CHI, LA, HOU, CLT, etc?
Could be totally wrong, just curious.
Definitely. NYC gonna work much longer hours than the respective branches in Chicago. Just research the offices and talk to people to better gauge which city is the hardest cause it will vary by firm
This is not true, at least at the two banks I worked for.
Among the options you gave, ECM has the most fun because its much more chill. Fewer weekends for sure, and generally lighter hours. The flip side of that, though, is weaker exit opps because you don't build as heavy of a skill set.
For analysts, outside of capital markets, I'd say the day-to-day fun factor is going to be very similar across groups and the best thing you can do to make the analyst years more enjoyable is to pick a group where you'll learn a lot so you don't have the added stress of worrying about exit while already living the tough life of an analyst.
For post-MBA, I think industry coverage is pretty reliably more fun than product groups because at that level it's really a client relationship game and product groups always have to fight for credit. This drives a lot of the work in the product group (extra analysis to stay visible and prove worth, etc.) and makes it less fun. Even in a top product group that's respected across the bank (e.g. M&A at MS), these relevancy politics still affect each individual MD and fucks the lives of the associate and VPs.
Restructuring can be a bit of an exception because it's complex enough that the product group can really own the client relationship. But that's only a sure bet at the top debtor-side shops (PJT and Lazard). In other restucturing groups, still a risk of the product group issue described above.
Very interesting. In terms of post-MBA, how would the experience change at a shop such as, say, Moelis? Essentially, a place where there is a generalist M&A platform, and also exposure to RX mandates.
The EBs in general (setting their Rx groups aside for a sec) are M&A shops. I don't believe that any of them have separate M&A groups that are different from coverage. I believe you were saying the same; please correct me if I'm wrong.
Assuming I'm right, the product group problem I describe in my previous post doesn't really apply to the EBs, including Moelis. Everyone's M&A already.
Rx is generally more specialized but I think what you're saying is that junior and midlevel folks at Moelis aren't bucketed strictly into M&A or Rx. If that's what you mean, I would call that a good model. I'm not sure how true it is though . . I know of a handful of Moelis guys who are restructuring specialists; they are senior though. Maybe it's a mix where there's a core Rx group of a few senior guys and the more junior levels are a generalist pool.
As long as you're not a strict product specialist at the post-MBA level, you're fine as far as avoiding the problem I'm referencing in my post.
The specific problem I'm referencing is that post-MBA product specialist develops a skill set that doesn't translate into long-term career progression. The product skill set caps out at the VP level, give or take. You could be a great VP who knows how to run a deal process like a champ, it won't mean shit in a couple years when everyone is judging you on your ability to win business (which has little to do with your deal process expertise and much more to do with your ability to stay in front of clients).
To be an MD you pretty much need to know an industry. There are a few exceptions, the "product experts" who make MD based on their ability to sell themselves as extreme technical experts. But I know a couple of those and they've generally been very lucky (right place, right time) and even then they've gravitated towards a particular industry to protect their place long-term.
Everything I've said above definitely applies to M&A and LevFin. Someone can argue Rx is a little different because the court-driven process is so unique that a real specialist in that process can be a rare commodity and use that skill set to support a long-term career. I'm willing to buy that argument for an extreme case; a very experienced restructuring specialist at PJT or Lazard. More generally I'd say no, I think at most shops the restructuring bankers are still ultimately guys who need to win their own clients and I've known several restructuring guys who end up switching to industry coverage (usually their restructuring experience was focused on a capital-intensive industry or two so they parlay this industry knowledge into being a coverage banker).
TL/DR; take Wayne Gretzky's advice and skate to where the puck is going to end up. Senior bankers are industry experts, so might as well start becoming one early.
Officiis autem ut nam. Aut sint quia et dignissimos accusantium officiis fugit. Modi at error ut excepturi.
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...