【内涵贴】David and Goliath: 精品投行和华尔街大银行

David and Goliath: The Boutique and The Bulge Bracket 补充 #1： David and Goliath，歌利亚是一位非利士人勇士，与年轻的大卫（未来的以色列国王）的战斗而著称，记载于希伯来圣经/基督教 旧约圣经（古兰经中也简略记载此事）。 再补充 #2： Boutique Bank 指“精品投资银行”，是相对 Bulge Bracket 而言的。Boutique bank 一般规模较小，或专注于某类金融产品、或专注于某些行业、或专注于某些业务、或专注于某些市场，又或者平台齐全但规模相对较小。 国际上著名的boutique bank有以下几家： 1. Lazard Ltd.，华尔街传奇的投资银行，被誉为“并购鼻祖”，华尔街百年老店之一，专注于并购和资产管理，市值约16亿美元, 约2500人规模，全球有近20个office。 2. Greenhill & Co., 著名的新锐并购投行，由前Morgan Stanley的资深银行家Robert F. Greenhill创立于1996年，专注于企业并购、重组业务，市值约15亿美元，约200人规模，欧洲和北美业务强劲，在亚洲尚未有office。 3. Jefferies & Co., 华尔街著名投资银行，专注于服务市值在5亿-50亿美元的中型企业， 被高盛公司誉为中型市场的Bulge Bracket。该公司的投资银行平台在boutiques 中最为齐全也最为接近Bulge Bracket。市值约35亿美元，约2300人规模，全球有30个office。 4. Houlihan Lokey, 专注于中型市场的并购业务，私人企业，全球有15个office。 5. Piper Jaffray, 华尔街百年老店之一，专注于服务某些行业的中小型企业，规模较小，国际业务仅限于中国和伦敦，其中中国业务占其国际业务的90%以上，因此国际化相对较弱。 以上5家是boutique bank中的佼佼者，但大多不为中国市场所知晓。目前为止，在中国地区表现相对活跃都有Piper Jaffray, Jefferies & Co.以及Lazard Ltd. 其中又以Piper Jaffray 较为重视中国市场，因此在中国名气相对较大。 其他比较著名的boutique还有 Rothchild, Evercore Partners, William Blair, Thomas Weisel Partners, Wachovia Securities 等等。 国际上公认的Bulge Bracket 有：Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, JPMorgan, UBS, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Banc of America Securities 等。 一下有一份由KPMG 和 Always On 针对2007年的撮合deal的能力给出的一份排名，仅供参考。 Always On and KPMG are pleased to announce the first annual AO Top Dealmakers List. These top firms cover the entire growth-investment food chain including limited partner investors, VCs, investment banks, law firms, private equity, institutional investors, and corporate buyers. AO will publish the numbers behind these picks in the next issue of the AlwaysOn Magazine, which will hit the newsstands in early December. Winning firms were rewarded for their dollars invested and M&A and IPO success in the global tech, media & entertainment, and green tech sectors in the last twelve months. Investment Banks When the time is right to take your company public or get bought, you work with investment banks. If it’s an IPO, they underwrite you – helping prepare your prospectus, setting the share price, promoting you to institutional investors, and once you’re public, providing analyst coverage of your stock to keep public investors up to date on your financial performance. If it’s an M&A, they act as advisers to either party, structuring the deal, and providing acquisition capital. There are two tiers of investment banks: the bulge brackets are large, global, financial service companies that combine commercial banking, investment banking and sometimes insurance. The middle market, or boutique, investment banks are generally not affiliated with commercial banks. Investment Banks -- Bulge Bracket 1 Morgan Stanley 2 Goldman Sachs 3 Lehman Brothers 4 Credit Suisse 5 JPMorgan 6 Merrill Lynch 7 Citigroup 8 Deutsche Bank 9 UBS Investment Bank 10 Bank of America Securities Investment Banks -- Boutiques 1 Jefferies & Company Inc 2 Evercore Partners 3 Thomas Weisel Partners 4 Needham & Company, LLC 5 Montgomery & Co. LLC 6 Cowen & Company LLC 7 William Blair & Co., LLC 8 Wachovia Securities 9 Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin 10 Greenhill & Co. WSO链接：http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/david-and-goliath-the-boutique-and-the-bulge-bracket Autumn has arrived. For those seniors fresh off their summer analyst stint or juniors gearing up for recruiting, October means something more: you need to decide where you want to work. The easiest way to categorize banks is either as a “bulge bracket” or “boutique.” We all know the bulge bracket firms, so historically, “boutique” referred to any firm that was listed literally outside the bracket. Regardless of boom or bust, pre-crisis or post-crisis, inevitably the biggest rainmakers in the business are always tempted to jump (a sinking) ship and hang their own shingle. Schwarzman and Peterson in 1985, Moelis in 2007, Altman in 1996, Zukin in 1972, Aryeh Bourkoff just last year, or Dean + Bradley + Osborne last year as well … if they feel they don’t get enough control or compensation at their current firm, the big boys will take their ball and leave. This has given us firms like Blackstone, Moelis, Evercore, Houlihan Lokey, LionTree, DBO, Greenhill, Centerview, and the like. Most of these names are on front-page deals, going out and competing with giants like GS, MS, and JPM for the top advisory mandates. They’re winning, too. Whereas the giants used to dominate the advisory landscape, they often sell their financing capabilities most heavily now. The boutiques operate on a pure-play advisory model, getting paid for their expertise rather than an ability to offer staple financing. In recent years, however, most of the boutiques listed above have grown so large that ‘boutique’ is no longer an applicable term. Evercore, for instance, now has over 950 employees. Blackstone launched its LBO arm two years after opening as an advisory boutique, and today grosses nearly 90% of its revenue from businesses other than advisory. Moelis has over a dozen offices globally and 600 employees. In response, WSO seems to have coined the acronym “EB,” short for ‘elite boutique.’ I’m not a huge fan and much prefer what I heard one of the group heads at Evercore say: “independent advisory firm.” This is a great way to delineate firms of this caliber from the true boutique, a small shop with anywhere from 10-100 employees and much lower quality and volume of dealflow. Semantics aside, it’s clear that there are really three buckets a firm can fall into: bulge bracket (the nine established firms we know) elite boutique boutique In recruiting, people always gravitate towards the best-known firms. It seems to me that most people take a fairly scattershot approach. They want to get paid a lot now and a lot in the future, and the way to achieve that is to get a top banking job, leading to a great exit, leading to great business school chances, leading to overall greatness. It’s a lamentably short-sighted and linear mindset. In terms of exits, people know who the heavy-hitters are. GS TMT, MS M&A, GS FIG, Blackstone M&A and Restructuring … these groups and a dozen others always pop up in any discussion of top groups and exit opportunities. Few people, however, seem to put real thought into whether a boutique or a bulge bracket firm is better for them, and to me, that’s a tremendous shame. As an analyst, here are the things that matter to you: Work-life balance: this refers to how many hours of the 168 in each week you spend in the office Culture: often (wrongly) used interchangeably with the above, this refers to how people treat each other, the 'work environment' Placement: how well the group recruits for buy-side positions Pay: salary is very standardized at the junior levels (some outliers exist), but bonus varies between firms (and groups occasionally) The importance of each of those elements may vary from person to person. The guy who thinks of himself as a career banker is going to care more about culture and pay than the guy who only envisions himself enduring banking for two years before taking a job with twice the pay and an entirely different working environment. Let’s go through each of these elements individually. Pay: In general, a bulge bracket is going to compensate you less than a top boutique. Let’s talk numbers. Centerview, for instance, has numbers right now like $80k base, $50k signing, and $100k+ bonus. Moelis pays similar base, $20k signing (may be corrected on this), and bonus matching or exceeding salary as well. Evercore is $75k base, $25k signing, and bonus at or near salary also. Bulge brackets have very standardized compensation schemes. Analyst base is $70k. Signing bonus is $15k. Bonuses don't match salary like they do at the boutiques. Again, examples. I have friends at JPM who were grousing over $35k and $45k (different groups) during bonus season. Same at MS. And let's not forget the classic 'GS discount' where they know you'll stick around for the brand and can afford to pay you less. Summers at GS don't get overtime. Signing bonuses are still low. Work-life balance / Culture: I will explain these two together, because as you will see, they are intertwined (though not the same). There is a stigma that boutiques are sweatshops. While this may be accurate for certain firms, I do not think it holds true in aggregate. Bulge brackets are big, bureaucratic, stodgy, inefficient machines. Pre-crisis, MS had 60,000 employees globally. GS had 30,000. Boutiques have smaller analyst classes. That is both good and bad. You may wind up with a stronger analyst experience: more closed deals, better client exposure, and better exposure to your seniors leads to better placement. The downside, however, is that you can be worked harder. That doesn’t mean you won’t get worked hard at a top group at a bulge bracket. An inefficient staffer or poor process management by the seniors on your deals can mean you have a far worse time than your friend at a boutique who simply has fewer analysts to share the workload with. Banking is banking. Seniors have packed schedules. Calls, meetings, conferences, speaking engagements, travel between cities, recruiting initiatives, internal talent development initiatives, and the like are all demands on their time. All of this means that you as an analyst are forced to spend a lot of time waiting for them to give you your work. As always, an example (again, firsthand). You receive a new staffing. The associate emails everyone on the team to schedule a late morning meeting. A VP leads that meeting, filling you and the associate in on what the MD shared with him before flying out to the West Coast for the next couple days. The VP sketches out a few directions for the slides and walks out the door. The associate spends 10 minutes with you going over it in greater detail, and you mentally dedicate 3 hours of your day to this task. . Back at your desk, your inbox is pretty full and you spend 90 minutes on small things before getting started on your new work. You send the associate your slides at 4pm. He replies with minor comments (if you’re lucky) at 4:45. You make the changes immediately, but he doesn’t see the email until 5:45. Since he is jammed, he passes them up to your VP without looking. Your VP responds at 8:30 with comments exactly the opposite of your associate’s, so you copy slides from your earlier version and send them back. At 10:15, you see your VP walking out of the office with his bag. You glance at your inbox and see an email where he’s passed the deck up to the MD. Your MD doesn’t respond until 4am Eastern. His comments are extensive, and the email reply is “Pls fix as directed, huge meeting 1st thing at 8AM, need this rdy to go. Thx.” You finish making the changes at 7am (you’re tired and slow, you only got 4 hours of sleep the night before) and head home to pass out. Your work phone and personal cell start violently screaming at 9:45; your MD woke up at 6:15 Pacific, had a new idea for one of the appendix slides, and wants it changed before the meeting. You flip open your laptop, make the tiny change, submit the deck to your West Coast office’s production team before 10am (knowing they'll curse your existence for giving them only an hour before the meeting), and pass back out. Your phones start screaming again. You glance at your clock and it says 10:30am. There’s a fire drill for another one of your projects; 40 minutes later you are back in the office in front of your screens, and you can’t remember showering, shaving, or the cab ride in between. This is why culture is so critical. The nature of this job is unavoidable. At a shop with a healthy culture, however, people notice when this happens and proactively minimize the pain wherever they can. Communication is crisper, directions provided are more thorough and clear, useless series of back and forth revisions are minimized, and analysts who are getting crushed get positive recognition for their contribution and given a break to recuperate. This is where the boutiques win. Every bank loves to preach about their “flat hierarchy” and “open-door policy,” but in reality, that is rare. You’re more likely to find it at the boutiques. Specific groups within bulge brackets may be like this, but given how impossible it is to control your placement, it really does not make sense to roll the dice hoping you get the one group with a healthy culture out of twelve at that firm. Placement: People here love to refer to 10xleverage’s thread on his experience at MS M&A and KKR. That is a phenomenal resource in terms of insight on his responsibilities and career advancement, but let me highlight how dated it is. I can tell you firsthand that GS TMT's placement (though strong) is not as godly as people on this forum make it out to be. From the summer 2012 class, I can say for a fact only 7 of the 12 summers who received offers returned. One left for a startup, one went to McKinsey, two went to Blackstone (different areas), and I’m not privy to what the final one did. Within GS, FIG and CRG have arguably outdone it in the past two cycles. CRG takes fewer analysts, roughly 12 a year, so them putting 3-4 analysts in MFs each year is noteworthy. The FIG analyst class is north of 20 each year. Exits from FIG are more to HF than those from TMT. BX R&R and M&A place lights-out. I happily refer to this thread and can confirm that placement as well. Lazard as a whole gets great headhunter love and buy-side placement; Restructuring especially so. Evercore places analysts into MFs routinely. Greenhill has put a few analysts into MFs in recent years and places into excellent MM firms routinely. Moelis recruits extraordinarily well (especially into HF) out of both the LA and NYC offices. A huge selling point with them is that seniors will go strongly to bat for you, calling people they know at your target firms. In short, I'd argue that we're seeing a real trend where the top candidates elect for the top boutiques. In this post-crisis world, you are going to get paid better, treated better, see better deals (in some cases), and enjoy better exits from the strongest boutiques than the strongest groups at the bulge brackets. Couple that with the fact that you can't guarantee placement into those strongest groups at the big banks, and it's easy to see why the best guys go for BX, Moelis, Lazard, and Evercore where they know they don't have to worry about getting into M&A (MS), TMT or FIG (GS), or M&A or Sponsors (JPM and CS). Takeaway: have an idea of where you’d like to be in the future, then make your present selection based on that information. Now, as a reality check, realize that getting a job at any of these groups is a tremendous feat. The amount of entitlement on these forums either nauseates me or makes me laugh and shake my head depending on my mood. You'll be in the top 1% of all college graduates in terms of earnings and set for a career where it only gets better. Obviously, human nature is to always want more and thus we continually strive for the next thing better on our imaginary little checklist, but some perspective is definitely in order. I hope we can all step back to take a moment to reflect on how privileged we are for the seats we have. The arbitrary lists and static rankings people continually make on this site grow very stale and tiresome. Most are clearly derived from some (admittedly studious) trolling of countless WSO threads, but that's exactly the problem. CS Sponsors hasn't been “good” in 5 years, but there are a dozen threads from 2006-09 talking about how strong it is and how great the exits are, so it features prominently in most people’s lists. The MS M&A/KKR guy's post is also dated, and doubly so. For one, it's from years ago, and secondly, his perspective is also dated because he was 2-4 years out from his analyst experience when he wrote it. The people who talk in terms of 'bucketing' have it right, and even then, it's still arbitrary. I've met people at funds everyone here would give their left arm to work at who came recently from (the horror!) Jefferies, BAML, UBS, and other firms that continually get dumped on here. In this industry, people care about your intelligence and competence. The firm you start at is certainly a good indicator of those traits, but they really are determined in an interview. In summary, if you have the chance to work at any of these firms, congrats. You're on the path. If you’re a junior and looking for a summer job, you have months to make all these determinations for yourself. If you're facing final deadlines as a senior and choosing between them, I'd recommend putting some actual energy into reaching out and getting in front of or on the phone with people who currently work at or recently left the places you're considering. They'll be able to provide you real, concrete, actual info on placement, pay, and culture ... and that's remarkably more useful than coming on here to hear the same drivel regurgitated by people whose only impressions are formed by what they themselves have read here.