<p>"let me ask you, if you were to undergo a complicated operation - say triple bypass surgery - which cardiologist would you go with - the one from Mizzou or the one from Harvard Medical School - all things being equal, and why?"</p>
<p>I'll take the Missouri student, 99% of the times.</p>
<p>Same acceptance rate does not imply same pool of selectivity at all. I would take the Harvard doctor, because the knowledge of the fact that a Missouri grad is operating on me will put me into shock and possibly constrict my arteries.</p>
<p>^hahahahaha</p>
<p>PrincetonFather: a graduate of University of Kansas?</p>
<p>League tables: Firms that get the business are, frequently, the firms best qualified to do the business.</p>
<p>The bulge bracket firms have demonstrated experience & capabiltities in handling large underwritings, distributing massive positions among large syndicates of participating firms. They also have capital, or can credibly claim to have capital, available to take down unsold portions of a large underwriting.</p>
<p>The smaller firms can handle, well, smaller underwritings, but have less capital and have less demonstrated experience in managing syndicates of the size required for these huge transactions. They are less qualifiied in this market segment so they get less business in this size range.</p>
<p>Nothing so shocking there, IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nothing so shocking there, IMO.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't disagree with anything you wrote (clearly you are very familiar with the Capital Markets side of the business).</p>
<p>However, the point of my mentioning league tables is incomplete without including my reference to the Advisory (M&A) side of the business.</p>
<p>M&A requires capital of an entirely different breed - namely, intellectual capital. i.e., you don't need to have access to a huge capital base in order to secure and execute an M&A mandate - you just need the best minds in the business (with the exception of deals tied to bridge loans, IPO spin-offs, etc.) - that is the reason folks like Wasserstein and Perella could up and leave First Boston's M&A group and just set up shop across the street. </p>
<p>In sum, the consistent league table performance of these firms across BOTH underwriting AND advisory - together - over the decades have created a remarkable (and seemingly unbreakable) oligopoly that has not only withstood the test of time (vs. the market, competitors, regulation, performance, etc.) but has arguably strengthened its ability in capturing a disproportionate amount of Wall Street fees, and subsequently, hiring, paying and securing the best minds in the business year in and year out.</p>
<p>Success breeds success - and parallels between the Ivies and the Bulge Bracket are relevant, so there shouldn't be any surprise that the Bulge Bracket continues to recruit heavily from the Ivies... "if it ain't broke..."</p>
<p>The M&A people likewise are hired because of their professional resume of accomplishments in M&A assignments, and their qualifications for the specific task at hand. Not because of the undergraduate college they attended. IMO.</p>
<p>Personally I'd take the surgeon who seemed to me to be most likely to successfully complete the surgery, if the relevant data was available (as it sort of is in the banking case); I wouldn't place a great deal of emphasis on where he went to college.</p>
<p>I had a relative who was a dentist/ orthodontist. He told me one of the most important attributes he needed was manual dexterity. They didn't test for that before entry to dental school. A graduate of a worse dental school than he attended was as likely to have it as he was.</p>
<p>As for Wall Street hiring practices, I attribute it to: 1) elitism; and 2) efficient use of their own time. They truly want the best minds in the world working for them, but every minute they are away from the office on recruiting trips is very costly from an opportunity-cost basis. So they steer towards the colleges that seem to have the highest concentrations of brilliant students that are likely to be interested in working for them.</p>
<p>I don't really agree. If I wanted the best and most knowledgable, my ibank would be strictly wharton stern harvard mit or cal tech students. I would never hire a student from yale or another pretentious Ivy, since those schools aren't rigorous at all. i would only want math/finance/engineering students. but obviously ibanks aren't about having a huge pool of intellectual capital and they don't, because the smartest people never have and never will join ibanks, and the fact that there are liberal arts majors in ibanks. i don't think i've ever known a valedictorian who went to work at an ibank. Lets be honest-no one actually wants to be an ibanker. No one, when growing up, dreams of being a banker. It just happens to people during college who become greedy and are lured by the money. The smartest will never go into the field.</p>
<p>nyusternman, all I can tell you is the people I met working at the investment bank in New York are the brightest collection of individuals I have ever been among. I never asked but I'm sure a good number of them were valedictorians, actually. I know there were Rhodes Scholars, does that count? </p>
<p>I did mean to edit my post above though, unfortunately the editing time limit prevented me. They want the people who will best succeed at the job. Brilliance is one component, but for generalist positions other personal attributes are also quite important. Most of my engineering school colleagues have as much or sometimes more mathematical proclivity than many of these people, but are not more intelligent overall and frequently fall short on these other criteria. Salesmanship, aggressiveness, communication skills. They would not be tremendously successful at the job.</p>
<p>You seem to equate intelligence with mathematical aptitude. What happened to verbal aptitiude? Personally I don't find that engineer types have any monopoly on overall intelligence.</p>
<p>And I never said anything about most knowledgable. The specific knowledge that's actually useful is learned on the job, mostly, over a period of a few years. Aptitude and mental acuity cannot be so easily remediated.</p>
<p>Though I'm not currently in the business, my years in investment banking were the most stimulating and challenging in my working life to date. I think it is a perfectly appropriate career for someone with the right tool set to aspire to. Not just for the money, but for the challenge, the intellectual stimulation, the excitement. As an engineer you might design control systems for a factory or something- very behind the scenes. Alternatively as an investment banker with a major firm, you might be involved in billion dollar transactions. Transactions you are involved in will be in the newspapers.</p>
<p>The impact of what you are working on does not compare. </p>
<p>Some people may reasonably aspire to that pace and challenge, money aside.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what to say. I don't doubt that people in ibanking have great real world skills, like salesmanship, communication, and aggression, which aren't really academic skills. Of course, none of what I learned in my finance/math courses is used in ibanking, I've realized.
"Alternatively as an investment banker with a major firm, you might be involved in billion dollar transactions. Transactions you are involved in will be in the newspapers.
The impact of what you are working on does not compare. "</p>
<p>Perhaps, but most doctors' suregeries aren't in the newspapers, and most doctors would say there is a big impact in what they do.
It's hard to say. All I know is that most ibankers are interchangeable. Many of the ones I've known went to fluff programs in fluff majors but happened to be very aggressive, often vindictive individuals, usually without any reasons for being that way. Not the people I would want to be around.</p>
<p>over the course of the day I thought of four of my colleagues at the investment bank who were, in fact, valedictorians at their high school.
Two went to MIT, one went to Princeton and one attended Harvard. These are just ones I recall, after these many years. And mind you we did not routinely discuss our high school careers. I'm sure there were quite a few others.</p>
<p>As to your last post, I don't know what to say. If you think it's "better" to be a surgeon, then be a surgeon. But not all people born to be investment bankers have the skill set to be surgeons, and not all people born to be surgeons would be successful investment bankers.</p>
<p>In the movie "Crossing Delancey" Amy Irving's character is all set to reject this guy because he, as an occupation, makes pickles. Her friend tells her :" Well, somebody has to"!</p>
<p>That's pretty much how I feel about it. If your skill set is such that you were born to make pickles, go ahead. In an interdependent society we need people who are good at being, and want to be, surgeons. And people who are good at being, and want to be, investment bankers. And people who are good at making pickles. They don't all have to be the same person.</p>
<p>In my career I've known a number of bankers who helped provide the funding to enable some of the country's biggest hospital systems to build and expand . Thereby creating the facilities where the surgeons you admire can work to perform their individual operations. In aggregate. As I said, these people frquently work on transactions that have a big impact.</p>
<p>As far as application of your finance/math classes I'm not sure why you conclude this is not used in invesment banking practice. I have used everything I learned through my own MBA finance training, and them some. And mathematics far beyond what was offered in that curriculum.</p>
<p>Issuance of securities is closely related to valuation of securities. Valuation of securities requires a high degree of mathematical and financial aptitude and knowledge.</p>
<p>This post is silly because there are many ways to enter into the field of investment banking, although there is no "perfect way" and no matter what this will always remain among the most competitive industries to be recruited into directly out of college.</p>
<p>Let me give you a brief background of myself so you can know I am not some uninformed poser. First, I will be joining Citigroup Corporate and Investment Bank as a Public Finance Analyst in July 2006. It is a two-year position at the Citigroup Center (US HQ in Manhattan) with possible direct advancement to the associate level after three years with the firm. I am from a non-target liberal arts school (top 40) and will graduate with an Economics degree. There were 500 people who applied for this position: 8 were accepted.</p>
<p>How did I do it? First, I went to a college that I truly enjoyed and was actively involved in for all four years. "Fit" is just as important in college as it is to an investment bank. Fit drove the final rounds at Citigroup, by the way; an Ivy League college on your resume was just an easy way to get through the door, not necessarily that six-figure job. Secondly, I networked! networked! networked! Even non-target schools are likely to have people on the Street in some capacity...check your college career center and get your name and resume in front of these people. Lastly, make your life easier and choose a relevant major such as Economics/Finance/Accounting/Engineering, etc. And do terrific (3.7+ GPA). </p>
<p>In the end, Ivy League candidates have an equally hard change of getting through the doors of a Wall Street firm. Why? Imagine 500 of your talented peers all trying to get onto that first round interview list with Goldman and they are only interviewing 50 people. Get the picture? For me, it was slightly easier. An alum from my college wanted to offer a position to a graduate from our college. We had 25 resumes submitted and 6 people got onto the on-campus interview list. Of those, 2 were invited down to NYC for the Superday. About 40 students total were at the Superday, granted, from mostly big name schools: MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, etc. etc. But look: I got the job from a smaller liberal arts school because I was able to stand out there.</p>
<p>It is about Fit! Fit! Fit! Do not forget that. Good luck all!</p>
<p>congratulations, may I ask which university you are attending?</p>
<p>citi_banker, it may well be the case that a significantly influential banker can get in some alums from his alma mater. Also children of powerful partners, or big clients of the firm, or influential people such as major politicians, can get in. Do not assume that your experience represents some "normal" pathway. </p>
<p>Citibank, in my pre-Glass Steagall frame of reference, was a commercial bank. Commercial banks had somewhat different hiring practices than investment banks.</p>
<p>It's nice to see that public finance is active at Citibank. By the way public finance also has somewhat different hiring practices than corporate investment banking.</p>
<p>The term "investment banking" is bandied about very loosely on this board, and probably I take it too literally based on my experience. There are indeed myriad pathways to get a job at a company that also does investment banking. For one thing, they all have secretaries who didn't go to Harvard. Also there are many financial firms and activities that are not one and the same as investment banking.</p>
<p>Not that this applies to citi_banker, of course.</p>
<p>high schools graduate can often work for Goldman Sachs, as janitors.</p>
<p>monydad,</p>
<p>Citigroup's Global Corporate and Investment Bank (a horrible name btw) is actually the successor to Salomon Brothers, Inc. (which was indeed a proper investment bank).</p>
<p>The merger history is roughly as follows:</p>
<p>Primerica -> BUYS -> Smith Barney</p>
<p>Primerica (Smith Barney) -> BUYS -> brokerage division of Shearson Lehman Brothers (combines with Smith Barney)</p>
<p>Travelers -> BUYS -> Primerica (Smith Barney)</p>
<p>Travelers (Smith Barney) -> BUYS -> Salomon Brothers, Inc.</p>
<p>Travelers <a href="Salomon%20Smith%20Barney">b</a>** -> BUYS -> Citicorp</p>
<p>Travelers + Citicorp = CITIGROUP / Salomon Smith Barney</p>
<p>Citigroup renames its investment banking unit, Salomon Smith Barney = Citigroup Global Corporate and Investment Bank.</p>
<p>Whew!</p>
<p>Interestingly, Citigroup's global underwriting rankings in equity, equity-linked, debt underwriting, and M&A are Top 5 across the board (not to mention corporate loan activity).</p>
<p>p.s. I agree with monydad's comment about public finance. although every major i-bank has a public finance unit, it is decidedly less competitive than, say, a spot in the M&A group, still, congratulations to citi_banker for making the cut in what is definitely a grueling and competitive process... NOTE: your comments actually underscore rather than counter how tough the process is (esp. for non-Ivy people).</p>
<p>"esp. for non-Ivy people)."</p>
<p>u mean, non-target people?</p>
<p>Thanks Ivy-grad, I've been out for quite a while and all of this happened subsequently; I was aware of it at the time but forgot.</p>
<p>Smith Barney Public Finance, and Solomon Public finance, were no joke, back then (Citibank is another story). However the pedigree of their public finance staffs was not the same overall as their investment banking division's bankers, I assure you.</p>
<p>They were more similar to the rest at Goldman or Morgan Stanley, e.g.</p>
<p>The consolidation of investment banking and commercial banking, such as was discussed above, has probably contributed to the confusion among prospective job applicants, and students exploring careers and requirements.</p>
<p>Citibank probably has all the commercial banking activities it ever had, but now it also has the full gamut of investment banking and securities activities. As a percentage probably only a tiny handful of these people are investment bankers.</p>
<p>If someone simply says they have a job at Citibank, it could mean virtually anything, from investment banker to teller at a retail banking window. The standards for entry-level employment for these two activities, and everything they have that is in-between, are quite different. Therein lies the confusion. IMO.</p>