Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Investment Banks help companies and governments issue securities, help investors purchase securities, manage
financial assets, trade securities and provide financial advice. The leading investment banks including Merrill Lynch,
Salomon Smith Barney, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Goldman Sachs are said to be in the bulge bracket.
Other investment banks are regionally oriented or situated in the middle market (e.g. Piper Jaffray). Others are
small, specialized firms called boutiques which might be oriented toward bond-trading, M&A advisory, technical
analysis or program trading. Firms have lots of different areas and groups within them. In most firms, there is sales
and trading which works with owners of securities, investment banking which works with issuers of securities (firms
and governments) and capital markets which goes in between the other two. To get an idea of how a firm is
organized, check out the products and services groups at Goldman Sachs.
BankAmerica
JP Morgan
Chase
The 1998 merger of Travelers, Citibank and Salomon into Citigroup will only accelerate this.
Investment banking is generally transaction driven.
In this environment a single individual with good client contact can make an enormous
difference for a firm. This is part of the reason that star investment bankers ("rainmakers")
take home high bonuses.
"Wall Street" is a unique industry, especially when assessing entry points for security analysts, who can arrive from
an eclectic array of backgrounds and experiences from industry or government.
Fewer analysts are migrating from service type organizations, such as Value Line and Standard & Poor's, to senior
analyst positions at major brokerage or buyside firms. Stronger entry channels to these firms instead are coming
from three general directions:
MBA graduates with prior work experience are filling the junior and entry level positions at major fund
management firms.
MBAs and individuals with work experience within a specific industry or non-investment related field are
being hired by regional boutiques, broker/dealers, and various money management firms.
Those with backgrounds in technology, electronics, or international experience have an advantage in
obtaining entry level positions over MBAs who do not have this background.
At one time an undergraduate degree was sufficient, later an MBA degree was needed. Now for an entry level
position, an individual will most likely need an MBA coupled with specific knowledge, not just standard analytical
work experience. Also the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA®) designation is becoming more and more important.
Sitting and passing the three exams for certification shows a distinctive level of skill and competence recognized by
the investment community.
The demand for security analysts has been increased by: 1) The formation of sub and micro industry specialties such
as semi capital/fabricating/testing equipment for the semiconductor sector; 2) Senior sellside analysts leaving their
positions for jobs in money management; 3) The growth in investment banking; 4) Foreign markets; and 5) The
phenomenal growth in mutual funds.
Fewer and fewer research departments are recruiting on college campuses, and assistant or junior analyst positions
are becoming fewer in number. Banks used to have training programs for analysts, but these programs have
stagnated. Individuals often land ancillary or back office positions scattered throughout the whole financial services
industry and hope to eventually find an equity-oriented position.
To obtain a security analyst position, candidates with an MBA are urged to sit for the CFA® examination.
Additonally, one should constantly revisit firms, network within the analyst community, and prepare a fully
researched investment idea, not a retooled school paper. The research report, either written or oral, affords the
individual an opportunity to present his or her capabilities. The report may also be used as a marketing piece and be
used to pre-empt the "who, what, when, where, and why " type of questions that can cloud an interview.
Traditionally, the industry grouped into three stable, profitable positions: Bulge Bracket/Full-Service Investment
Banks, "Niche" Players, and Wholesale Banks.
Bulge Bracket Investment Banks operate in multiple markets, sectors and geographies. They create value through
economies of scale and information advantages, and their infrastructure costs act as a barrier to entry to new
participants. Increasingly, a few major firms dominate activity in what has evolved into a natural oligopoly. Niche
Players are product, geography or sector focused and are generally highly profitable but, typically, small scale. Their
success is based on recognized excellence, dominant market position and/or personal reputation. Wholesale Banks
provide working capital, treasury and operating services and structured lending. They create value through product
excellence, scale and relationship skills.
In many industries, steadily declining returns would have precipitated significant industry restructuring. But
wholesale banking's industry structure has proved highly resilient over a long period of time. Further, competition to
achieve bulge bracket/full-service status has intensified, as most of the commercial banks entering investment
banking are focused on achieving bulge bracket status, even though the economics of retail financial services are
more attractive and a better use of investment dollars. This battle is a driving factor in bringing capital into the
industry, despite its declining returns.
We believe, however, that the industry structure is now threatened in more fundamental ways than it has been before
and that it is, therefore, likely to undergo some significant changes over the next five years.
How and Why the Industry Structure Will Change
Four factors have traditionally worked in concert to underpin the investment banking industry structure.
The cost of providing the distribution channel—the market-making, sales, research and operating
infrastructure—is high, both to set up and to maintain, and features significant scope benefits, effectively
acting as a barrier to entry (see Exhibit 2).
Customer buying behavior has concentrated deal flow on a limited number of preferred suppliers to
minimize transaction costs to the buyer as well as to provide leverage in negotiations for information and
distribution.
Wall Street has been willing to cross-subsidize products and services, allowing large transaction fees to
cover the costs of smaller or "free" services. Larger, more complex transactions subsidize the processing of
simple transactions at most major firms.
Regulation has restricted the entry of new competitors.
Each of these, however, is undergoing change.
Lower-cost distribution channels are emerging. Technology has allowed the development of alternative, low-cost
distribution channels. Today, both issuers and investors can reach for the terminal to execute transactions directly,
instead of having to call an intermediary. For example, lower-cost distribution channels include electronic equity,
fixed-income and FX trading networks, electronic-based research and analytics, IPOs for smaller companies through
the Internet and internal netting of transactions.
Marketplace interviews suggest that significant shifts in buying behavior by corporate and institutional investors are
afoot. Increasingly, large corporate and institutional investor clients recognize that the value of Wall Street
intermediation is limited to large and/or complex trades. For simple, liquid transactions, they allocate business on
price, albeit among a group of preferred suppliers, and they push the buying process down the organization. Further,
they tell us that they would be willing to use alternative channels for execution and for low-level information (see
Exhibit 3).
These changes in buying behavior reduce the revenue base that allows Wall Street to cross-subsidize. Further, the
new emerging players focus on delivering heretofore "bundled" services like research or processing. Conceivably,
this allows corporates and institutions to more freely allocate transactions without considering the carrot of bundled
services. The vast majority of transactions executed for clients are small in size given today's market liquidity and
require little, if any, special expertise.
Finally, the relaxation of Glass-Steagall has allowed the entry of new players by effectively removing any regulatory
barrier to acquisition. The recent announcement by Bankers Trust of their interest to acquire Alex. Brown tests the
expanded Section 20 privileges and has the potential to unleash other deals by big banks looking to grow their
securities businesses.
From a structural standpoint, entry of banks into the business has the potential to cause capital imbalances and
further exacerbate the problem of subpar returns.
These challenges to industry underpinnings make it more vulnerable to significant restructuring than ever before. In
the extreme, the industry could regroup into four types of firms, each type focused on one of the key value
components of the industry: Information/Research Houses, Knowledge/Capital Providers, Processors, and
Proprietary Traders/Investors. Each type of player would have unique capabilities and economics derived from their
focus. This is not idle speculation—players have already emerged in each category:
Information/Research Houses. These firms achieve scale in information coverage and collection, and
excel at data classification clearing and consistency. In addition, they are aggressive marketers and
merchandisers. Early examples of these types of firms are Reuters, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Multex and
First Call.
Knowledge and Capital Providers. Companies in this arena focus on problem solving, especially
complex problems. They deliver knowledge, and they have access to capital. Finally, they are excellent
relationship managers. Companies already operating as focused knowledge and capital providers are
Greenwich Capital, Allen & Company, Lazard Freres and JP Morgan.
Processors. These firms are transaction processing engines. They achieve scale in transaction processing
and excellence in technology management and customer service. Instinet, EBS/Dealing 2000-2 and
Globex/OTB/SOFFEX are examples of "processor" firms.
Proprietary Traders/Investors. These firms trade for the house and principal investors. They excel,
obviously, at risk/portfolio management and outsource all non-core activities. Examples today are Tiger
Management, Soros Management and KKR.
Not only are firms already operating against this new paradigm, but, as a group, many are outperforming Wall Street
firms in terms of ROE, often by a significant margin (see Exhibit 4).
Strategic Options
Today's industry structure is not sustainable—structural costs exceed customer value-added for the majority of
transactions intermediated.
But does all this mean that larger, global, full-service firms are likely to disappear completely? Probably not. Rather,
our work suggests that two distinct restructuring paths will evolve on Wall Street. There are likely to be pure plays
around both paths, as well as combinations that cross the two options.
Some part of the industry will retain the traditional structure, where very few firms will survive as large, global, full-
service players focused around clients—and the competition will be intense as firms buy each other out to reduce
capital. By our calculations, based on capital available and required returns, twelve to fifteen banks now compete for
a dominant global position that can sustain only six to seven.
Along the other path, the industry structure will fragment and then regroup around capabilities (see Exhibit 5). These
players will build position by driving toward a focused economic model. It will include a combination of existing
players, probably those whose current position is sub-scale, as well as new entrants.
Current institutions will choose their path based on market position and investment in the traditional order. Market
leaders will seek to reinforce today's economic structure and pursue acquisition as the means of driving out excess
capital. Aspiring commercial banks will inevitably collude to share infrastructure and operations, perhaps run as
joint utilities. Together they will pursue a series of actions designed to expand and solidify their position in the
traditional order:
Invest to grow product and customer portfolios
Drive industry consolidation
Build back office utilities to increase scale
Streamline business system to ensure efficiency
Reinforce client bundled buying.
Sub-scale banks have the greatest incentive to drive change and could exploit their customer base and product know-
how to drive development of a new electronic-based business model. They might also explore combinations with
newer entrants. All players who bet on the break-up of the traditional structure and subsequent disintermediation will
pursue a series of transforming steps:
Select position:
- Research focus
- Knowledge and capital
- Processors/execution utilities
Invest in new capabilities
Create first move to start restructuring (e.g., build first execution utility)
Establish new pricing practices.
The challenges ahead for investment banking and capital markets firms are great. Over the next several years there
are likely to be some big plays that will significantly alter the competitive landscape, as in the recent Dean
Witter/Morgan Stanley merger. Further, continued deregulation will invite greater competition and exacerbate
overcapacity. And the inevitable market downturn will increase the pressure on weaker players.
Present market conditions and remaining regulatory barriers, in conjunction with hefty compensation packages, are
lulling the keepers of the status quo. No doubt there are executives in multiple industries, such as retailing,
communications, airlines and network television, who wistfully remember that same state of mind. But change will
come, swept in by regulatory, economic and technological realities, and a clear view of the strategic endgame, as
well as options for competing, is a necessity for all institutions.
101 Park Avenue, 20th Floor - New York, New York 10178
Offices and Partners · More about the Banking and Capital Markets Group
Use positive words. Instead of "if", "I think", "I feel" and "I wish" use
"when", "I am" and "I would"
Sit comfortably. Sit erectly, but don’t sit stiffly or sprawl over the chair.
Don't expect the interviewers to have confidence in you, if you don't have
confidence in yourself. Project confidence and a positive attitude. Maintain
awareness of your voice, posture, energy level, and enthusiasm. Make
hand gestures to emphasize important points, but avoid distracting
gestures or making too many hand gestures.
Smile confidently, but not to the point where you would appear to be too
casual. Smiling will also help you relax and establish a rapport with the
interviewers.
Thank the interviewers. Shake their hands individually and thank each
interviewer by name.
6. Practice, practice, practice. One practice interview is not enough. If you have somebody
help you, have at least three practice interviews. You'll be able to use their feedback to correct
mistakes, strengthen weaknesses, and build upon strengths.
7. Review your Interview Wraps from previous interviews. Use your experience from previous
interviews to help you on this interview.
Note: The underlined words in the Interview Question Bank are words that may be interchangeable. For
example, instead of the word "job", the word "position" might be used.