Summer Analyst: UBS v. CS v. Lazard v. Citi

Lazard

UBS, Lazard is not BB

and BB is better because..??

BB is not generally better, some aspects are better, e.g. the exit opportunities, just look at the HF/PE websites where the associates/senior associates come from...

i was under the impression that exit opps at a top boutique like Lazard would be better. obviously excluding GS & MS.

Lazard, not even close

All of the above are fine and will get you the same interviews.

UBS, CS, Citi do no have a guarantee into M&A.

UBS/CS/Citi will have ALOT more sponsor activity than Lazard.

Lazard will offer pure advisory services without offering leverage related advice.

If you look at 04 and 05 analyst placement all of the above placed well.

These firms will all get you the same interviews for next year.

Whichever firm you work for, you'll be in a strong position to get a FT offer after the summer. So ask yourself, which of the four would you most like to work for full-time? This is the one I'd go with, since they will all put you on about equal footing in the FT interview process.

Lazard. All my friends who've worked at UBS have been run into the ground for the entire summer--2 out of 3 didn't go back.

another vote for Lazard

Lazard, and they're definitely not the ones with the shortest hours

I always heard that Lazard's exit opps were really good - somewhat worse than the absolute top groups on the street (GS TMT, MS M&A, UBS LA) but on par with the other groups at GS and MS....

o.k., seems to me that I overlooked something here, I'm just curious why exit opps at Lazard should be better than at a top BB?

I just looked up Lazard at Thomson M&A Review:

Rank 10 out of 10 in M&A Worldwide inputed fees 2006, last year they weren't even TOP 10, and they're totally unkown in Europe and Asia , though there are more offices of Lazard in Eurpoe than in the US.

Lazard totally unknown in Europe? What rock have you been living under. Lazard may not be top 10 but their deal-flow / banker is epic. They're much smaller than the BB's but work on some very exclusive deals. League tables are the crudest yardstick for prestige.

Agreed. League tables are shit when looking at bank prestige. Amount of fees made is not indicative of prestige, experience, and exit opps.

Take Citi. It's performing very well and it's a top notch investment bank. What everyone else is saying is bs -the citi investment bank is run completely separate from the retail arm. It is on all the big deals as lead advisors and will do well in the future. There is no argument about it.

lol it's clear that goldmansbanker actually works at Citi, as his old name CITI BANKER implies. don't listen to that dumb fucker. Lazard is arguably on par with goldman, so why would you pass that up for a firm that has similar exit opps to Jefferies

yeah, definetely all work for Lazard here, good job Mr. Wasserstein...

go Lazard

why are you guys so anti-UBS?

guy who interviewed me was a douchebag

do u go to harvard?

Just say no.

choose Lazard, no question about that.

don't really understand the bashing of UBS.

UBS were rather dirty during WWII.

...so was the German government. I wouldn't not deal with them just because of something that happened during WWII. =)

By the way, no idea/knowledge about the actual question on this thread.