lanter1 wrote:
I have seen that but it does not break down per function. I am almost certain that research does not make the same as M & A after 2 or 3 years.
Not even close...
If you think about M&A, where there is such a tiny capital cost for such a huge potential revenue upside. I mean for a $1 Billion Sell-Side M&A deal the bank fee would be around 1% of the total deal size, or around $10 million. It might take two analysts, an associate, maybe a VP, and an MD to run the auction for 5 months before the deal closes. The percent of the fee that is required to pay all the banker's salary is probably 10%. (Almost) All of the rest is profit for the bank. Subtract fixed costs, etc.
Look at research for a major bank. Where's the revenue? Analyst reports bring in a pretty small amount of direct revenue. They are simply a tool used by the Sales and Trading department to get more business. Sales says to the institutional investors that we have the top research guy in X sector. We will provide you free reports if you trade with us. Of course, the investors all have research departments of their own doing the same work, but the Wall Streat Analysts usually do a really good job with their models/analysis. They also know the companies in their sector in-depth. However, no serious investor actually takes an analysts buy/sell/hold recommendation seriously.
So in summary: M&A department, high revenue, high value, low cost. Research, marginal cost, medium value, low revenue. That is why M&A guys make the big bucks and most research guys make a lot less, but still get paid well.