Yet another DPW vs STB Forum

[Anonymous User]

Primarily interested in corporate, and narrowing down my choice of SA firm to STB and DPW. I've combed through the reams of past posts comparing the two, and I was wondering if anyone could comment on two things in particular:

1) I'm becoming more and more interested in credit, and I'm interested in hearing about what it's like to work on a mix of sponsor-side and lender-side work (STB) as opposed to mostly lender-side (DPW);

2) can anybody compare their strengths in M&A, particularly with respect to financial institutions on the one hand, and PE on the other? I know that STB is tops in PE, but I also know that DPW has had some recent successes (leading to a Law360 award in PE). As for financial institutions M&A, Chambers has them both as Band 2—I know that DPW has really strong FIG, and Simpson also has the head of OCC.

Thanks so much for your help everyone.

[absolutealpha]

1) both firms have a good balance of work, DPW actually has two sets of partners in "finance" (one for lenders, one for borrowers) and as an associate you can jump around both. Probably can get the same type of mix in terms of work at either firm.

2) STB stronger in PE, DPW PE is mostly mid-market. DPW is quite a bit stronger in FIG M&A (more of the M&A practice is geared toward FIG). Did a lot of headline-grabbing deals like MS/E*Trade this year.

Unless you really need to work for KKR/Blackstone or you really want to do FIG M&A or regulatory work, hard to decide between these two.

[Anonymous User]

Primarily interested in corporate, and narrowing down my choice of SA firm to STB and DPW. I've combed through the reams of past posts comparing the two, and I was wondering if anyone could comment on two things in particular:

1) I'm becoming more and more interested in credit, and I'm interested in hearing about what it's like to work on a mix of sponsor-side and lender-side work (STB) as opposed to mostly lender-side (DPW);

2) can anybody compare their strengths in M&A, particularly with respect to financial institutions on the one hand, and PE on the other? I know that STB is tops in PE, but I also know that DPW has had some recent successes (leading to a Law360 award in PE). As for financial institutions M&A, Chambers has them both as Band 2—I know that DPW has really strong FIG, and Simpson also has the head of OCC.

Thanks so much for your help everyone.

1. As others have said, probably much of a muchness credit-wise. Bigger borrower/sponsor-side deals at STB; maybe a more diverse lender-side practice at DPW.

2. DPW PE is on the rise - they’ve taken a few middle-market clients away from Simpson and Kirkland, and are increasingly well-regarded. But they don’t have a mega-shop like BX/KKR coming to them for everything (not all of which will be M&A; e.g., Blackstone funds and real estate work is probably as or more important to STB’s bottom line in recent years as M&A has been - and Kirkland increasingly gets conflicts and even non-conflicts work from Blackstone PE and Tactical Opportunities, and even Weil getting a sniff at stuff). In general, though, you’re right: STB is a hitter in multi-billion dollar M&A deals in a way that DPW isn’t, consistently, at least right now.

DPW public M&A over the last few years has been well-ahead of STB. This ebbs and flows, but in 2018 and most of 2019 DPW was up there on a bunch of mega-deals - STB, less so.

For FIG M&A in NY there’s no comparison. Admittedly STB has just done the TCF/Huntington merger, but the senior partner who’s been FIG M&A at STB forever is sort of tailing off. It’s unclear whether the more junior partners have the same heft in the industry (with some anointed successors focusing more on PE work). Plus STB used to have an amazing bank regulatory practice in which there hasn’t been much investment lately. (At least in NY; a few folks in DC still.)

In contrast DPW has one of the few top-tier FIG regulatory groups in the city (along with S&C). This feeds transactional work in. You regularly see a roster of DPW, S&C, Wachtell, and Skadden on all the big FIG/insurance deals. Plus Morgan Stanley would only go to DPW for a big acquisition (like ETrade). STB is sometimes in a similar position for JPM, but JPM might go to others, too. There were historically a few banks that did use STB ahead of all others (like Lehman Brothers). Not many of them are still around.

Other stuff: both firms have historically had similar cultures, down to the way they’ve (allegedly) treated minority associates. STB now has income partners, so there’s a little more opacity as to how the place is run. Anecdotally, DPW seems to be a little more structured in the way it runs its M&A practice and trains people, but my STB inside information is a little out of date. DPW restructuring is stronger on the creditor side. If there’s any chance you might want to do fund formation work, STB is a slam dunk.

Neither place is a bad option.

There are people who’ve worked at both places, some of whom are very nice. You might scour firm and LinkedIn bios and see if you can ask some questions confidentially.

Good luck and congrats.