V10 in 10 Years Forum

[Anonymous User]

Prefatory note: asking only about general corporate practices, with a focus on M&A (but also curious about funds, credit, restructuring, banking, cap markets, etc.)

What are people's thoughts on how the big corporate firms will fare in the the next five or ten years? Who will be the market leaders, however you want to define it (profits, revenues, preftige)? Referring to the V10, plus peer firms like Debevoise, Cleary, Sidley, etc. with strong corporate groups.

Catalyst for this question: After graduation, I'm going to a firm with a very limited (nonexistent? lol) PE practice - both fund formation and representing PE firms in deals - and I'm only now beginning to realize just how big the PE industry is (late to the game, I know lol). I chose my firm as a rising 2L based on, among other things, its purported strength in public M&A and, don't get me wrong, I was given great work over the summer and the firm is doing just fine. But it hasn't actually represented parties in any of the major public deals in the past year or so and hasn't been near the top of deal tables either. Meanwhile, places like Kirkland or Latham have been killing it in the PE space and also headlining in massive public deals. Obviously, there are peaks and valleys for any firm, but I'm just curious if other people have also noticed similar things. I wonder if firms that still don't have a robust PE practice are just too late to the game and will struggle to keep up in terms of growth/profits going forward.

[Anonymous User]

Prefatory note: asking only about general corporate practices, with a focus on M&A (but also curious about funds, credit, restructuring, banking, cap markets, etc.)

What are people's thoughts on how the big corporate firms will fare in the the next five or ten years? Who will be the market leaders, however you want to define it (profits, revenues, preftige)? Referring to the V10, plus peer firms like Debevoise, Cleary, Sidley, etc. with strong corporate groups.

Catalyst for this question: After graduation, I'm going to a firm with a very limited (nonexistent? lol) PE practice - both fund formation and representing PE firms in deals - and I'm only now beginning to realize just how big the PE industry is (late to the game, I know lol). I chose my firm as a rising 2L based on, among other things, its purported strength in public M&A and, don't get me wrong, I was given great work over the summer and the firm is doing just fine. But it hasn't actually represented parties in any of the major public deals in the past year or so and hasn't been near the top of deal tables either. Meanwhile, places like Kirkland or Latham have been killing it in the PE space and also headlining in massive public deals. Obviously, there are peaks and valleys for any firm, but I'm just curious if other people have also noticed similar things. I wonder if firms that still don't have a robust PE practice are just too late to the game and will struggle to keep up in terms of growth/profits going forward.

Can imagine a world where over next 10 we will see somewhat of a rollback from the crazy rollup/buyout PE environment that was going strong the last few years - market is insanely saturated, returns have started to taper for a lot of not top quartile funds. In the shorter run, buyout debt market is rough rn and interest rate environment doesn't look to improve significantly in 2023 with FFR looking to hit 5.5.

rankings will probably look similar though barring implosions though. Hot take would be cravath/S&C falling off a bit since they make their money on strategic pubco. Hottest take would be latham/kirkland getting creamed if PE meaningfully retracts (which would also hurt deb and ropes, with how involved they are in PE).

I am a touch curious what firm has a noted strength in pubco M&A but wasn't near the top of league tables - seems like the major pubco players were all relatively steady from last year to this

[nls336]

Prefatory note: asking only about general corporate practices, with a focus on M&A (but also curious about funds, credit, restructuring, banking, cap markets, etc.)

What are people's thoughts on how the big corporate firms will fare in the the next five or ten years? Who will be the market leaders, however you want to define it (profits, revenues, preftige)? Referring to the V10, plus peer firms like Debevoise, Cleary, Sidley, etc. with strong corporate groups.

Catalyst for this question: After graduation, I'm going to a firm with a very limited (nonexistent? lol) PE practice - both fund formation and representing PE firms in deals - and I'm only now beginning to realize just how big the PE industry is (late to the game, I know lol). I chose my firm as a rising 2L based on, among other things, its purported strength in public M&A and, don't get me wrong, I was given great work over the summer and the firm is doing just fine. But it hasn't actually represented parties in any of the major public deals in the past year or so and hasn't been near the top of deal tables either. Meanwhile, places like Kirkland or Latham have been killing it in the PE space and also headlining in massive public deals. Obviously, there are peaks and valleys for any firm, but I'm just curious if other people have also noticed similar things. I wonder if firms that still don't have a robust PE practice are just too late to the game and will struggle to keep up in terms of growth/profits going forward.

Can imagine a world where over next 10 we will see somewhat of a rollback from the crazy rollup/buyout PE environment that was going strong the last few years - market is insanely saturated, returns have started to taper for a lot of not top quartile funds. In the shorter run, buyout debt market is rough rn and interest rate environment doesn't look to improve significantly in 2023 with FFR looking to hit 5.5.

rankings will probably look similar though barring implosions though. Hot take would be cravath/S&C falling off a bit since they make their money on strategic pubco. Hottest take would be latham/kirkland getting creamed if PE meaningfully retracts (which would also hurt deb and ropes, with how involved they are in PE).

I am a touch curious what firm has a noted strength in pubco M&A but wasn't near the top of league tables - seems like the major pubco players were all relatively steady from last year to this

this may be kind of a nutty opinion but, I do think there's a world where big law begins to struggle in the next ten years (comparatively) to the last ten. I can imagine interest rates raising AND quantitative tightening taking so much money out of the market that businesses become thriftier with respect to legal fees -- I think the RX space is already seeing this now.

My major reasoning is two fold, and both are explained below: the (1) slowing business cycle will be elongated across years as the soft landing becomes more elusive and the Fed is forced to get more aggressive, pulling money (and therefore the beaucoup business these firms now expect) into cheaper and more cost effective legal avenues (i.e., negotiation rather than full on litigation, refinancing or a scheme of arrangement vs. chapter 11) and down to cheaper firms by hour; and (2) the lifestyle is precipitously worse if you work for one of the "delusional" firms that are not acknowledging the way work is changing. I say "delusional" because the changes are happening whether they stick RTO in someone's face or not and to not acknowledge reality is always a terrible financial decision for a company of any type, in my limited experience as an RX attorney.

As to (1): Re-financings are still quite prevalent even though a 2023 recession was baked into the numbers (I think this is because we have not gotten to a soft landing and the Fed will have to raise fed funds rates above the current inflation rate in order to tame the cycle as it has done each time before). As of now we are really only seeing the effects of the interest rate additions because QT is only just beginning, which I think personally will be more impactful because it is the real withdrawal of cash flow from the market vs. slowing the flow of money through interest increasing, if that makes sense). A lot of industry practitioners are saying that one possible reason for the emphasis on refinancing vs. filing is the high fees extracted by these firms in a bankruptcy.

As to (2), and this is anecdotal, big law is a less desirable path for many law students post-pandemic because of the bad RTO policies (not trying to start a fight about that with anyone pro-WFH) and the emphasis which is really public for the first time (via Fishbowl) that many anon voices have when absolutely trashing younger years (makes the profession look as mean as it honestly is before they even have that critical first terrible experience with someone their senior where they realize). Conservatively there is a 30% decrease in demand for corporate real estate in N.Y.C., and there have been many articles about how there is no re-population movement of the city to lead to these absolutely astronomical rents. Instead, the landlords are just warehousing whatever apartment they can and relying on algorithms to determine prices in consort with other landlords also using the same algorithm. That means what law student turning first year should take the N.Y. bar instead of the Illinois, D.C., Fl., etc. bar?

Attorneys, especially juniors who have not had to start in office, have been telling me that this RTO push really soured them on the return because they remembered in comparison just how much suckier RTO is. A lot of younger attorneys are genuinely struggling to afford the high COL environments + student loans. Instead of responding to the real cost pressures faced by their staff, firms are looking to treat their attorneys as expendable based on the drop off in all business. Whereas, the obvious way to cost cut is not to cut from the staff attorney ranks but to start trimming office space in response to the weakening demand but for whatever reason many firms are unwilling to see that as an option, which will cause an additional financial stress. This worsens quality of life because many of these firms never "recapitalized" their attorney ranks after 2008, and just operated from a leaner team.

Speaking from my last firm, the RTO push increased costs +13% when revenue was stagnant or decreasing from 2021-2022 ATH and associates could already feel the pressure coming down the pipe for them to increase billing, although looping back above, there just wasn't that much business the last year or two to trickle down to the latest class years (but nobody at any of these firms will admit that to you). This combo of slower business + layoffs and RTO will, I think, push a lot of people into the light about what this job really is like (i.e., the firm doesn't care about you).

Both (1) and (2) together suggest to me that the employee market will remain despite the decrease in firm revenue and technical dips into recessions because there may not be the supply of eager attorneys into these big city offices for in-person hybrid work, especially when they know those jobs are more precarious due to weakening/tightening financial conditions. I already see the drop off in business now and the effects of it on firms so (1) is definitely in play. But, I'm sure the big firm model will survive, just not sure how they will adapt to the changing economic market.

[Anonymous User]

OP, I don't want to sound harsh but it sounds like you are just trying to prestige chase.

Do a small number of top firms get an outsized portion of large deal work? Yeah. Does that mean firms outside of that are all losing? No.

The world of small and mid market PE is massive and outstrips big name PE work by far. A smaller corporate law firm group can still be really profitable and healthy with just a handful of PE firm clients who are doing 10-15 deals a year. Why would that client go to a Kirkland and pay 2x or more in legal fees when they can go to a smaller firm and still get quality work?

From an associate angle too there a lot of benefits to avoid mega firm M&A work. Do you think as a first year staffed on a big M&A deal anyone will trust you with anything but due diligence? They won't. You can actually have the chance to do more substantive "legal" work earlier on smaller deals (sub $100m) than bigger ones, and most deals follow the same general frameworks regardless of size.

Is it cool to work on big name deals? Yeah. Are there benefits to working at mega firms? Yeah. For one you never need to worry about not hitting your hours because there will always be work.

Just don't think of yourself as at a loser firm or losing out because your firm isn't the "top" at what it does.

I work across a "top" firm in my practice area all the time and I find errors and busts in their work often. It's a better strategy long term to find the actual people at these firms who are well regarded in their practices (see chambers individual rankings) and learn from them directly than just chasing a firm itself.

[bigboybob]

Why are we even arguing these points? AI will make many jobs obsolete. Associate classes will become much smaller and people will get pushed out sooner. AI doesn't sleep, complain, or care bout RTO.

[Anonymous User]

As to (1): Re-financings are still quite prevalent even though a 2023 recession was baked into the numbers (I think this is because we have not gotten to a soft landing and the Fed will have to raise fed funds rates above the current inflation rate in order to tame the cycle as it has done each time before). As of now we are really only seeing the effects of the interest rate additions because QT is only just beginning, which I think personally will be more impactful because it is the real withdrawal of cash flow from the market vs. slowing the flow of money through interest increasing, if that makes sense). A lot of industry practitioners are saying that one possible reason for the emphasis on refinancing vs. filing is the high fees extracted by these firms in a bankruptcy.

As to (2), and this is anecdotal, big law is a less desirable path for many law students post-pandemic because of the bad RTO policies (not trying to start a fight about that with anyone pro-WFH) and the emphasis which is really public for the first time (via Fishbowl) that many anon voices have when absolutely trashing younger years (makes the profession look as mean as it honestly is before they even have that critical first terrible experience with someone their senior where they realize). Conservatively there is a 30% decrease in demand for corporate real estate in N.Y.C., and there have been many articles about how there is no re-population movement of the city to lead to these absolutely astronomical rents. Instead, the landlords are just warehousing whatever apartment they can and relying on algorithms to determine prices in consort with other landlords also using the same algorithm. That means what law student turning first year should take the N.Y. bar instead of the Illinois, D.C., Fl., etc. bar?

Attorneys, especially juniors who have not had to start in office, have been telling me that this RTO push really soured them on the return because they remembered in comparison just how much suckier RTO is. A lot of younger attorneys are genuinely struggling to afford the high COL environments + student loans. Instead of responding to the real cost pressures faced by their staff, firms are looking to treat their attorneys as expendable based on the drop off in all business. Whereas, the obvious way to cost cut is not to cut from the staff attorney ranks but to start trimming office space in response to the weakening demand but for whatever reason many firms are unwilling to see that as an option, which will cause an additional financial stress. This worsens quality of life because many of these firms never "recapitalized" their attorney ranks after 2008, and just operated from a leaner team.

Speaking from my last firm, the RTO push increased costs +13% when revenue was stagnant or decreasing from 2021-2022 ATH and associates could already feel the pressure coming down the pipe for them to increase billing, although looping back above, there just wasn't that much business the last year or two to trickle down to the latest class years (but nobody at any of these firms will admit that to you). This combo of slower business + layoffs and RTO will, I think, push a lot of people into the light about what this job really is like (i.e., the firm doesn't care about you).

Both (1) and (2) together suggest to me that the employee market will remain despite the decrease in firm revenue and technical dips into recessions because there may not be the supply of eager attorneys into these big city offices for in-person hybrid work, especially when they know those jobs are more precarious due to weakening/tightening financial conditions. I already see the drop off in business now and the effects of it on firms so (1) is definitely in play. But, I'm sure the big firm model will survive, just not sure how they will adapt to the changing economic market.

Both of these takes are entirely off-base. Let’s go through them:

(1) Refinancings are up over expectations because there’s been an influx of capital into distressed/high-yield credit funds, which have both (a) higher risk tolerances than traditional banks and (b) are willing to do shorter-term and more bespoke deals. I look at this recent spate of refinancings as companies kicking the can down the road to be able to refinance after the soft landing (which I take as decently likely as for now). If that doesn’t happen, many of these refinancings will blow up and provide lots of work for RX attorneys (like myself). I can tell you that debtor-side work is pretty busy right now anyway and AFAIK all the major debtor groups are trying to add people (though, to your point, out-of-court agreements are becoming more prevalent—though I suspect that’s not a death knell for RX practice).

(2) LMFAO what? I’m very junior and so still have contacts at my (HYS) school. NYC biglaw is more popular than ever, at least for the 2023/2024 classes per my friends. I think the anti-NYC and anti-biglaw vibe is really relegated to the true pandemic classes—if you graduated in 2022 you didn’t really know WFH and RTO hasn’t been a big deal for my class (I’d like if we adopted Lazard’s policies, but 3 office days/week really isn’t bad). I honestly like going into the office (and much prefer living in NYC compared to just about any other metro). Now one thing I think we’re seeing is more of a push from junior ranks for more lifestyle.

I think firms know that full/part-time RTO is likely the future, and that WFH is mostly going to be a partner perk—getting rid of office space doesn’t make sense in that world. If there are layoffs (which I personally doubt in the near term), I suspect the culling will be of the midlevels who have fought RTO more than recent juniors.

[Anonymous User]

Theres gonna be retrenchment. Corp bros typing up term sheets for beyond stupid deals made possible by the world of ZIRP gonna have to find something else to do. Incoming classes will shrink.

At some point I think Cravath falls off the ladder. Havent innovated and havent led market either in recent memory.

[dyemond]

Prefatory note: asking only about general corporate practices, with a focus on M&A (but also curious about funds, credit, restructuring, banking, cap markets, etc.)

What are people's thoughts on how the big corporate firms will fare in the the next five or ten years? Who will be the market leaders, however you want to define it (profits, revenues, preftige)? Referring to the V10, plus peer firms like Debevoise, Cleary, Sidley, etc. with strong corporate groups.

Catalyst for this question: After graduation, I'm going to a firm with a very limited (nonexistent? lol) PE practice - both fund formation and representing PE firms in deals - and I'm only now beginning to realize just how big the PE industry is (late to the game, I know lol). I chose my firm as a rising 2L based on, among other things, its purported strength in public M&A and, don't get me wrong, I was given great work over the summer and the firm is doing just fine. But it hasn't actually represented parties in any of the major public deals in the past year or so and hasn't been near the top of deal tables either. Meanwhile, places like Kirkland or Latham have been killing it in the PE space and also headlining in massive public deals. Obviously, there are peaks and valleys for any firm, but I'm just curious if other people have also noticed similar things. I wonder if firms that still don't have a robust PE practice are just too late to the game and will struggle to keep up in terms of growth/profits going forward.

Can imagine a world where over next 10 we will see somewhat of a rollback from the crazy rollup/buyout PE environment that was going strong the last few years - market is insanely saturated, returns have started to taper for a lot of not top quartile funds. In the shorter run, buyout debt market is rough rn and interest rate environment doesn't look to improve significantly in 2023 with FFR looking to hit 5.5.

rankings will probably look similar though barring implosions though. Hot take would be cravath/S&C falling off a bit since they make their money on strategic pubco. Hottest take would be latham/kirkland getting creamed if PE meaningfully retracts (which would also hurt deb and ropes, with how involved they are in PE).

I am a touch curious what firm has a noted strength in pubco M&A but wasn't near the top of league tables - seems like the major pubco players were all relatively steady from last year to this

this may be kind of a nutty opinion but, I do think there's a world where big law begins to struggle in the next ten years (comparatively) to the last ten. I can imagine interest rates raising AND quantitative tightening taking so much money out of the market that businesses become thriftier with respect to legal fees -- I think the RX space is already seeing this now.

My major reasoning is two fold, and both are explained below: the (1) slowing business cycle will be elongated across years as the soft landing becomes more elusive and the Fed is forced to get more aggressive, pulling money (and therefore the beaucoup business these firms now expect) into cheaper and more cost effective legal avenues (i.e., negotiation rather than full on litigation, refinancing or a scheme of arrangement vs. chapter 11) and down to cheaper firms by hour; and (2) the lifestyle is precipitously worse if you work for one of the "delusional" firms that are not acknowledging the way work is changing. I say "delusional" because the changes are happening whether they stick RTO in someone's face or not and to not acknowledge reality is always a terrible financial decision for a company of any type, in my limited experience as an RX attorney.

As to (1): Re-financings are still quite prevalent even though a 2023 recession was baked into the numbers (I think this is because we have not gotten to a soft landing and the Fed will have to raise fed funds rates above the current inflation rate in order to tame the cycle as it has done each time before). As of now we are really only seeing the effects of the interest rate additions because QT is only just beginning, which I think personally will be more impactful because it is the real withdrawal of cash flow from the market vs. slowing the flow of money through interest increasing, if that makes sense). A lot of industry practitioners are saying that one possible reason for the emphasis on refinancing vs. filing is the high fees extracted by these firms in a bankruptcy.

As to (2), and this is anecdotal, big law is a less desirable path for many law students post-pandemic because of the bad RTO policies (not trying to start a fight about that with anyone pro-WFH) and the emphasis which is really public for the first time (via Fishbowl) that many anon voices have when absolutely trashing younger years (makes the profession look as mean as it honestly is before they even have that critical first terrible experience with someone their senior where they realize). Conservatively there is a 30% decrease in demand for corporate real estate in N.Y.C., and there have been many articles about how there is no re-population movement of the city to lead to these absolutely astronomical rents. Instead, the landlords are just warehousing whatever apartment they can and relying on algorithms to determine prices in consort with other landlords also using the same algorithm. That means what law student turning first year should take the N.Y. bar instead of the Illinois, D.C., Fl., etc. bar?

Attorneys, especially juniors who have not had to start in office, have been telling me that this RTO push really soured them on the return because they remembered in comparison just how much suckier RTO is. A lot of younger attorneys are genuinely struggling to afford the high COL environments + student loans. Instead of responding to the real cost pressures faced by their staff, firms are looking to treat their attorneys as expendable based on the drop off in all business. Whereas, the obvious way to cost cut is not to cut from the staff attorney ranks but to start trimming office space in response to the weakening demand but for whatever reason many firms are unwilling to see that as an option, which will cause an additional financial stress. This worsens quality of life because many of these firms never "recapitalized" their attorney ranks after 2008, and just operated from a leaner team.

Speaking from my last firm, the RTO push increased costs +13% when revenue was stagnant or decreasing from 2021-2022 ATH and associates could already feel the pressure coming down the pipe for them to increase billing, although looping back above, there just wasn't that much business the last year or two to trickle down to the latest class years (but nobody at any of these firms will admit that to you). This combo of slower business + layoffs and RTO will, I think, push a lot of people into the light about what this job really is like (i.e., the firm doesn't care about you).

Both (1) and (2) together suggest to me that the employee market will remain despite the decrease in firm revenue and technical dips into recessions because there may not be the supply of eager attorneys into these big city offices for in-person hybrid work, especially when they know those jobs are more precarious due to weakening/tightening financial conditions. I already see the drop off in business now and the effects of it on firms so (1) is definitely in play. But, I'm sure the big firm model will survive, just not sure how they will adapt to the changing economic market.

Don’t have time to break it all down but these takes are terrible. The notion that RTO is going to appreciably impact biglaw specifically is dumb—boutiques, midlaw and fed agencies are often more strict about in office policies.

[Anonymous User]

As to (1): Re-financings are still quite prevalent even though a 2023 recession was baked into the numbers (I think this is because we have not gotten to a soft landing and the Fed will have to raise fed funds rates above the current inflation rate in order to tame the cycle as it has done each time before). As of now we are really only seeing the effects of the interest rate additions because QT is only just beginning, which I think personally will be more impactful because it is the real withdrawal of cash flow from the market vs. slowing the flow of money through interest increasing, if that makes sense). A lot of industry practitioners are saying that one possible reason for the emphasis on refinancing vs. filing is the high fees extracted by these firms in a bankruptcy.

As to (2), and this is anecdotal, big law is a less desirable path for many law students post-pandemic because of the bad RTO policies (not trying to start a fight about that with anyone pro-WFH) and the emphasis which is really public for the first time (via Fishbowl) that many anon voices have when absolutely trashing younger years (makes the profession look as mean as it honestly is before they even have that critical first terrible experience with someone their senior where they realize). Conservatively there is a 30% decrease in demand for corporate real estate in N.Y.C., and there have been many articles about how there is no re-population movement of the city to lead to these absolutely astronomical rents. Instead, the landlords are just warehousing whatever apartment they can and relying on algorithms to determine prices in consort with other landlords also using the same algorithm. That means what law student turning first year should take the N.Y. bar instead of the Illinois, D.C., Fl., etc. bar?

Attorneys, especially juniors who have not had to start in office, have been telling me that this RTO push really soured them on the return because they remembered in comparison just how much suckier RTO is. A lot of younger attorneys are genuinely struggling to afford the high COL environments + student loans. Instead of responding to the real cost pressures faced by their staff, firms are looking to treat their attorneys as expendable based on the drop off in all business. Whereas, the obvious way to cost cut is not to cut from the staff attorney ranks but to start trimming office space in response to the weakening demand but for whatever reason many firms are unwilling to see that as an option, which will cause an additional financial stress. This worsens quality of life because many of these firms never "recapitalized" their attorney ranks after 2008, and just operated from a leaner team.

Speaking from my last firm, the RTO push increased costs +13% when revenue was stagnant or decreasing from 2021-2022 ATH and associates could already feel the pressure coming down the pipe for them to increase billing, although looping back above, there just wasn't that much business the last year or two to trickle down to the latest class years (but nobody at any of these firms will admit that to you). This combo of slower business + layoffs and RTO will, I think, push a lot of people into the light about what this job really is like (i.e., the firm doesn't care about you).

Both (1) and (2) together suggest to me that the employee market will remain despite the decrease in firm revenue and technical dips into recessions because there may not be the supply of eager attorneys into these big city offices for in-person hybrid work, especially when they know those jobs are more precarious due to weakening/tightening financial conditions. I already see the drop off in business now and the effects of it on firms so (1) is definitely in play. But, I'm sure the big firm model will survive, just not sure how they will adapt to the changing economic market.

Both of these takes are entirely off-base. Let’s go through them:

(1) Refinancings are up over expectations because there’s been an influx of capital into distressed/high-yield credit funds, which have both (a) higher risk tolerances than traditional banks and (b) are willing to do shorter-term and more bespoke deals. I look at this recent spate of refinancings as companies kicking the can down the road to be able to refinance after the soft landing (which I take as decently likely as for now). If that doesn’t happen, many of these refinancings will blow up and provide lots of work for RX attorneys (like myself). I can tell you that debtor-side work is pretty busy right now anyway and AFAIK all the major debtor groups are trying to add people (though, to your point, out-of-court agreements are becoming more prevalent—though I suspect that’s not a death knell for RX practice).

(2) LMFAO what? I’m very junior and so still have contacts at my (HYS) school. NYC biglaw is more popular than ever, at least for the 2023/2024 classes per my friends. I think the anti-NYC and anti-biglaw vibe is really relegated to the true pandemic classes—if you graduated in 2022 you didn’t really know WFH and RTO hasn’t been a big deal for my class (I’d like if we adopted Lazard’s policies, but 3 office days/week really isn’t bad). I honestly like going into the office (and much prefer living in NYC compared to just about any other metro). Now one thing I think we’re seeing is more of a push from junior ranks for more lifestyle.

I think firms know that full/part-time RTO is likely the future, and that WFH is mostly going to be a partner perk—getting rid of office space doesn’t make sense in that world. If there are layoffs (which I personally doubt in the near term), I suspect the culling will be of the midlevels who have fought RTO more than recent juniors.

Question -- why did you need to be anonymous to post this? Are you feeling okay? Take too much adderall this morning and need to get your frustrations out and be a disrespectful little shit anonymously? lol. ok. I said in my original post, "I see a world in which it is possible," which implies it's only one possibility. But, hello, you must be the HYS prophet who sees the future and can say all possibilities except your opinion are truly false.

Respectfully, I say this can be a good take on why distressed work may be in financing, but have ALSO heard exactly what I said come directly from partners at the v10 I work for. So, hmm..maybe there can be multiple explanations? That would truly be impossible and SHOCKING wouldn't it? Plus, you also just said "if these blow up" which is exactly what I'm saying now. If you're at one of the MANY groups that don't have the entire market cornered on Debtor side RX, so Kirkland/Weil, (which I assume you're at one based on your HYS name drop) many people are slow. Again, I speak from personal anecdotes/experience.

(2) I'm glad you have an opposite anecdotal experience! Your anecdotal experience does not make mine less valid because there are (I know this may be hard to believe for you, but) more than 7 billion people on Earth (yes most didn't go to HYS...so maybe broaden your friend group to one a little less ... how do I put this, out of touch) with different experiences to you. I simply just shared mine. Next time you're going to come on here to shit on other people without saying anything personally identifying, you should do it off anon. so that we can actually discuss where you've worked and why your opinion is suddenly god tier.

[Sackboy]

Anyone who refers to someone else as a disrespectful little shit is probably a disrespectful big shit.