Are there really any differences between the big banks?

Dear MOSWIH,

You’ve asked a thoughtful — and honestly, pretty common — question. It’s one that a lot of young whippersnappers in finance quietly wrestle with, especially if they came of age after the 2008 financial crisis.

From the outside, big banks all look alike: similar offerings, similar tone, similar ethos, identikit people with similar fashion sense and hobbies. The business models look alike, too. But once you’re close enough, you start noticing real differences in how they operate on a day-to-day basis, how they’re led, and how they treat their talent and their clients.

It usually starts at the top. ‘Trickle-down economics’ remains a contentious concept, but trickle-down leadership is real — the tone that leadership sets affects the whole culture.

Some places are full of sharp elbows and turf wars; they’re the kind of environment I sometimes call “Cancun” (which in Mayan means “nest of vipers”).

Other firms actually feel collaborative and the people enjoy working there and are proud to be bankers there.

Some banks chase short-term wins and have little institutional patience. Others care more about long-term relationships and are willing to invest in them. A few will tolerate awful personalities if they generate revenues; others draw firmer lines, maybe because they’re less dependent on any one star. This stuff shapes everything in your work life and will determine how demoralised or energised you feel after a day.

If you talk to people, you’ll see what I mean. Some banks just feel… better to work at.

Even within a single firm, the experience can vary wildly. A bank’s London debt capital markets desk might be business-like and steady, while its New York healthcare group could be a Flemish painting mess of egos and defections.

It often comes down to who’s running the team — whether they have built a good culture and have the stature and courage to protect their people, or if they just manage up and let things fall apart underneath (“smile upwards and s**t downwards”, in industry jargon).

So for sure, choosing the right firm is important — but choosing the right team matters just as much, if not more.

You mentioned Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Credit Suisse. Their collapses weren’t just bad luck. They were years in the making — leadership failures, blind spots in risk, unmanageable (or under-managed) fiefdoms, office strife.

The firms that survive tend to have stronger and more cohesive cultures, with clear strategy, better discipline and the humility to actually learn from close calls.

Sometimes it’s apparently only with hindsight that you can see why a firm failed, but in other cases, the red flags had been waving for a while.

As for your interview, here’s what I’d say. First, it’s totally normal to hesitate when asked what draws you to a big bank. The honest answer — better pay, prestige and proximity to the hedge fund world — may be true, but it won’t exactly win hearts in the room.

What they want to hear is that you’re committed to the firm. Talking about global reach or larger mandates isn’t wrong — just make sure it’s anchored in something you genuinely care about. Better still, understand how that firm sees itself, and speak to that with some honesty and passion.

As for your long-term goal, I think to some degree you’re barking up the wrong tree. Hedge funds aren’t scooping up people because they worked at a big name. They don’t care that much about the institution you hail from, except inasmuch as it has given you a platform to learn and develop.

Hedge funds want people who’ve proved they can deliver, make sound decisions and earn internal trust. If you treat a bank job like a waystation or stepping stone to something greater, that mindset tends to show. And if you underperform, it can backfire more than staying longer and doing well where you are.

The best reason to move to a bigger bank is to stretch yourself. You might get exposure to more complex deals, a broader client base and sharper colleagues. That stuff can raise your game — but only if you actually engage with passion and integrity. If you’re just serving time, the growth won’t really happen.

In football, they say “form is temporary, class is permanent.” The equivalent in banking might be: “Prestige is pretty, fit is fulfilling.”

Some people thrive in big, layered organizations, managing office politics with dexterity. Others do better in leaner, tighter teams where they can actually shape things. You’ve got to figure out where you will flourish. That takes due diligence — digging into who’s leading the teams, talking to insiders, reading the room.

In short, yes, there are real differences between banks. But more important than which one you join is whether you’ll actually do well there. And that only happens if you believe in the work and the people you’re doing it with. Focus, commitment and buy-in will get you further than any logo on your business card.

Go for it,

Craig