5 ms·

Good. Bringing the deals in house lowers costs (ever meet an ibanker that didn't take a decent chunk), increases flexibility (no intermediaries) and let's deals

Good. Bringing the deals in house lowers costs (ever meet an ibanker that didn't take a decent chunk), increases flexibility (no intermediaries) and let's deals move faster. It's like buying and selling a house without paying for a real estate agent. Both parties save on time and fees.

hkmurakami 12y ago
This is actually Google's strategy with strategy. It's big enough that the kind of studies management consulting firms offer can be useful to the company, but instead of hiring McKinsey to do a study, they just hire away their best young talent and have them join their internal strategy arm. Considering that their associates bill at $1MM/year, hiring them away ends up being much cheaper.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Google also has the brand name to do this. Leaving McKinsey to work at Google looks great on a resume, leaving McKinsey to work at a small or midsize company looks much stranger.
  - hkmurakami 12y ago
    Thus Google is/was the #1 destination for ex-McKinsey folks. Generally speaking, mgmt consulting attracts more risk averse people than otherwise, so this is somewhat natural (in fact, my risk-seeking friend who joined the firm was surprised that so many people were risk averse). But there are plenty of people who leave the firm to go to mid sizes places or places with less cache, but at a relatively high position in the corporate chain. They also leave to join growth phase startups as well.
hnnewguy 12y ago
>Both parties save on time and fees. Of course it's good for the Googles and Facebooks, who have the resources to in-source teams to do the deals. But is it equally good for the small companies, the "acquired", the WhatsApps et al, to be relying on Google's in-house team? I'm not as sure. I have to laugh at the "who needs bankers?" tone of the article, when the companies mentioned rely on ibanks to provide them with the talent pipeline they need to staff their in-house M&A teams.

hkmurakami 12y ago

This is actually Google's strategy with strategy. It's big enough that the kind of studies management consulting firms offer can be useful to the company, but instead of hiring McKinsey to do a study, they just hire away their best young talent and have them join their internal strategy arm. Considering that their associates bill at $1MM/year, hiring them away ends up being much cheaper.

nostrademons 12y ago
Google also has the brand name to do this. Leaving McKinsey to work at Google looks great on a resume, leaving McKinsey to work at a small or midsize company looks much stranger.
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  Thus Google is/was the #1 destination for ex-McKinsey folks. Generally speaking, mgmt consulting attracts more risk averse people than otherwise, so this is somewhat natural (in fact, my risk-seeking friend who joined the firm was surprised that so many people were risk averse). But there are plenty of people who leave the firm to go to mid sizes places or places with less cache, but at a relatively high position in the corporate chain. They also leave to join growth phase startups as well.

hnnewguy 12y ago

>Both parties save on time and fees. Of course it's good for the Googles and Facebooks, who have the resources to in-source teams to do the deals. But is it equally good for the small companies, the "acquired", the WhatsApps et al, to be relying on Google's in-house team? I'm not as sure. I have to laugh at the "who needs bankers?" tone of the article, when the companies mentioned rely on ibanks to provide them with the talent pipeline they need to staff their in-house M&A teams.