How Do Investment Banks Generate Revenue and How Should Investors Evaluate Them?

Investment banks occupy a unique position in financial markets — advising corporations on the largest strategic decisions (mergers, acquisitions, capital raises), underwriting the securities through which companies access capital markets, and trading securities on behalf of clients and with proprietary capital. This combination of advisory fees, underwriting revenues, and trading profits creates a business model that is highly correlated with market activity, deal volume, and investor risk appetite — making investment banks among the most cyclically volatile businesses in the equity market.

Quick definition: Investment banking revenues fall into three categories: investment banking fees (M&A advisory, equity underwriting, debt underwriting) that fluctuate with deal volume; sales and trading revenues (market-making for clients, fixed income and equity trading) that vary with market volatility and client activity; and asset management revenues from investment management and private banking businesses that move with AUM levels.

Key takeaways

• M&A advisory revenue is the most cyclically sensitive investment banking revenue — deal volume collapses in recessions (companies avoid uncertain-outcome transactions) and surges in early expansion phases
• Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley represent the two US pure-play investment banks at scale — comparing their revenue mix, efficiency, and return on equity provides the benchmark for investment bank analysis
• Trading revenues (sales and trading) provide a more stable revenue base than investment banking fees — client market-making activity continues through cycles even if volumes decline in downturns
• Boutique advisory firms (Lazard, Evercore, Moelis, PJT Partners, Houlihan Lokey) have gained market share in M&A advisory by offering independent advice without the conflicts of integrated firms
• Regulatory capital requirements post-2008 (Dodd-Frank, Volcker Rule, Basel III) have reduced proprietary trading activities and increased capital costs for investment banks

Revenue mix and cyclicality

Investment banking fees: Fees earned for financial advisory services — M&A deal advisory, equity underwriting (IPOs, follow-on offerings, convertibles), and debt underwriting (investment-grade, high-yield, leveraged loans). Investment banking fees are highly cyclical — in strong deal years, the major banks each generate $8–12+ billion in investment banking revenue; in weak years, $4–6 billion. The 2021 deal boom (record M&A and IPO activity) followed by the 2022–2023 fee drought illustrates the extreme volatility.

Sales and trading: Market-making and trading revenues from fixed income (rates, credit, currencies, commodities) and equity (cash equities, equity derivatives) activities. Sales and trading revenues fluctuate with market volatility — high volatility periods (early COVID, 2022 rate shock) generate elevated trading revenues as client hedging and repositioning activity spikes. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley each generate approximately $15–25 billion in annual sales and trading revenues.

Equity underwriting: Underwriting fees from IPOs and follow-on equity offerings constitute a meaningful component of investment banking revenue in bull markets. The 2021 SPAC boom created record equity underwriting revenue; the subsequent 2022–2023 IPO drought illustrated the volatility of this revenue stream. Equity underwriting requires active equity markets and corporate appetite for public capital raises.

Debt underwriting: Underwriting fees from investment-grade bond issuance, high-yield bonds, leveraged loans, and asset-backed securities. Debt underwriting is more stable than equity underwriting — investment-grade issuers access capital markets continuously for refinancing; high-yield and leveraged loan activity is more cyclical. Interest rate volatility in 2022–2023 disrupted high-yield and leveraged loan issuance significantly.

Goldman Sachs analytical framework

Revenue segments: Goldman Sachs operates through Global Banking & Markets (investment banking fees and trading), Asset & Wealth Management (AUM-based fees and private banking), and its remaining consumer business segments. The core Goldman franchise is its global banking and markets business — where its trading scale, distribution network, and client relationships create competitive barriers.

Return on equity target: Goldman targets return on equity above 14–16% through the cycle — a threshold that requires efficient capital deployment, expense management, and revenue generation even in lean deal years. Goldman's ROE was severely impaired during the consumer banking strategy (Marcus) departure under CEO David Solomon, before refocusing on core institutional and wealth management franchises.

Compensation ratio: Investment bank profitability is constrained by compensation expense — banks pay 35–45% of net revenues in compensation to retain key revenue-generating talent. Managing the compensation ratio while retaining top bankers and traders is the fundamental operating challenge in investment banking.

Morgan Stanley's wealth management transformation

Wealth management revenue stability: Morgan Stanley's acquisition of E*Trade (2020) and Smith Barney/Merrill Lynch-era retail brokerage built a wealth management franchise generating approximately $25+ billion in annual revenue. This wealth management revenue — based on AUM fees and margin lending income — provides much greater stability than investment banking and trading, transforming Morgan Stanley's earnings quality from cyclically volatile to more consistent.

Financial advisor productivity: Morgan Stanley's approximately 15,000+ financial advisors manage approximately $4+ trillion in client assets — generating recurring fee revenue that smooths earnings relative to pure capital markets activity. The wealth management business's high client retention and switching costs create durability that distinguishes Morgan Stanley from Goldman's more capital-markets-concentrated model.

How it flows

Boutique advisory firms

Conflict-free advisory model: Boutique advisory firms (Lazard, Evercore, Moelis, PJT Partners, Houlihan Lokey) provide M&A advisory services without the conflicts of integrated investment banks that also provide financing, research coverage, and other services to deal participants. In large complex transactions, boards and management increasingly prefer independent advisors whose only business is providing objective strategic advice.

Market share gains: Boutique advisors have consistently gained market share from bulge-bracket banks in fee-based M&A advisory — particularly in transactions where deal complexity, potential conflicts, or the desire for independent advice argues against using an integrated bank's advisory team. Lazard and Evercore have been particularly successful in gaining mandates on large, complex transactions.

Financial restructuring specialty: Houlihan Lokey and other restructuring-focused boutiques have significant advantages in bankruptcy and financial restructuring advisory — a business that benefits from distressed credit environments and requires specific technical expertise that integrated banks provide less prominently.

Analyst and associate pipeline: Boutique firms attract top investment banking talent by offering higher compensation as a percentage of revenue, clearer career paths to managing director, and exposure to senior-level advisory work earlier in careers than large integrated banks. This talent competition has intensified following the boutique model's profitability demonstration.

Post-2008 regulatory impact

Volcker Rule: The Volcker Rule (Dodd-Frank Section 619) restricts banks' proprietary trading — trading for the bank's own account rather than for client market-making. This restriction reduced bank trading revenues and caused significant restructuring of trading desks. The distinction between prohibited proprietary trading and permitted client market-making is regulatory gray zone that has been contested in bank compliance programs.

Basel III capital requirements: Increased capital requirements for trading activities (market risk capital rules) raised the capital allocated to investment bank trading desks — reducing returns on capital from trading activities. These capital requirements have contributed to reduced bank risk appetite in certain trading markets and the migration of some market-making activity to non-bank market makers (hedge funds, electronic trading firms).

Stress testing impact: Annual Federal Reserve stress tests (DFAST and CCAR) test bank capital adequacy under adverse economic scenarios — requiring banks to demonstrate they could survive severe downturns without falling below minimum capital ratios. Banks whose stress test results are positive receive approval to return capital; those with capital concerns face dividend and buyback restrictions.

Valuation of investment banks

Price-to-book versus P/E: Investment banks are typically valued on both price-to-book value (accounting for capital base) and price-to-earnings (accounting for earnings power). Price-to-book for investment banks is affected by the mark-to-market nature of trading portfolios — book value fluctuates with market conditions.

Through-cycle earnings power: Given the extreme cyclicality of investment banking fee revenues, valuing investment banks on peak earnings (boom deal years) significantly overvalues; valuing on trough earnings (deal drought years) significantly undervalues. Through-cycle normalized earnings — average fee revenues across several years including both active and quiet deal markets — provides the appropriate earnings base.

Common mistakes

Overweighting investment banking fee forecasts in individual year earnings projections. Investment banking fee revenues have low year-to-year predictability — the timing and volume of M&A and capital markets activity cannot be reliably forecast for a single year. Investment bank valuation models that depend on specific fee revenue assumptions for individual years have high uncertainty. Long-run through-cycle averages are more reliable inputs.

Ignoring trading book mark-to-market risk in investment bank book values. Trading portfolios are marked to market, meaning reported book value changes with market conditions. During market stress, trading portfolio marks can decline significantly — both reducing reported earnings and potentially creating concerns about capital adequacy that are not present for commercial banks with primarily accrual-basis loan portfolios.

FAQ

How do boutique advisory firms differ from bulge-bracket banks in investment banking?

Boutique advisory firms (Lazard, Evercore, Moelis) provide M&A and restructuring advisory exclusively — without equity underwriting, research, lending, or trading services. This purity eliminates the conflicts inherent in integrated banks (which advise clients while also seeking to provide financing, research coverage, or underwriting). Boards and management who want independent strategic advice without wondering whether their advisor is steering them toward a deal structure that benefits the bank's other business interests increasingly favor boutiques. Boutique market share in investment banking fee revenue has grown from approximately 10–15% to approximately 20–30% over the past 15 years. Investment banking league table data is published annually by Dealogic and can be accessed through financial data providers and SEC merger proxy filings at sec.gov.

Related concepts

• Financials Overview
• Asset Managers Analysis
• Financials Economic Cycle
• Financials Valuation
• Financials Historical Performance

Summary

Investment banking revenues divide into investment banking fees (highly cyclical, tied to M&A and capital markets activity), sales and trading (moderately cyclical, tied to market volatility and client activity), and asset management (more stable, tied to AUM levels). Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley represent the US pure-play investment banking benchmarks — Goldman with a capital-markets-concentrated model; Morgan Stanley with wealth management transformation providing revenue stability. Boutique advisory firms have gained consistent market share in M&A advisory by offering conflict-free independent advice. Post-2008 regulation (Volcker Rule, Basel III) reduced proprietary trading and increased capital requirements, compressing investment bank returns on equity. Valuation requires through-cycle normalized earnings analysis rather than peak or trough year earnings — investment banking fee cyclicality makes single-year earnings a poor valuation anchor.

Next

→ Payment Networks: Visa, Mastercard, and the Transaction Economy