M&A league tables, intended to provide a clear ranking of financial advisors, suffer from significant inconsistencies across different data providers. For instance, a firm like Bank of America Merrill Lynch might be ranked second by Dealogic, but third by Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, and fourth by Mergermarket. This wide variation in rankings, sometimes by several positions, is attributed to differing methodologies in how credit is assigned for advisory services.
Discrepancies in league tables are further complicated by the type of services credited. While financial advisory league tables generally acknowledge direct advisory and fairness opinions, services like due diligence and tax advisory are typically excluded, as they are considered accountancy services. A notable example is EY, which Bloomberg and Mergermarket ranked at the top for financial advisory based on deal value, crediting them for deals worth $8.49 billion and $8.57 billion respectively. However, Thomson Reuters placed Citi on top with $7.05 billion, ranking EY second with $6.41 billion. Dealogic presented an even starker contrast, ranking EY 14th with $2.9 billion, while Citi was first with $8.29 billion.
These inconsistencies raise concerns about the accuracy of the rankings. For example, Bloomberg credited EY for an advisory role in Sun Pharma's $4 billion merger with Ranbaxy, a claim Sun Pharma denied, stating an EY member firm performed only valuation services. This highlights the problem of firms receiving credit for roles that are not strictly financial advisory, sometimes to maintain relationships or for minimal work like fairness opinions. The lack of transparent methodology and varying credit allocation among data providers makes it challenging for clients to get a true picture of an advisor's market standing.
