Bank of America Overhauls Investment Banking Leadership: Who’s Moving & Why It Matters

Bank of America’s leadership changes in its Global Investment Banking (GIB) unit represent a strategic effort to sharpen its competitive edge in a volatile investment banking environment. By promoting Faiz Ahmad and Mike Joo as Co-Heads of Global Investment Banking, the bank is realigning its management structure toward greater collaboration and centralized accountability. Previously, Ahmad co-led global capital markets, and Joo led North America’s Global Corporate & Investment Banking (GCIB) [1][2]. Their joint oversight of all global investment banking group heads aims to reduce silos and ensure a clearer chain of command.

The shift in roles for Alex Bettamio and Thomas Sheehan—transitioning from Co-Heads to Chairs of GCIB with a client-relationship focus—suggests Bank of America is doubling down on client servicing at the top, perhaps recognizing that relationships will drive deal flow in M&A and capital markets [1]. Meanwhile, Joo will continue prioritizing U.S. middle-market activity, a business with growing importance across many investment banks, likely because this segment suffered less in recent funding cycles and offers more consistent deal pipelines [1][2].

The bank’s recent financial metrics provide context: in mid-2025, it held a 6% global investment banking revenue market share, placing it third, though down slightly from 6.1% the prior year [2]. However, fees in investment banking dropped approximately 9% in Q2 to $1.4 billion—a warning that scale and optimized leadership are essential to regain momentum [1].

Subsequent leadership changes in specialized sectors—such as technology, media, and telecom—place seasoned professionals like Matthew Sharnoff, Johnny Williams, Daniel Kelly, and Joseph Valenti as co-heads of sub-verticals under Ahmad and Joo [3]. This suggests that while top leadership is being centralized, Bank of America still values domain expertise and wants leadership in high-growth sectors aligned closely with global strategy.

Strategic implications of this restructuring are numerous: it may improve speed and alignment in decision-making, enhance cross-border deal coordination, and help Bank of America better compete with peers who have more integrated investment banking platforms. However, risks include potential leadership overlap, cultural friction between co-heads, and the challenge of regaining fee momentum while navigating regulatory headwinds and market volatility.

Key open questions include whether this structure will materially improve M&A rankings (where the bank slipped recently), how the clients respond—especially in middle market—and whether the bank can reverse fee declines. Also, how Ahmad and Joo divide responsibilities in practice, and whether the chairs of GCIB will yield sufficient influence in their alary client-relationship tasks.