UBS Chicago: culture, dealflow, hours
Does anyone know anything about UBS Chicago with respect to culture, dealflow, or hours?
I know that analysts are generalists in the Chicago office, and I have heard that they do all of their own execution out of the Chicago office, is that true?
Does anyone know how strong the dealflow is? And normal analyst hours? Basically, are analysts there working 100+ hours consisting of pitching and face time, or are there enough live deals to go around?
Would it put me in a good position to move to one of the top Chicago PE firms after an analyst stint?
Any input you have on these topics is greatly appreciated.
I'm not sure about all of the questions you asked but I know couple people got their offer but then they were delayed until next Feb.
I think they do their own execution, but then again I've heard this said at every BB and I know that's not true. If you look at associate profiles at MDCP and GTCR, there are a couple of former UBS analysts, though I'm not sure if that means anything given what UBS has been through.
That group is actually pretty strong and has very good regional coverage.
I would only work in NYC or SF (TMT, etc.) for banking. Chicago seems dull, and UBS is on its knees.
strongly agree
Knew a guy who worked there. Don't listen to 1styearBanker, he has no clue what he is talking about. UBS SF is not that strong, whereas UBS is one of the few BBs that execute out of Chicago. They have 2 Co-heads in that office. Co-head of M&A is based in Chicago. The office is essentially Industrials and Midwest coverage. They have had good placement historically. CS and UBS guys have ended up at places like GTCR in the past. In terms of culture, I have heard it's a very hardcore office with long hours.
Having said that, the office has not been doing too well recently, with some analysts jumping ship. I heard of a guy jumping to an elite boutique.
Look at CS and GS in Chicago. Greenhill and Moelis are also growing in the area. If you want BB, try and shoot for NY. UBS is not as good in Chi as it was a few years back (based on the people whom I have spoken to that worked there in the past).
I didn't say UBS was strong in SF. I don't think they're strong anywhere except in Asia. I said as a BANKER I would only work in those two locations, and I would never work for UBS. For SF there are other BB's to look at.
You basically agreed with me here: "Having said that, the office has not been doing too well recently, with some analysts jumping ship." and "UBS is not as good in Chi as it was a few years back (based on the people whom I have spoken to that worked there in the past)."
Take a chill pill, you haven't even started working yet.
^^ glad for your input
If somebody absolutely wants to be in NYC in the industry, then that's understandable. But Chicago's a really fun city (moreso than the actual city of SF), is cheap, and generally offers bankers something closer to an alleged work-life balance than NYC does.
hahaha chicago is "more fun" than san fran? That's ridiculous. The bay area is infinitely better than chicago. Even boston's better than chicago. Unless you hate asians or something, the bay area has great amusement parks, beaches, easy flight to vegas, bars/clubs etc.
I have friends at northwestern and uchicago and they said chicago was only fun for a bit, it gets boring fast. Others just plainly hated the city.
Well, this one's easy to explain. Your friends are dorks. Chicago is more than TWICE the size of both SF and Boston. That means, that all else being equal, anything there is in those places, there's roughly double that in Chicago. Please, Boston is a tiny little town like Kansas City or something that just happens to have about 100000 annoying 18-21 year old college students living there. Big fun! And don't try to talk weather - if SF has a dozen days over 60 degrees all year long, they should feel lucky.
Well, I'm from San Francisco, and have lived in Chicago for over 10 years, so I'm making the statement that Chicago is more fun than SF with the admission that I love San Francisco. Chicago has a better nightlife, is a much, much better place to be a straight single guy, has just as good of restaurants, a better live theater scene, and an equal or better music scene. Both areas have amusement parks (both of which are named Great America), but neither is in the actual city, which is what I was speaking to. Both cities have beaches, but Chicago's beach is more of a scene in the summer time because the whether is warm enough to actually want to go to the beach. The advantage of San Francisco over Chicago, and just about every city, is that you have easy access to the beach, hiking trails, mountains, etc. when you leave the city. The major disadvantage to Chicago, which everybody knows, is that the weather sucks in the winter time -- nobody denies that.
I'm not sure how being 90 minutes closer to Vegas is a big advantage. No matter what city you live in, there are few places that are easier to fly to in this country than Vegas.
And your friends that go to UChicago and Northwestern are hardly authorities on the city. Northwestern is in Evanstan, not Chicago, and living in a suburb hardly qualifies somebody to speak about what it's like to live in the city. The University of Chicago is in Hyde Park, a neighborhood that is somewhat isolated on the south side of the city and is about 6 miles south of the loop. Living in Hyde Park is nothing like living in River North, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Wicker Park, Bucktown, etc. Your friends are as qualified to talk about living in Chicago as somebody on campus at St. Johns would be to talk about living in Manhattan, or like somebody on campus at Stanford or Berkeley to talk about living in San Francisco.
Boston, on the other hand, is a great historic city. But it's small and boring. If you're looking for nightlife, it is definitely not the city to settle in.
San fran is an amazing city, the gay thing is way too overblown.
If you're doing finance, you either do it in NYC or San Fran, where montgomery street is known as the Wall Street of the West. No one calls chicago the wall street of the midwest. Chicago is not really known for finance.
Also i love asians and silicon valley and california so san fran is perfect for me.
Chicago is an f'in great city. Nothing is better than Lake Michigan in the summertime... also it is actually a hub of finance. Heard of the CBOT???? Heard of derivative trading???? Boutiquebank4life, you have no idea what your talking about. Learn about commodities, futures, derivatives and find out where the major exchanges in this country are....or figure out what the word "finance" means.
they're both great cities
The gay thing is definitely overblown in San Francisco, but the city has never been a great scene for single guys. There is definitely a pocket of attractive women in Pac Heights, the Marina, Cow Hollow, and Russian Hill, but the pool and the proportion of acceptable dateable women in SF is pretty low compared to Chicago and New York.
Chicago isn't known for finance because it's not the epicenter of the city, much like San Francisco. While banking in Chicago is focused mostly on industrials, the city itself isn't dominated by any specific industry.
And I'm not trying to claim that Chicago is necessarily better than San Francisco or New York... They're all great cities that have different advantages over one another, and they are the top 3 places I would choose to live in the US. Different people are going to justifiably prefer different cities.
I think when people say San Fran they mean the Bay Area including San Jose, Oakland, and Silicon Valley. Obviously the bay area is a lot larger than the city itself. "San Francisco is the cultural and financial center of the Bay Area, and has the second highest population density of any major city in North America after New York City.[" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_area
Chicago is probably better for trading but San Fran is probably the only place to be for TMT and bankers (aside from New York City).
UBS CHICAGO (Originally Posted: 01/21/2013)
How big is UBS's chicago office compared to NY? Are these guys solid?
It used to be a solid office, but has since significantly downsized. They lost their two group heads, one of which was co-head of M&A to Citi about a year or two ago.
More generally, if you're ever worried about the state of a large company with lots of offices, know that the satellite offices are almost always first to go - they can always consolidate people back into HQ, wherever that may be.
The question, I think, he's referring to are the deals and the client-base. It's dwindling but relatively strong compared to other small offices.
Thanks guys. Also, in terms of numbers of analysts/bankers, how small is the office? Is it really small like Barclays Chicago or more like CS Chicago?
In terms of exit opportunities, are they better than a place like Baird/Blair?
Ex et et fugit eum quod. Magni molestias qui possimus autem.
Modi voluptas quia voluptates ut expedita sint sit. Cupiditate laudantium ratione voluptatum. Eveniet exercitationem quia aut rerum rem iusto.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Voluptas aut similique minima corrupti. Quas voluptatum qui vel et omnis fuga omnis officiis. Aperiam qui debitis animi blanditiis velit laboriosam. Consectetur ad ut placeat sint nobis. Accusamus nesciunt vel quasi praesentium labore voluptatem optio. Accusantium odio modi labore molestiae illum rerum.
Molestias et libero sunt ut. A omnis nesciunt qui reprehenderit.