UBS 2024 Groups for Purely Exits
I am an incoming 2025 summer analyst at UBS and frankly, I just want to maximize exits. Before placement, I want to know what the top groups are and what I should shoot for. It looks like the strongest team by a decent margin was the combined financial sponsors and Levfin team, but I heard they split so I do not know what the better group is there. I also am aware that M&A is usually a good group at most banks, but not sure where the group lands for UBS. From recent deal announcements and talks on this forum, the FIG team has also been super active, but FIG seems fairly niche so not sure how to rank that. I also understand that the best option is to try to lateral, but that's not something I have in my control as of right now, so am only focused on getting into as good of a group as possible.
How should I think about ranking firms purely for PE exits(I have no interest in Private Credit)? I also would love any level of clarification between the financial sponsor/LevFin split as well as any other insight into what the firm's top groups are. I do want to note that I did see other posts similarly, presumably by the 2024 or 2025 intern class, but most of those posts seemed to give quite contradictory opinions, particularly regarding some citing Sponsors as being the group vs LevFin being the best one and disagreements about how good M&A is and thus those are my two questions.
Editing : It seems like this question got answered. I want to thank the people in the thread for the help. For the future, I am just going to post the consensus rankings for pure exits here :
1) Sponsors
2) LevFin
3/4) FIG/GIG depending on if any interest in FIG exits
5) M&A
Sponsors is the group that is the coverage group for PE firms while LevFin is now a capital markets/leveraged loans group. LevFin remains good for PC exits most likely, but sponsors should exit materially better into PE. LevFin will remain better for PC though as they are now the ones in charge of the loans and have a lot of deal flow naturally given the CS business book and the general sponsors' heavy nature of the bank. M&A is a fine group but materially worse than Sponsors. If your only goal is to maximize exits into PE, the only thing for certain is to rank Sponsors first. As for who to rank second, I think there are strong arguments for one of M&A, LevFin, or FIG(if interested in FIG PE only) depending on how headhunters view things post-split.
I want to note I am stating everything as SHOULD as the split remains very recent and thus there is no data. However, given that is what is happening internally, I would assume headhunters would know that by the time you do FT recruiting at the very least and it would reflect in the exits. For what it's worth, LevFin is the bigger group and is overall more busy, the only real issue is that their work is now significantly more capital markets focused and not traditional PE coverage or LBO-based, which is why I believe sponsors are probably the better group to be in post-split.
Does this mean that sponsors is also the one that holds the pen on the models?
Sponsors do some modeling for sponsor-led things, particularly for pitching to sponsors to suggest certain targets/add-ons. In terms of live deals, sponsors is more of a quarterback for the deal and do some modeling with shared responsibility usually with whatever industry group is on that deal. LevFin still does modeling but their main focus is on the financing as well as making sure funding can be secured/taken off the balance sheet. LevFin still does modeling, but more on the financing/credit side while sponsors models are naturally focused more around what a PE firm would want to do and what good investments would be. LevFin prob does more modeling in the sense of purely doing more LBOs (LevFin essentially solely does LBO or financing-related work), but sponsors do more PE work across products so working on things ranging from helping a PE firm find add-on or M&A targets ranging to coordinating with ECM on the IPO of a portco to coordinating with LevFin regarding refinancing loans. I am also at a coverage group at the firm but that's what I have gathered from my interactions with both groups.
Also just candidly at other firms that have a similar sponsors/levfin split(BoFA/formerly CS/JPM) and looking at exits for other BBs that have both a sponsors/LevFin group, sponsors were/are universally viewed as being significantly better than LevFin at PE exits. So essentially all signs point to sponsors being a better group even if in terms of pure LBO modelling, LevFin does more.
[@bronzbomba] I wanna just quickly call you here since I remember seeing you mentioned earlier commenting on LevFin. I would love some more insight as to LevFin/Sponsors since it seems abundantly clear from everything that one of those 2 are the best groups.
I think LevFin is the clear choice for #1. Sponsors as #2. Reason being LevFin will give you constant modeling reps even if its just to do a re-model or refi transaction. Sponsors is great but most of the best MDs left so you could get stuck doing admin work there, though still a great place.
If trying to max exits I would go: 1. LF 2. Sponsors 3. GIG 4. FIG 5. M&A
You just want to avoid any of the other coverage groups and ECM obviously. Groups like TMT, RE, HC, Consumer, you’ll basically work on one dead end pitch after another for two years straight, with the only live projects being LevFin-led stuff where you dont run the model, just do comps / industry work
Upvote because it makes sense and I think it's a fairly valid take. Honestly, my thought process is not necessarily just about the work but a reputational view of the street. The trend across the street for banks sponsors/LevFin team leans heavily on sponsors + the HH reputation and broader reputation is that UBS+CS combined with CS sponsors being one of the top sponsor seats. Although most CS seniors left, reputation should still carry to some extent, and with that + general street view on LevFin/Sponsors, Sponsors seems like the better overall bet in terms of HH view/street view. Also even if your hypothesis is true, I think the difference between groups will be extremely marginal but if my hypothesis is true the difference will be quite significant. So I think the risk-adverse move just leans toward sponsors. Also just wanna note at least from what I have seen: sponsors still do modeling but I do agree there's more admin work just by definition of it being more coverage-y than product(however by this logic, product is always better than coverage, which I don't think is street consensus as in most banks it seems like there's a bunch of coverage groups that place better than LevFin into PE).
3rd GIG is interesting because anecdotally I have seen better FIG exits within FIG than GIG generalist exits, but I can see that argument since FIG is overall niche. I also agree with the M&A at 5th ranking, it's honestly not a very strong group and there are a few rare UMM exits but mostly MM(slightly worse than GIG generalist and way worse than FIG specific exits from FIG which have significantly higher UMM FIG seats and include some MF FIG seats rarely).
Happy to engage further and get your thought process, as I think A) it'd be helpful for the incoming interns to hear from someone seemingly involved in the split groups and just B) I think it's a pretty unique way of viewing buy-side exits as the way I have usually seen groups be described as best for exits is a mixture of historic/headhunter reputation + deal flow/having deals to talk about (which by definition in terms of at least getting credit for, LevFin and Sponsors will basically share).
Very quick edit: it turns out I was slightly wrong about LevFin and sponsors' exits among the other BBs I looked at (GS/JPM/MS/Barclays/BoFA/Citi) as technically speaking Goldman's LevFin team exits better than their sponsor's team, but they seem like a unique case where their sponsor's team is effectively non-existent at the junior level and only existent at the senior level. At all the other BBs where juniors to any extent exist, the consensus across WSO and from data derived from LinkedIn searches is that Sponsors exit significantly better into PE.
Bump
I pretty much agree with all the posts in response to my last one. A few clarifying points being:
Agreed on 1-3. also want to note number 1 about how extreme the difference is: UBS for the year is top 3 in APAC league tables and 6th or 7th in EMEA last I checked... it's currently 12th or something in NA. There's an extremely large difference between locations and a few senior hires won't/haven't changed that. 2 is fair and makes sense, as mentioned I can see the argument for both but just wanted to highlight that FIG geuninly has good FIG specific exits(a few kids head to UMM every year and rare MF placements also happen) if you have any interest in FIG. As for 4, I personally think FIG culture is solid at least in the bullpen, but I do agree that the other groups like particularly HR and CR are prob better culturally and significantly by WLB.
[@bronzbomba] I understand that UBS isn't very strong in NA, but not much I can do now with the offer in hand except perhaps look to lateral post-summer and getting into as good of a group as possible. Given where the firm is, I want to make sure that I get the best possible seats even if the differences between 1 and 2 might be marginal. So just to clarify since you said you mostly agree with the other An 1 posting the finalized rankings are :
1) Sponsors
2) LevFin
GAP
3/4) FIG/GIG depending on if any interest in FIG exits
5) M&A
I just want to make sure I am interpreting your views correctly since you seem really knowledgeable about the firm.
Correct. In your position this is how I would rank them
Bronzbomba speaking truth here. Listen to him everyone.
How is the C&R group?
Weak, very little deal flow. The only work they do is pitching and the only deals they complete with any regularity are refinancings, and debt offerings(same deal: if high credit rating then lead by the DCM team, and if more risky debt then lead by LevFin). However, I do want to note that IMO CR has one of the best cultures and the people there seem to love being there. A lot of people stay on as A2A's in the group because of the great culture/WLB. Phenomenal group
don’t most coverage stay because they have nowhere to go and auto promo?
Any insights on the private funds group? Haven't been able to find too much.
Just to contrast, the below are the best groups for culture and WLB. Some may disagree with me but I view strong deal and good culture / WLB as essentially opposites. It is very hard to have a good time if you are always stressed and getting crushed.
Sponsors / LevFin and you’re set
Just curious as to which one you think is better regarding the group for PE exits. The consensus at least from one guy at LevFin and seemingly one dude in FIG is that sponsors are better, but I would love to get more opinions and thoughts from the people at the bank. I just really wanna make sure I am in as good of a seat as possible since from what I've seen across the street and from people I talked to LevFin isn't usually viewed as a top PE exit group at the other bulge brackets.
Sponsors. Or, if you’re dead set on both, go to UBS LA (legacy CS LA). Very strong office that still combines the two.
Was looking at the Linkeldn of the incoming interns, and it seems like the strongest interns at least amongst those that list their group, based on their LinkedIn and school, seem to pretty clear be from M&A and LevFin so it's kind of shocking to keep seeing people put sponsors above LevFin in all these rankings. Is this maybe just an off-year for sponsors or is that a sign Sponsors is being overrated and M&A is being underrated?
M&a is not that great. Not a top group
I think it would be a mistake to try to correlate the strength / quality of a group with the background of the interns, especially this year.
Unlike places like MS / JPM, most interns at UBS aren't super invested in maximizing their group placement or aren't even aware of which groups are "good". Majority of the summer analysts fit into one of two categories: 1) kids from target schools who don't really care about finance and / or couldn't get a better offer 2) kids from non-targets / semi-targets who are just happy to be here and not as well-informed on exit opportunities.
Regarding less interest in FSG, the split from Leveraged Finance happened pretty recently and there isn't much information online regarding the new Sponsors group – in a lot of older posts on WSO, the combined group was just referred to as 'Levfin', which may have led to some confusion. Additionally, I think many of the stronger summer analysts opted for levfin out of risk-aversion – leveraged finance was probably marketed as a more technical "modeling" group vs. Sponsors being more origination / admin focused. In reality, both groups actively execute sponsor LBOs, and updating 30 debt comps, refreshing 50 cap tables, and a drating a ComCo memo for extending a $5mm RCF take-and-hold does not necessarily make for the best learning experience.
The most compelling proof that intern interest != group quality is the sheer number of folks choosing M&A as their first-choice. Unlike the M&A groups at other BB's, at UBS, it's a mediocre group at best. Feels strange to agree with Bronzbomba, but he's right in saying it kinda sucks.
Yep going to echo this, this is exactly on the dot. Lots of kids rank M&A first at the bank thinking it's good for exits and end up getting severely shocked when kids at "worse" groups get much better looks and exits(UBS M&A exits are mostly MM with the rare UMM with other groups having higher up to significantly higher UMM placements).
I do also want to agree that a lot of interns don't want to exit, but there's a decent contingency that does and thinks about that/researches that. I mean there has to be a reason every year some kids from UBS(albeit mostly LevFin/Sponsors or FIG-specific exits) end up getting UMM/PE from UBS... a task that requires more effort than at other banks. I also assume others got looks but couldn't convert it as I seriously doubt UBS has a very high conversion rate of UMM/MF interviews compared to other banks just simply given how the recruiting process functions for on-cycle. Those kids have to think about exits and prepped well enough to get that offer, but yes do agree that a majority don't think about exits just wanted to caution that the numbers who do are higher than maybe it initially seems. I think where you are getting this from is that a lot of the UBS juniors with good exits and who probably thought about exits early on are much less outwardly hardo/are chiller than at other banks comparatively during their summer analyst stint or their 2-year analyst stint which gives off the impression that nobody cares about exits.
Of course, ending up at UBS is probably not ideal for many that ended up there but A) if they are diverse, this might've been their only offer yet and they might not have wanted to push B) some people, for better or worse, even at targets end up picking firms purely on culture and C) sometimes even well-qualified candidates from targets just simply strike out at the better firms, especially in years where they hired less than previous years.
I also am not in either group so don't know how it was marketed but do know from the internship placement process that I believe FSG was later added as an option for the interns so that might explain why the FSG intern class looks "weaker". IDT the interns even the stronger ones had much time to interact with them or network, so the spots probably just went to the kids they know or really liked from original screenings. I do think the risk-averse nature of some interns played a part in it, but honestly, if you're an intern and couldn't understand LevFin and FSG were combined for UBS given past WSO content, I doubt you were truly a strong intern. I do, however, buy the LevFin making the technical argument especially because I assume sponsors weren't able to make an argument, and LevFin, presumably, wants to pitch their group as the spot to go for exits still and play up to their "historic reputation" within the firm.
It's unfortunate that the "stronger" interns seemingly didn't end up in FSG as that probably would have been the optimal decision for them. I wouldn't think that'd last more than just this year as threads like this where the clear consensus among UBS workers is that FSG is the best group, are now out. Also, I haven't even looked at the interns, but hard to judge how strong someone is from Linkeldn because people often don't post and it's also possible people end up at places due to connections (in which case "strength" of candidate really doesn't matter at all).
Expedita et totam optio dolor. Non magnam aut maxime. Voluptates debitis quis repellat atque. In facere ab unde officiis placeat et ratione. Et minima modi eius culpa et et enim.
Velit esse ad aut at quia. Exercitationem porro velit quam fugiat. Et repudiandae tempora omnis fuga deleniti. Aperiam quod est quia ratione neque sint. Ut voluptate omnis id odio.
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...
Aspernatur rerum rerum quis iusto quas cupiditate. Et voluptatem libero dolorem illo quia optio velit necessitatibus. Nisi animi facilis nam.
Quas distinctio unde occaecati. Ut et nihil quia repudiandae et dolores et.
Consequatur omnis eum qui et velit. Eum eius nostrum quibusdam sed. Suscipit magni ab maiores odit quia. Sit ipsa voluptatem ab.
Quasi eum iusto culpa aut. Sapiente veniam soluta rerum ducimus et. Aspernatur vel reprehenderit est laboriosam.