UBS Best Groups
What are the best groups at UBS? How do these groups compare to the rest of the street?
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
Career Resources
Most groups extremely bad, maybe Lev Fin, Sponsors, GIG are the only BB level groups.
Rest are pretenders aimlessly pitching with little to no deals who tend to go through 2-3 year cycles of MD churn because they can only attract bad MDs willing to derail their careers for more pay.
Didnt ubs do Walgreens deal? Maybe can’t be that bad for healthcare
Sycamore Partners threw sponsors team a bone, UBS begged hardest or was pitied for it. 5 banks on buy side…
Only because Centerview and MS already on sell side (where most of the real work is done)
From press release:
”UBS Investment Bank is acting as lead financial advisor, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan are acting as co-lead financial advisors, Citi and Wells Fargo are acting as financial advisors, Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP is acting as legal counsel and Bass Berry & Sims PLC is acting as healthcare regulatory counsel to Sycamore Partners.”
Also probably more retail than HC deal, but they likely collaborated
Am a sponsors banker at another European BB (DB/Barc):
Buyside advisory credits typically reflect long-standing sponsor and Leveraged Finance relationships rather than M&A work per se. They often represent a recognition of continuous sponsor coverage, handling advisory tasks that lean sponsor deal teams prefer to outsource, valuable learning things, and definitely a way to put deals on the resume for juniors, but distinct from running a full sell-side process. Would like to note that usually, the lead advisor earns the highest fee and likely undertakes significant financing and advisory tasks within the pool of buyside, with those cited purely as financial advisors playing very likely pure financing roles.
It's inaccurate to suggest that buyside leads do nothing, but their involvement is notably less intensive than sell-side advisors who drive the sale process and positioning. Receiving a buy-side advisory credit alone doesn't always indicate extensive involvement as it's often financing led, though usually a credit of lead financial advisor does suggest some level of advisory work (but less so than if on the sell-side).
FIG in particular at the junior and senior level is toxic af...and it becomes self-selecting, I've heard the juniors who play to the toxicity feel quite comfortable there since they do min work but just stay in the good graces of the staffers, while others who don't care to play the politics are pushed out
del
I work in this group and this is really far from reality. Junior level culture is great - everyone gets along and there’s no toxicity. Main issue is that deals just don’t close and are fairly limited on M&A front so a lot of people end up working on boring financings.
UBS didnt do any financial advisory on M&A on this deal, just financing
This gifted cred will be almost the entire Americas M&A, even with limited M&A and limited M&A fee based on how much debt each bank is providing (fee split 5 way)
GIG and LevFin are clearly the strongest groups at UBS, essentially functioning at true BB-level quality that is competitive with the street. Sponsors also see solid flow, but most modeling responsibilities typically fall to LevFin or the relevant industry coverage group involved in M&A, so it may not be optimal depending on your career goals. I'd consider these two groups—and perhaps Sponsors, depending on your objectives—as the only genuinely "strong" teams at the bank.
The next tier down would be CR and HC. Both are decent but would certainly be perceived as weaker if placed within historically recognized BB firms (excluding DB). CR is somewhat unusual, as it doesn't handle a high volume of deals, but when active, it's worked on interesting and sizable transactions (see sole advisor on Celsius - Alani Nu or advisor on Supreme - Luxottica). Seems like a good place to be a top-tier junior as you get to work on sizeable and interesting deals, however, due to a lack of volume, I would expect a much weaker experience if a mid-tier or bottom-tier junior with those juniors doing solely financing work. HC presents the opposite dynamic; there's deal flow, but the transactions are less notable and are mostly MM.
Just as a note regarding the Walgreens deal: UBS’s success here largely reflects its/legacy CS's strong relationship with the sponsor as evident when you look through Sycamore's primarily lenders. It's more accurately seen as driven by LevFin and/or Sponsors rather than by a coverage effort though I think it's wrong to suggest a bank that was the lead did no advisory work even on the buyside as typically when that happens those banks just get cited as a "financial advisor" not a lead one.
I’m sure the bank will give a massive discount to Sycamore even sometimes a risk weighted loss for the bank to get their name on this cred with a known company.
Ass backwards way to think about it is UBS paying to be on the credit.
angry much? your comments are laughable
Can't lose money on M&A fees/tips, they are risk-free . As for the lending, debt is syndicated, and UBS credit risk is absurdly stringent and will never do a risk-weighted loss ever. Also, the other 4 banks are also holding till the syndicating of the exact same debt b/c again that's just how bank loans work with, it's not really possible to "discount" a sponsor in a deal with this many lenders and of this size. The LevFin team is good, and the terms will be syndicated. The fact that there are 4 other banks on it suggests it wasn't a case of UBS being super aggressive as other banks also joined the lending offer. There's no such thing as giving a discount on deals this size, especially at a conservative bank like UBS. Just not how IBD works. I am not in HC, so I cannot give insight into this deal, but I did work at the bank (title reflects previous position, have left IB) and know for a fact that UBS might be the single most conservative credit risk bank out there.
Anyways, this is not the question nor my main point; UBS very likely won this deal on a very strong Sponsor and LevFin relationship with Sycamore. This isn't a bad thing for the franchise as a whole, as it demonstrates a strong LevFin and Sponsors team, and let's be clear, all buy-side advisors win their credit off of lending and long-term relationships, just the nature of the beast. Either way, doesn't change the answer of how the groups at UBS stack up. I think GIG, Sponsors, and LevFin are the only competitive to the street groups relatively, with CR and HC being strong-ish relative to UBS but would be considered a weak/maybe the weakest depending on firm coverage group at, say, a mid-level BB. The rest of the groups are not good enough to even be considered the weakest coverage group at a mid-tier BB.
Yeah idk how you can claim that a Lead Advisor role on an LBO this size is purely due to sponsor relationship. For most of the bank's other M&A roles, fully agree its 95% likely due to sponsor relationship. However to claim UBS did not actually earn the role on WBA is just wrong. Nobody gives you a lead SS role without it actually being earned. Understand you recently left UBS and can be salty on some things, but this is just blatant misinformation and patently false.
Would echo prior comment about most groups being bad.
Would say LevFin is the only legit group at the bank, but they will work you into the ground.
After that maybe Sponsors, but the actual quality of experience is slightly below how it’s perceived.
Then GIG (but very sweaty).
Then maybe FIG (but very sweaty and cultural problems and not great deal flow).
Then maybe M&A (but very sweaty and cultural problems and not great deal flow).
Then every other group is a complete joke.
Welcome to UBS, where you get grinded into a pulp on useless pitch work that goes nowhere due to incompetent seniors. Banking is our craft.
Is it truly that bad? So it’s like DB but worse culture?
Smart summer analysts recruit for other banks during their internship and shop for a better offer… if I could go back in time I would 100% do that and regret choosing UBS
Depends on group; you will get a really solid transactional experience from all of LevFin, Sponsors, and GIG. GIG has drastically improved in 2024 from 2023 due to CS seniors that have stuck around and brought in fees in a lot of the sub-verticals UBS was weak in. LevFin has always been a strength and the loan book from CS and some more manpower meant the bank improved pretty vastily in the leauge table. Sponsors also had some seniors come from CS (majority left, but a decent number came over), which had one of the strongest sponsors teams on the street. Consumer top-bucket juniors also probably have a pretty good exposure (see above comment on deals they have done recently).
I think the person who posted this isn't up to do with UBS in 2024/2025, FIG is a trash group that has lost bunch of it's seniors; not a serious group. M&A is a useless group that is needlessly sweaty, adds no value, and does all of the work nobody else wants to do. Would avoid M&A more than any other group outside of maybe Tech.
As stated in previous comment only competitive groups with street and with flow/good transcational experience is going to be LevFin and GIG (with Sponsors as well if you care solely about getting deals in rather than necessarily going super deep into them), outside of those 2/3 CR and HC are fine. Rest are trash.
would echo much of what's been said prior...LevFin is honestly very strong and you can tell when you work across from them on transactions. IMO FIG group is a cultural disaster both at the junior and senior level from what I gather through the grapevine.
From what I understand, UBS FIG has the worst culture out of any group at UBS with the exception of maybe TMT
TMT should just fire all seniors and juniors and start from scratch tbh
What makes FIG culture so bad in your opinion?
Btw have heard the same but the shit I heard was some weird stuff at the middle to junior level
UBS FIG is paradise
Hate to break it to you all but Lev Fin and Sponsors arent that great.
Its just the other groups are so incredibly bad that it makes Lev Fin and Sponsors look good.
It's all relative. Is UBS LevFin a top 2 or 3 franchise? No. Is it a top 10 one, yes. Same for sponsors and GIG. They are competitive to street with them being various ranking across the top 10 (would say LevFin is the most competiive of the 3 relative to the street), UBS has no truly elite groups compared to the street. I just left so have a ton of time to spare and maybe am a bit negative on the firm, but certainly do not think I am being unfair in saying this. The other groups are just not really competiive with street, so do agree with your second point to some extent.
Would you mind sharing broadly what group you were part of?
This is incorrect. UBS was #1 for 2024 for LBO financings, and #3 for all sponsor-backed financings. Sponsors/Levfin punch WAY above the rest of UBS on league tables. Any way you cut it, its a top 5 franchise (only exception is if you include BB-BBB issuances which bumps BAML/JPM way higher - but we all know those deals are closer to IG than actual hairier sponsor-backed deals in single-B land)
Why does everyone ride sponsors’ dick so much inside and outside of UBS? Have any of the people that work there actually worked hand in hand with them?? They are, BY FAR, the most USELESS, LAZY, and likely among the STUPIDEST teams at the bank except about 6 people (on a team of about 60). I can’t list a single time in my time here that I have had a pleasurable experience with them pre or post-CS merger - it’s always a headache where our team just does their work ourselves and their seniors bitch to our MD about getting credit on the deal. Anyone that attributes any praise to them is lumping them into the legacy UBS LF/FS combined team (which was heavily carried by the amount of LF work) or legacy CS sponsors, of which many of the best bankers left to other banks in the collapse, with the ones staying getting great payouts… you can count on one hand the number of good senior sponsor bankers left at UBS
At a junior level, the team is incompetent and just punts everything to coverage teams because they are “too busy” - kind of funny that you see them leave and log off every day by ~7-8pm, no? On top of that, everything they give back to you is wrong - I’ve lost track of how many times they give back work full of blatant mistakes that you’d genuinely expect an intern or newly starting analyst to make…
If you want the best experience at UBS, go to LF, then GIG and FIG are next best (they actually do work but are sweaty), then a major drop off to M&A with everyone else to follow. But for the love of god, unless you’re looking to be on the entire bank’s shit list, don’t join sponsors cause you’ll end up working with a bunch of morons who don’t even understand the concept of calendarizing financials…
Source - work at UBS
Leaving at 7 or 8?!? While getting credit for all wins and being able to blame coverage for all losses?!?
Working in UBS Sponsors is Paradise
At the end of the day, sponsors will still provide you with the needed transactional experience. They are a group that gets deal flow befitting a BB bank, unlike other groups at the bank. I noted in my earlier comment that it doesn't do much modelling, but due to sheer deal reps/transactional experience to put on a resume, it is still the 3rd best group in the bank. It goes LevFin - GIG - gap - Sponsors for the top 3. FIG was good as recently as 1H 2024; just hasn't closed much since then and has lost a ton of seniors, which isn't a good sign, seems like a declining group that is not a focus and thus would not want to go there over something like sponsors where at least flow is a given. If you are looking for a coverage experience and not product-one, GIG is clearly the choice over Sponsors.
The GIG group has genuinely improved significantly post-merger with various large announced M&A wins as well throughout 2024 and no real signs of slowing down; it might improve if increased sponsor improvement given the broader UBS focus on sponsor-led deals. It's performance last year was driven primarily by corporate activity, which is a rarity for UBS, and suggests that the group has room for improvement if the UBS core of sponsor-activity heats up this year.
Straight facts
There are definitely some people in sponsors that are minimal value add, but it also depends on the team and the deal (just like LF). I wouldn’t lump in the entire group into being useless. I have had just as many horrible deals with certain people in LF as in FSG. It’s just luck of the draw. Reality is sponsors is the same exact thing as levfin at the junior levels until it comes to actual doc negotiation at the D level, only difference is instead of doing all deals in a given sector you end up doing all deals for a handful of sponsors. Don’t forget half of both the sponsors group and levfin group is legacy combined group, it’s not like either group dramatically changed just because it got split in two.
What group are you in that you can comment on all of them out of curiosity?
How is ubs' biopharma/pharma us franchise?
loled hard at this question as someone in this group
pretty much like asking
"how is UBS tech NY franchise?"
Mollitia minus tempore molestiae voluptates qui et quia. Reiciendis voluptas ab debitis facilis. Odio fugiat omnis consequatur eos.
Ratione commodi minus aperiam molestiae veniam quisquam. Enim officiis occaecati eius quisquam et rerum. Voluptatem quo aut veniam quisquam laborum et vero. Nostrum quos suscipit ad saepe itaque aut quia iste. Et molestiae perferendis odio voluptatem. Asperiores excepturi corporis voluptates in iure perspiciatis.
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...
Expedita voluptates dolores consequatur ut doloremque omnis. Sunt ut qui laudantium est officia. Inventore enim repudiandae molestiae tempore consequatur.