Both seem to doing equally great / bad based on how you look at it. Want to make sure I’m not missing something here. Fortunate enough to receive lateral offers from both these places given the current job market. Want to make sure I don’t end up making a grave mistake.
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +120 | New Article: Dramatic Slide as UBS #22 (US) & New Leadership Desperately Needed | 25 | 21m |
| +96 | Americas M&A League Table Q2 Updated | 47 | 1h |
| +72 | Wealthy Parents / Jaded | 24 | 19h |
| +56 | How are hours rn for SA (interns) | 31 | 7h |
| +49 | Venezuela Debt Restructuring - LAZ vs CVP | 22 | 1d |
| +47 | A COMPLETE GUIDE TO SUMMER INTERNSHIP RECRUITING | 11 | 14h |
| +38 | Boutique firm wants access to my LinkedIn? | 34 | 12h |
| +31 | Investment Banking in Mexico | 9 | 16h |
| +26 | MM bottom bucket bonus | 9 | 4d |
| +25 | UBS GIG, LevFin, FSG Interns working Sundays and 85 hour weeks their first week? | 14 | 19h |
Career Resources
Wells Fargo by a mile due to momentum
Would echo this with the caveat that the phrasing in the initial message is clear hyperbole with "by a mile."
Consider WF if you are interested in a longer-term banking career. Yes, currently, they are not winning many lead financial advisor deals and are winning mostly on commercial lending, but as the years move on, they are increasingly becoming even more aggressive and winning more actual non-commercial lending deals (again, it's not many yet, but it's certainly a growing number). Furthermore, WF has a uniquely strong position in the Americas due to its strong commercial and broader banking capabilities in the region that is unmatched by any other bank in the region, not to mention its huge size, meaning it can afford to invest a uniquely high amount into IB.
I think WF is on a fairly unique rapid growth trajectory, and if you're interested in a longer-term career in banking, it makes a lot of sense to sacrifice traditional prestige to ride that trajectory up the ranks as, after all, a rising tide lifts all boats. Btw, this isn't particular to UBS; I would heavily consider WF over all the European banks, WF is just in a really exciting growth phrase and is uniquely focused and able to focus in the IB space in America compared that no European large bank is going to do/can do, that places it in a really exciting growth trajectory for the future.
My aim is to switch to Corporate Development / M&A role once I hit VP. Does this mean going to UBS is better?
would u do wells m&a over bb (gs/jpm) ecm/dcm?
UBS if you only care about exits. Wells if you are considering being a career banker
Just repasting this from a previous post, which is as comprehensive of an analysis as you will go of the two groups. Just as a summary: UBS, if you care about exits, consider WF if you are interested in a longer-term banking career. Want to also add that M&A isn't a top group at either bank, and at UBS in particular, it's notoriously sweaty and fairly toxic :
WF is a growing platform that has historically and reputationally been viewed as weaker particulalry being viewed as a bank that only wins deals based on commercial lending relationships. That is both the reputation in general Wall Street and how recrutiers most likely view you. For example, at the lateral hiring level within IB WF is going to be viewed as lower than UBS and more similar to a more traditional MM name. Also anecdotally from people at the ED - MD level or the senior level on the corproate side of things, going from UBS to WF would be considered a downmarket lateral move. This is not to say going to WF is a bad move at this level as there could be various benefits (easier pathway to MD, guaranteed promotion to MD in X years, whitespace availability in your coverage area, WF being a more aggressively growth franchise, etc.), but would say WF definitely lacks in the reputational perspective.
I also want to note that the two banks have very different strengths and focuses: UBS is fundamentally a bank driven by Sponsors and LevFin activity with very few coverage groups having deal flow on the corporate side, whilst WF is dominated by commercial lending relationship and thus wins a lot of deals with corporates albiet almost never as the lead financial advisor. This reflects in the strongest groups at each bank; UBS's strongest ones are going to be LevFin, Sponsors, and Industrials (a very sponsor's heavy industry usually), whilst WF's one is going to be industries like RE, FIG, and Energy, all of which are industries where WF has very strong commercial lending relationships with.
If optimizing purely for exits, UBS is the better choice. If considering a long-term career in IB, WF is worth evaluating due to its growing platform and expansion efforts. That said, UBS still holds the stronger reputation and brand name, which can offer better optionality for future career moves.
Would you say UBS is still a better name if I want to exit to Corporate Development role once I hit VP?
I am leaving to corp dev very soon; I don't think for corp dev exits at the more senior level, bank matters as much. Most of my better corp dev exit offers have been from clients or companies I cover as a Director. Also, you leave for corp dev either as a junior or leave as a head of corp dev as an ED/MD to one of your clients; leaving as a VP is prob the worst trade-off possible for a corp dev exit. I suppose it would matter so far as to the strength of your bank within a certain coverage area, but that is often not exactly 1:1 aligned with traditional definitions of prestige and I am sure there are coverage areas where WF is stronger than UBS.
UBS M&A closing better deals lately, seems like WF is betting more on the coverage teams so if you can get a top cov there then it would make sense.
UBS has literally had a single quarter in which they are in the top 10 in US M&A in the past year, which is this Q1 2025, and even then, it's not that great; they are 9th in US M&A... WF is 10th. I understand WF does less lead deals, but UBS is fundamentally sponsors and LevFin lead bank, whereas their LevFin franchise is much stronger than their M&A one and their sponsors coverage is much stronger than corporate. WF is also on way more corporate things on the buy and sell sides, just different bank strategies.
If the question was UBS LevFin vs WF LevFin, yes, what you're saying is correct about UBS improving, but I think it's hard to say it's M&A franchise is improving until it can be t10 for multiple quarters, especially when their LevFin franchise is easily there and has been for a while. Also, it seems like this person is lateraling and they have offers specifically for the M&A product group, so the only thing that's relevant for him is M&A deal flow and where it's coming from (largely from sponsor deals for UBS and largely from corporate deals for WF).
WF for the win
No
As a junior, please don't buy into "growth phases". The upside you have as an analyst/associate going into a bank with less of a name and good prospects is completely asymmetric, in a negative way
Remember, growth phases, changing market perception, gaining market share etc can take 5, 10, 15 years. And that is if management does a wonderful job, which is already a big if
Remember, your analyst stint is 2 years. As a junior your "investment horizon" is not aligned at all with that of the banks management. Thats why only EDs+ should consider doing a move like this
Even if everyone here is right and WF blows it completely out of the water (again, a massive IF) it can take 10 years and you'll pass you're whole junior stint (such an important formative part of your career) at a mid bank with close to no exposure to good deals. (Which is proof that even if you plan you stay in IB for long, this is a bad decision)
If its not too late, please take the UBS offer
What are you talking about?
UBS is the most mid bank
By mid bank do you mean a bad bank? Its certainly better than WF!
Repasting from above for visibility since you decided to make your comment an individual comment as well as the initial reply. Also want to note WF isn't "mid" and will provide you with ample transactional experience, it's t10 in the YTD and LTM league tables for the US:
I quite explicitly framed my comment as saying if interested in a longer-term banking career.
If you are at a growing firm, the benefits even at a junior level are as follows: A) relatively quicker promotions (at more stagnant firms, you will see some repeat VP and multiple ED years), B) more whitespace for coverage as you get promoted (this start's at the VP level when you start trying to build your book), C) increased support in actually building your book through a more aggressive bank (i.e. going to be much easier to win lending deals initially as a junior VP or ED to build the connections needed for the future).
Yes, your analyst stint is 2 years, but your career is much longer. You also fail to take into account institutional goodwill, which happens the longer you stay at a firm and will be much harder to build if you lateral on in.
I do not think the WF gaining market share think is an IF at all... it's already happening, and again as mentioned WF is uniquely positioned to grow compared to peers. You are thinking far too short-term and too much from the perspective of someone who is a junior to get a sense of the bigger picture.
I agree that UBS is better if the goal is to leave after 2 years in IB, but if you want to stay in the longer run, WF makes a ton of sense and will probably give you an easier pathway to MD.
Atque itaque ut fuga voluptate debitis. Velit distinctio eum hic sed repellendus dolorem est.
Minima voluptatem rerum neque. Dolorum distinctio quis porro.
Fugit nam soluta adipisci rerum quo. Tempora voluptatum commodi debitis autem ducimus possimus.
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...