Wells Fargo vs. UBS
not trying to start a rankings thread but just asking - would you rather take an offer at the strongest groups at UBS or Wells Fargo? For exit opps as well as dealflow.
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 hands down (assuming NYC).
Wells Fargo hands down, growing franchise vs UBS which is downsizing in IB. I would take DB over both, which may be an unpopular opinion on this forum.
UBS brought in over 20 MDs earlier this year. Although it’s a shitty stat, they’re #4 on YTD league tables for US M&A. Maybe they’re growing now?
I’d pick Wells over UBS. While people can shit on Wells all they want, it is a growing bank and slowly gaining market share. Will be a very strong bank in a few years once asset cap is removed and they get a little more lenient with their lending services.
Dat Hudson Yards office doe
Very surprised with the answers here. I'd personally go with UBS. Has a much stronger reputation in IB compared to Wells Fargo, which is pretty much legacy Wachovia which was more of a MM focused investment bank. For exits/prestige, I would be hard pressed to go with WF.
For exits, UBS will often send analysts to MF and UMM PE funds, which is extremely rare for a Wells Fargo analyst to get. Majority of WF analyst end up at lower-MM/MM PE funds, or will typically lateral to a stronger bank for exits.
Plus, the vast majority of WF analysts are located in Charlotte, NC, which makes recruiting more difficult for NYC PE funds, and is seen as less prestigious compared to working in NYC.
I will say that overall WF likely has better group culture and work/life balance, and the pay is overall the same as other BB/MM firms, which can be extremely enticing as analysts end up making significantly more than counterparts in NYC adjusted for cost of living in Charlotte.
And yes, WF seems to be on the rise (aside from the scandal and asset cap) whereas UBS is trending downward into more of a focus in wealth management, but that doesn't do much for you in the now, especially if you are looking to exit after two years. However if you are looking to be a career banker, WF seems like the better choice.
Honestly I'd say UBS hands down but clearly I'm in the minority.
Just adding onto this now that this post is growing--I think UBS is still a stronger platform that is just underperforming, but some strong hires that bring substantial connections over to the UBS side could turn things around quickly. UBS had many very top tier bankers in the past, and adding new high profile guys could really respark the place. As things stand now, I'd still go there.
Outside of the Hudson Yards building, what makes you think Scharf is trying to grow the advisory business?
My 2 cents here, i work at WFS. so this is a fair question, the skepticism is warranted but the change in tone and behavior from the top has been night and day since Scharf took over. The former head of global IB was a commercial banker and paid no attention to advisory. tons of red tape to getting anything done, and we never had support from the higher-ups when it came to getting things across the finish line. I've been seeing group heads come out of meetings with grins on their faces like school children since Scharf took over. They created a new management structure where advisory reports directly to the CEO now - used to be a few layers between. That's all to say, Scharf seems serious about building out the practice. I agree with what's been said here before however - which is how much does that all really matter if you're going for the 2 and out? It's a good Q.
UBS. Substantially better exit opps
UBS definitely has the better brand name. While you can argue UBS is falling and Wells is growing, they're not really in the same league to begin with. Wells Fargo will always be a commercial bank first while UBS has always been focused on advisory in NA.
May get shit for this but in terms of general reputation, UBS had way more kids recruiting for it in my target school (Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth) than Wells Fargo. Let me know if your experience was different but this was just my two cents. (I don't work for either of these banks btw)
UBS has specifically decided to shift away from advisory in north america in favor of PWM. PWM offers more stable revenue, so smart decision on their part, but not helpful for students interested in M&A. Wells has been investing a ton into advisory. While they won't be competing with mid-upper BBs anytime soon, still think its smarter to go with WFS.
UBS if you get a top group, hands down. Have a friend in the FSLF group and who got interviews at quite a few MFs and accepted an offer at one. People out of that group have always placed well. Think TMT and maybe industrials get looks from decent funds as well.
You're not going to get similar exists from WF.
personally know someone from wells going to a top MF this summer, I don't think its as black and white anymore as wells fargo has gotten better with exits over time and UBS has faced some structural issues