Question:
What considerations would a client have when deciding between a) raising debt through a bilateral loan product through the Corporate Bank's balance sheet or b) raising the debt through debt capital markets? Assume the client needs to select one of the above two options for a capital raise.
| +293 | I Snuck Into UBS Office And Took A Shit On The Floor | 28 | 1h |
| +287 | TPH V.S. Mizuho [HOU] | 36 | 1d |
| +243 | Why leave restructuring for M&A? | 30 | 1h |
| +228 | Best Power/Renewables/Energy Teams? | 38 | 38s |
| +216 | Houston 2026 Oil & Gas Investment Banking Rankings | 48 | 1h |
| +183 | Centerview HC group falling off? | 30 | 41m |
| +183 | Actual EB List | 27 | 10h |
| +172 | Incoming TPH Analysts Larping as PWP on LinkedIn | 21 | 2h |
| +154 | Shame on you Evercore - SA 28 | 41 | 2d |
| +39 | Predicted 1Q 2027 Story - UBS IB blames Outlook Outage for Down Quarter | 5 | 1h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Loans have more flexibility for re-negotiating terms/covenants. It's much easier for a borrower to re-negotiate with one loan counterparty than every single bond holder if shit hits the fan with respect to the company's performance.
It also depends how much needs to be raised. If it's a gigantic amount of debt that needs to be raised then it may be syndicated for distribution of risk among creditors, because no single bank will want that much exposure if things go haywire.
I thought covenant structures were generally lighter in DCM with bondholders due to higher risk appetites than the bank?
Loans have more flexibility in that even though they have stricter covenants, banks are more willing to work-out solutions with the borrower. If 100% of a loan is on the bank's balance sheet, then it makes sense for them to get back to the negotiating table and try and resolve a better performance going forward.
There's a point where the default or break in covenant that it's too big of a pain in the ass legally and operationally to go after the assets of the borrower and the cost isn't worth it. It makes more sense for the bank to renegotiate terms sometimes. Generally speaking, there's too many bondholders that it is not really feasible to get every creditor back to the renegotiating table.
Ipsum a magni maiores magnam expedita. Quidem quam est ut qui. Velit reprehenderit asperiores nostrum consequatur. Quis in ratione qui tempore. Saepe rerum et quo commodi quae rerum voluptates facere. Atque placeat est tenetur nulla commodi.
Beatae in veniam et minus molestias ipsam. Nesciunt quos sapiente alias eos ea itaque omnis. Assumenda necessitatibus tempora id quis placeat.
Aut unde dolorem occaecati animi praesentium vel non. Ut libero ut totam ratione. Repudiandae debitis pariatur aliquid qui nobis deleniti doloribus ut.
Iste fuga eos nisi nam maxime doloribus doloremque. Vel quisquam voluptates rerum ducimus quia aut voluptatibus. Est illum ab odit sunt odit. Soluta excepturi delectus dolorem eum commodi et.
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...