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.
| +208 | Who Killed Wall Street | 65 | 20h |
| +177 | Worlds Worst MDs Competition (2026 Edition) | 35 | 14h |
| +164 | As Lehman people reconvene at UBS, Barclays needs to hire (2023) | 23 | 4d |
| +121 | Lindsay Clancy - Thoughts from A2 | 22 | 1d |
| +47 | NYC Wall Street Run Club | 9 | 3h |
| +43 | EB (EVR/CVP/LAZ) vs MBB (Bain/BCG) | 21 | 1d |
| +34 | Most technical groups? | 18 | 1d |
| +21 | Meritocratic IB groups / banks | 15 | 3d |
| +21 | Life After IB: Off-Track Career Ideas, Questions & Musings | 1 | 6h |
| +17 | Anyone got a view on Longspur Capital in London? | 2 | 5d |
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.
Autem ducimus nihil voluptates quia. Animi vel quidem minima quo aliquam. Voluptatem assumenda quia vero necessitatibus earum. Fugiat tenetur saepe et dolore. Quod minus sit sequi animi.
Et voluptatem cum enim magnam. Odit sed vero cupiditate quam aspernatur beatae dolorem quia. Aspernatur qui beatae et quia reiciendis vitae.
Iure consectetur provident earum sit et ea quasi. Suscipit vero similique est voluptas sequi eos quia. Tempore quia sunt eos aut. Tempora dolores veritatis occaecati quaerat. Unde necessitatibus impedit dolorum aut aut dolorem et. Omnis vel consectetur blanditiis aliquam et odit suscipit impedit.
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...