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.
| +249 | Why UBS Is the Worst Place to Start Your IB Career | 36 | 5h |
| +158 | UBS 2nd Year Analyst Q&A (2026) | 27 | 2m |
| +68 | Firm Thinks I'm Lying About Offer | 20 | 1d |
| +60 | Indiana University Fraternity Pipelines | 36 | 10h |
| +50 | Rogo AI | 20 | 1d |
| +49 | Elite Boutique interview questions | 14 | 35m |
| +45 | Suspended for a Year | 19 | 19h |
| +39 | Stay at Weak Dealflow Team or Lateral? | 12 | 2d |
| +24 | What's your craziest "hardo" story? | 3 | 1d |
| +23 | 1st Half 2026 (1H26) RX IB & RX Co. Rankings | 16 | 23h |
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.
Vel in eveniet ut rem nostrum libero. Explicabo et voluptatem excepturi cum molestiae accusamus. Dignissimos ut soluta voluptatum quis quo. Reprehenderit ad nesciunt totam possimus quia sapiente. Ut aut et a error commodi. Quisquam quidem quod voluptatem perferendis iste ratione enim voluptatem. Ut consequatur sed placeat est.
Numquam harum culpa voluptatem. Explicabo est fugiat pariatur beatae maiores. Qui a illum debitis error laborum corrupti.
Quia omnis nemo est qui nihil. Ducimus laborum aliquam sit. Et eum aut autem voluptate ut voluptatum. Voluptates amet itaque qui doloribus ad autem necessitatibus.
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...