Actual Reputation of UBS Sponsors
I am an incoming SA at UBS for 2025 and have heard a lot of things about this group recently ranging in claims from the best sponsors group(which seems like a lot) to the best group at UBS(seems believable given the UBS Sponsor-led model) to a terrible group with no deal flow(seems very different of an opinion compared to the others). I am wondering what the actual state of UBS sponsors is in terms of exits, deal flow, and analyst experience(WLB, bullpen culture, how the seniors are). TBH, I am just trying to maximize for exit opps and/or lateral opportunities and I am a bit confused mostly because it seems that the consensus was that LevFin/Sponsors was the best group before the split and integration, but now that they have split I am confused as to what the best group is for PE exits as I have no interest in PC exits.
f
This is false, UBS LevFin/Sponsors has historically exited better than any other groups at the firm for PE and actually has very good PC exits. The only real question is whether UBS Sponsors is the best group or if UBS LevFin is post the split of the groups, which is a very valid question and for which nobody can for sure give an answer for rn given that the groups just split this past year. There simply isn't a big enough sample size yet to give a verifiable answer, all we can really do is speculate on which would be better.
Best group at UBS. Sponsors originates 60-70% of all deals.
How would you say exits are? I understand that it just split from LevFin, but I am wondering about exits since I am not sure what the workload split is or what the exit split. Also, would the exits be mostly MM/UMM/MF or just purely MMs?
CS/UBS sponsors has historically placed into MM/UMM/MF. Headhunters know how strong the group is. As above comment said, unsure how sponsors/levfin split will impact placements moving forward.
Interested in this as well. Seems like they haven't fully transitioned into splitting those two groups as of yet. Anyone know how their Leveraged Capital Markets team does? Deal flow, exit ops, quality, etc. I would imagine there's a decent amount of overlap with LevFin/Sponsors, but not exactly sure how they're structuring everything after taking on CS
LCM is just a standard cap markets team - no levfin/sponsors work at junior level (though seniors will help determine pricing, max levg, and assist a bit on docs/grids). They essentially do market tracking and investor outreach when leading a new loan. A lot of other tasks included like volume/pipeline tracking, knowing where latest deals clearing, etc, but pretty far from the same experience as the other two groups you mentioned. Zero modeling exposure and minimal work on the memos aside from pricing and syndication commentary. Its somewhere between a sales type role and traditional IB coverage/product role. Exit opps are largely other cap markets roles. Really hard to jump to an investment role, but can be cushy at the top.
Ignore tag - i worked in coverage at UBS before and can confirm LF (which used to include sponsor coverage) did 90% of the deals and covered most our fees for the past few years. The juniors are the sharpest at the firm. Now that LF and sponsors are splitting up I have a feeling LF will be the better group. Anthony DeRosa and Yuriy are the real deal and know how to run a group. Sponsors also has great connectivity with top tier MFs, but I’m not sure the modeling exposure is great.
I used to work in the combined group (FSLF) and agree with most of the above commentary – the group was an excellent training ground for juniors and had top-notch exits into PE and PC / Direct Lending for those that wanted them. As separate groups, it's too soon to tell whether FSG or LF will be the 'better' group – from what I've heard from friends still there, FSG has an interesting model where analysts are assigned specific sponsors to cover and help execute any deals (LF, M&A, ECM stuff) relating to them. For sponsor LBOs, they hold pen on the model, and execute the same process that LF would (building out ComCo model and memo). There are several MD's that have close relationships with very active sponsors (Canning for CD&R, Aziz for KKR, Elolampi for GTCR, etc.), so I can see a fairly straight line towards FSG being the new 'best group' at the bank for analysts looking to exit into PE. Leveraged Finance will continue to be an excellent, if sweaty, group – they've gone back to the pod structure where analysts cover specific industries. DeRosa and Oren are both closers, and Levfin should absolutely be your first choice if you have an interest in credit, with placement into top shops like Ares (Direct Lending), BX (Private Credit), and Golub (Direct Lending).
Hope this helps and happy to chat over PM if there are specific questions.
DEL
1. At UBS, from my knowledge, yes FSG would likely be the best place to spend your analyst program if the goal is to exit into PE. That being said, I'm sure a great PE exit is also very likely for well-prepared analysts in Levfin.
2. Along with the names previously mentioned, UBS is also frequently on Veritas deals – their head of capital markets used to be the head of LDCM at UBS (which covered Levfin + DCM).
If you're deadset on MF / UMM PE, you should try to lateral to GS / MS / Evercore. You could certainly get MF PE interviews from good groups at UBS (FSG, Levfin, GIG, Tech, M&T), but it will be an uphill battle to convert to an offer.
You didn't ask but if it's helpful for others in the future – I wouldn't make the mental connection of "UBS does lots of business with KKR, so that means I will exit to KKR if I'm in FSG at UBS!" – truthfully, being on a buyside M&A advisory or being lead arranger on a debt financing (which is most of UBS's dealflow) is not that profitable for a bank (~2-3% economics) or that important for a sponsor. If UBS wasn't willing to underwrite a debt facility, than Jefferies, BofA, Citi, and 1000 other balance-sheet banks and direct lenders would be more than happy to.
For the deals that are truly important for a sponsor (ex. taking a portco public in an IPO or selling to a strategic in a major sellside M&A), they will hire GS / MS / JPM / Evercore – and those engagements are also far more profitable for the bank that wins the deal.
Hope this is helpful.
Anyone have an idea how possible an exit into distressed would be from LF?
For LevFin, the exits are much stronger for PC with most exits being UMM/MF. However, if you are looking at distressed, I am sure you'll also get similar looks if you are able to get it for PC.
Last two posts are spot on, LF/FSG at UBS has better quality people from top to bottom than any other group at the bank. Great place to learn, though sweaty as mentioned.
DEL
1. It is very competitive – at middling to lower bulge brackets, group placement is usually very intense because the quality of groups varies drastically. This is very much the case at UBS, with groups ranging in quality from good (FSG / Levfin) to terrible (RELL). Don't worry about the #'s – I would recommend trying to speak to everyone in the group that you are most interested in, and hedging your bets by also speaking to folks in your second and third choice. Start early, stay organized, and be well-prepared for each call. Going to a target with alumni in the group you are interested in will also be a big advantage.
2. The most motivated and well-prepared incoming interns usually target the best groups, and then also tend to do better than their peers in PE recruiting. Because certain groups like FSLF and GIG have been around for a long time and cultivated a positive reputation on the Street, they are also usually looked upon favorably by headhunters and PE funds – wouldn't be crazy to say that they get looks that those in the less robust groups don't. In terms of actual experience, the MDs in certain groups are just better at their jobs, which results in more fulsome deal experience and more reps for analysts – very helpful for talking through deals in a PE interview.
.
out of interest what would you say are the strongest UBS teams are in LDN
Echo most of what has been said here - surprisingly accurate for a WSO post tbh. You can't go wrong with either LF or FS. Anyone who actually knows banks/groups reputation over the years knows that both UBS and CS separately had powerhouse Sponsor/LevFin groups. Both banks ran the table in sponsor-backed LBOs (sort league tables by single B rated issuance, if you just do "leveraged finance" general runs it includes ALL sub-IG names - which means JPM, GS, BofA crush the league tables because all of their BB issuances, which are FAR closer on the spectrum to investment grade/DCM than it is to hairier and more interesting sponsor-backed deals). If you want to learn how the street works, highly recommend either group. Would argue in sheer value of learning and exposure, Sponsors/LevFin are some of the best groups you can land of the BBs outside from GS/MS TMT and GS/MS/JPM M&A. You will have 10-20+ closed deals in Year 1, and 1-4 lead lefts. You will be hard pressed to find another shop that can offer that amount of sheer experience (though I am not arguing you should take UBS FS/LF over those by any stretch of imagination).
As for differences in the groups, its mainly in the structure. LevFin gravitates towards a sector "pod" system where you eventually begin to slot into sector/industry coverage - i.e. you will cover a handful of HC verticals and do all deals that come in for that vertical (capacity willing). Sponsors you are aligned to specific sponsor accounts, and you will do all deals that come through that sponsor (capacity willing). In LevFin, 95% of your time will be doing LevFin (and 5% random asks), whereas in Sponsors 2/3 of your time will be doing LevFin, with 1/3 doing random sponsor-related work (think sponsor coverage tracking, portfolio mapping, buy-side and sell-side M&A for that sponsor, doing some hairier liability mgmt work for sponsor portco, etc). Sponsors will be MOST of the same exact work as LevFin, just with a little more of the "random" stuff sprinkled in.
I would generally say Sponsors are a lower floor, but higher ceiling than LevFin (as a generalization). Sponsor experience will be very much driven by what accounts you get assigned to / naturally pick up. You can get a few sleepy accounts and end up with less reps and experience than your peers, but on the flip side you can get assigned to one of the busy accounts (KKR, CD&R, Veritas, GTCR, Thoma, etc.) and be drinking out of the firehose. LevFin de-risks that a bit because of the sector system - would argue the boiler plate experience there doesn't differ a TON across the group, whereas sponsors will. Pros and cons to both. LevFin at the mid-senior levels you begin to develop into a sector specialist and a pseudo sector coverage banker and start to really learn the ins and outs of the industries, and your value add is in deep knowledge of prior deals in the space and how to comp prior ones to new opps. Sponsors your value add becomes knowing just enough on each sector/product to be dangerous, and knowing what each different sponsor client needs and being able to deliver that to them. Yes, Sponsors becomes more and more about the soft skills / politicking - but to anyone that discredits that as being less valuable a skill as credit analysis and industry knowledge - clearly does not know how deals are won and how bank capital is allocated. Sponsors eventually becomes more of an art, while LevFin becomes more of a science.
All in all - you cannot go wrong with either, both are easily the top 2 groups at UBS and one of the best landing places on the street. At the junior level, your experience will largely be the same. If anyone is split between the two, would advise to lean into whichever route sparks more interest and fits your skills better. The best group for you is the one that you will do your best in - don't let some anonymous egg WSO commenters influence your life decisions (including me).
I am wondering if GIG is better than Sponsors. Have heard from around the bank that Sponsors is much less technical and post-split increasingly more and more technical work is done by the coverage and product groups. IK GIG was the strongest coverage group even pre-merger, and it seems it remains so post-merger, so wondering if perhaps it makes more sense to go there to get a better deal experience even if fewer deals on resume per se. Also again as mentioned goal is PE exits not PC.
The whole “technical experience” is the exact same at the junior level between sponsors and levfin until you hit director level. I am not sure where this idea came from that somehow only levfin does “technical” work. Unless you are in the weeds on grids and doc negotiations, experience is the same exact thing technically. Teams are fully cross staffed and juniors just divide the workload based on capacity and what makes sense. Whoever is trying to tell you that only LevFin does model or only LevFin does memos is just lying to everyone.
To your question on GIG vs Sponsors, in my opinion it’s a totally different experience. If you want the more technical group, sponsors is still more technical than GIG. Sponsors still builds the models then hands them off to GIG for them to haircut assumptions and draft a write up. At the end of the day it’s like comparing an apple and a cucumber…there is way more different between the two than there is similarities. One big difference - GIG you will get far fewer deals than sponsors. Sponsors is still 15-20+ closed deals a year and you see entire deal process end to end. Hard to beat that.
Culpa voluptatem sed incidunt facilis. Qui sed ut modi cum. Perspiciatis aspernatur ut iure et voluptatem. Quis rerum ut consequatur necessitatibus ducimus est libero. Error qui consectetur rerum repudiandae magnam dolores ut. Ad et dolorum quae ipsa quam enim nesciunt. Et officiis voluptas ut perspiciatis assumenda ipsum.
Et quae necessitatibus asperiores consequatur et. Ipsam distinctio atque rerum expedita. Doloribus recusandae necessitatibus enim asperiores. Tempora occaecati voluptatem laudantium voluptatem consectetur.
A harum cum excepturi dolores vero dolore. At explicabo odit sed quia explicabo doloremque rerum. Quaerat perspiciatis quae et unde ea doloribus commodi. Quos rerum praesentium occaecati qui rerum id.
Quia facere rem voluptas aut non aut. Voluptatem magni totam laboriosam esse aut tempore sed reiciendis. Voluptas soluta minus commodi magnam non dolor ipsam.
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...
Officia commodi molestiae molestiae qui non reiciendis. Facere quidem nulla assumenda repellendus. Ea sapiente et dolores sint animi. Voluptatum id quia earum similique dicta sequi vel provident. Impedit quia distinctio nihil tempora.
Sequi voluptas vitae vel sed. Sunt enim laboriosam repellat et. Molestias et porro velit voluptas illum. Aut dolorem nam cum possimus. Rerum repudiandae nisi mollitia ex harum. Ea quae commodi omnis harum ea et nulla. Maxime magni quia asperiores modi error aut voluptas tempore.
Et facere et soluta aut expedita. Sit vitae autem quisquam dolores officiis accusamus. Sed eveniet non perferendis consequatur aperiam.
Sint pariatur inventore qui autem unde voluptatem ipsa dignissimos. Doloribus molestiae nihil cum aut amet debitis sit quo. Et quis molestiae repudiandae sed fugit aspernatur.