Trending Content
| +95 | Sr Asso / VP Unemployment Check-in | 58 | 4h | |
| +35 | What did you do after signing? | 12 | 19h | |
| +25 | Resume Gap after 2.5 Years in PE | 5 | 2d | |
| +23 | PE Recruiting From IB- Play It Safe Or Reach For Best Fund Possible? | 11 | 8h | |
| +21 | Public company LBO | 7 | 3d | |
| +20 | Vista Lateral Associate | 12 | 4d | |
| +19 | PE / IB in NYC from Cambridge compared to US colleges | 11 | 2s | |
| +18 | VP HF Lateral to PE | 1 | 3d | |
| +16 | How Technical Are You / Most People Really? | 3 | 3d | |
| +16 | Management Meeting Dynamic | 3 | 1d |
Career Resources
I heard one that I really liked the other day that building off your second point
- At a large UMM firm you are deciding what industries you like and finding ways to deploy capital into those industries
- in the LMM you are thinking about how to build a business an gain market share in an industry
Would love to also hear people’s thoughts on why UMM/MF besides brand/prestige
Also interested
1. The opportunity to be the top 1-5 guy at a MF (this will hands down be one of the most lucrative jobs in all of finance, especially if you can become #1)
2. Easier to raise capital for your own fund if you're high enough up the ladder (e.g. Clearlake, all the Apollo spinouts, Recognize)
3. Certain exit opps are only available for MF talent (e.g. large activists, certain SM HFs, and even some top growth shops too nowadays)
#1 is such a unrealistic "goal" for kids...The people in these seats have generally been around 20+ years in the industry and many times at the firm they are the "#1" and were likely high up in their early 30s which just isn't possible at those firms today...There will be a lot less people in the next 20 years worth 9-10 figures in this industry than the past 20 years. Solely due to maturity of the industry.
I heard one I thought was interesting, a MF gives you the opportunity to work with well run businesses at scale. As an early professional, it’s a better learning opportunity than trying to turn around / grow a down market business when you don’t have as much experience. Not sure I fully agree with it, and it definitely has some caveats but differed from prestige / exit opps etc.
MM often also has better career trajectory / promotion path as MFs can be fairly jammed up (lots of layers of VPs, directors/principals, etc.) since firm has been around longer versus MMs can be newer with more growth potential (AUM-wise) which makes more room for internal promotions and filling out layers
Not a hard and fast rule but generally true
This is great summary. On the not hard and fast rule (true), my UMM has a lot of layers… so much so that I imagine it’s not all that different from MF on progression chances at the end of the day. Good proxies to feel this out are probably how long the firm has been around (more time to develop rigid structures) and obviously fund size within the MM/UMM band (more reason to have more structure).
Agree, can also look at the ramp in funds size / AUM as more rapid expansion obviously provides more funding (and need) for additional resources versus flat/slow growing firm will be more log-jammed
Would be careful on this point though as certain fast growing firms I've seen layers dropped in as they grow faster making the very flat structure spread out.
Like a shop that was associate -> principal -> partner moving to a model that has a senior associate, vice president, and managing director ranks or similar.
Hic velit dolores quaerat non id autem. Consequatur est sunt earum cupiditate. Qui est quod officiis.
Est tempore nihil in inventore quia amet fugit autem. Adipisci quis odio distinctio impedit laboriosam optio 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...