F500 Corp Dev (Manager), Or PE Portco Corp Dev (Mid-Level)
Hey guys,
I left IB after 2 years and received the 2 offers below for corp dev:
Option 1: Manager-level position at a F500 international pubco (industrials). This company has been relatively acquisitive historically
Option 2: Senior Associate position at a PE-Backed portco (renewable energy). This company has experienced high growth over the last few years
The base comp for Option 1 is slightly higher (bonuses are the same), but Option 2 offers equity as part of the comp package.
Anyone have thoughts on which option is more appealing? Understand these roles are likely very different, with Option 2 having more potential upside (and risk) but more responsibility with a company that wants to be acquisitive. However, the Manager title and the stability of a large pubco (Option 1) is appealing
How did you find these roles and are they in HCOL cities? How big is the difference in comp between the two?
I found the roles on LinkedIn and both are in the same HCOL city. The comp difference is only $5K (base comp)
What kind of renewable energy? If it's something with a nice tailwind and the shop backing it is well reputed the equity could be a nice cherry on top if the only other difference is a slightly higher base at the F500. Would probably take option 2.
It's RNG from waste (used for fuel). Solid shop is backing it. Are you recommending option 2 primarily because of the equity upside? It seems like the Manager title is a strong plus at option 1 compared to Sr. Associate
The equity upside will, assuming the most average level of performance, probably be worth more than the difference in base. Title is meaningless to optimize for this early. You're coming from just 2 years of IB, no one is going to take you seriously regardless of whether the title says Sr. Associate or Manager you're a kid in their mid-20s. Would recommend focusing on the company with better growth potential (for sure the PE-backed company that's mid-size > F500 industrial) and comp over your stint (if the difference in base is <$50k to start can almost promise you the equity has better upside). Would also just think that renewables in general will be more interesting work and probably a hotter space to have experience in 3-5 years out vs some big sleepy industrial company. Your hours might be a bit worse but by IB standards it'll likely be a cake walk at both.
Edit: OP shared stats in his double posted thread
It's not even close, the MM company blows the big sleepy industrial out of the water. 5% more bonus alone is >$7k more based on base + the equity upside and higher growth it's not even close. Plus you're engaged w/ one of the C-level in addition to a VP. Take Option 2.
Is option 2 going to be asset level acquisitions?
Yes, option 2 will be asset / project level acquisitions
So it's really a question of whether you want to do traditional corporate acquisitions or asset/project acquisitions. I'm in infrastructure PE so I do both corporate and asset acquisitions. They are very different. Especially if we're talking about purchasing development assets (pre-construction).
Title doesn't matter at the junior level IMO. And comp doesn't matter as much either, especially when it's so close. Given the difference in opportunities here, you should focus on where you want to build you career.
Can you share what comp is for the two options as a data point? A lot of people have been asking for comp ranges for these type of post-IB roles.
For these types of roles, base is typically 150-160 with a bonus target of 15-20%
As someone who's planning on leaving IB after 2 years to do corp dev, would love to get some comp data points.
Op #2 objectively better.
What is your reasoning for this? Understand the equity upside (which is attractive), however if they exit in 1-2 years it's possible they cut the portco corp dev team. Should also point out the acquisitions are asset level, not full company
You settle with a job like Option #1 after your career is ruined. The learnings opps for #1 is minimal. It's a very mechanical, monotonous role.
From a purely comp perspective, it depends on how bullish you are on company #2 and how much clarity you have into the company's ability to achieve a liquidity event. How well capitalized are they? Do you think they can achieve a liquidity even in the next 5 years from which you'd actually be able to monetize your equity?
All things equal in a corp dev role, frankly what would be most important to me would be ensuring the company is well capitalized to execute on and finance deals. How do they finance their deals?
Also is #2 acquisition of renewable assets or greenfield development? If greenfield development you probably won't be doing much M&A, although would still be very interesting as you learn a lot in development. Just something to consider if you're more interested in M&A or development.
Option #2 seems like the clear choice to me given the upside if you are believer in the strategy / thesis. Have seen it on our own mgmt team portcos, but if you are good and get to stay around, the liquidity events from multiple potential exits as this trades upstream will be very lucrative. Getting equity that is worth anything meaningful in option #1 will take much longer and worth significantly less in my opinion
Libero ullam tempora minima voluptate dolore ab veritatis ea. Dolorem quam atque aperiam animi adipisci. Voluptatem unde quis reprehenderit velit et maxime laudantium. Voluptatibus et temporibus et magni eius earum. Omnis delectus porro est non perferendis dolores consectetur.
Eum praesentium earum vel explicabo. Nesciunt amet expedita sunt ducimus. Id et ex quos perferendis. Maiores eum omnis aliquid eligendi quas culpa.
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...