There seems to be a growing interest in infrastructure on WSO and I've seen a number of posts inquiring about the recruitment / interview process for infrastructure specific funds. I've had a number of people help me out in this area so I thought I'd summarize what I've learned with the hope that someone finds it useful. For those who are thinking about recruiting for a buyside seat in the infrastructure space, you've probably realized that there aren't a lot of infra specific prep resources out there. I'm going to try and cover the broad strokes and hit on things that I think are particularly important, but happy to address more specific questions to the extent that I can. Most of what I will focus on is specific to 'why infra' and the case study as I believe these aspects are really what separate an infrastructure process from a more traditional PE interview.
The intention of this thread is not to provide an overview of infrastructure, but I would encourage anyone who hasn't already to take a look these threads:
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/overview-of-infrastructure-private-equity
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/renewable-energy-pe-overview
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/qa-infrastructure-pe-ibd
Know What You're Looking For
The great thing about infrastructure is that its definition has become so broad. Power & renewables, utilities, airports, toll roads, hospitals, data centres. All infrastructure. As a junior you can get a breadth of industry experience without siloing yourself. However, this can be a bit overwhelming especially if you've never worked your analyst years in infra. My advice for anyone looking to jump into the recruitment process is to have conviction in your story and what strategy you're targeting. There are a ton of large cap players who have generalist programs, but there are also a lot of MM/UMM shops who are refining their strategy into more specific segments of the infrastructure space. As you can imagine, if a shop is running lean it can be fairly challenging to be effective in all areas of the infrastructure spectrum and so these places are choosing to get really smart on 2-3 subsectors. The reason I bring this up is because a lot of the household name megafund infrastructure programs still put a big emphasis on pedigree. There are quite a few MM shops that I've seen hire individuals from less traditional backgrounds and if you can demonstrate your interest in a particular industry / strategy, you can probably position yourself favorably in a process where you're not competing against the BB/EB analyst who went to H/S/W. Of course landing a role at Blackstone Infrastructure would be phenomenal, but there is only a small subset of us here who would get their foot in the door. That being said, the learning opportunities at some of the smaller funds is just as good and these should not be overlooked.
Show Interest
If you're interviewing for an investment role, your interviewer is going to want to see that you can put your investor cap on and speaking intelligently about infrastructure. For those who spent their analyst years in infrastructure, expect to get grilled on the specifics of your deals. This is no different than the expectations that would be set in a more traditional buyout shop interview. If you've spent time in the infra already, you also know the lingo. This is where I think people who haven't worked in the space are behind the 8-ball. If you are really interested in infrastructure but haven't worked in the space before, the bar is naturally going to be set lower heading into a conversation. If you spend the time getting to understand the industry and demonstrate genuine interest in a subset of the space you will stand out. I can't tell you how many people I've seen stumble through a response to 'Why are you interested in infrastructure?' or 'Can you tell me what trends you're following in the infrastructure space?'. You'd think this would be a no brainer, but apparently not. If you haven't worked in infra and can't demonstrate that you've spent any time reading up on the industries that interest you, what reason do I have to push you forward over someone else who can probably hit the ground running? If I see an analyst from a non-related industry group who can talk passionately about infrastructure I'll generally walk away feeling good about that interaction. It's no secret that ambition and curiosity go a long way.
Modelling Test / Case Study
This is where I think the interview process really starts to diverge from your traditional buyout process and where I see most candidates struggle. There are a few different mutations of these case studies, but they generally aim to test the same skills. Before I jump into the specifics, I want to highlight that some infrastructure funds will administer a case study that is akin to what you'd receive at a buyout shop (i.e. your LBO modelling test). The purpose for doing this is that they can assess one's excel capabilities / financing knowledge and not handicap anyone for not having worked in infrastructure before. For those of you who spent your analyst years grinding through project finance and tax equity models, it is worth mentioning that you may want to practice a few of the more traditional LBO-style case studies. While the modelling isn't hard, it is a bit different than what you're used to doing, and under a time crunch you want to be sure that you aren't putting yourself at a disadvantage.
Case Study Type 1: Traditional LBO
As mentioned above, some of the bigger funds have been known to administer the LBO style modelling test. Typically you are provided with 3-4 hours to complete this test where you would be asked to build a 3 statement LBO model accompanied by a powerpoint deck. There are a ton of guides out there on how to complete these and numerous threads with individuals trading old cases.
If you've never built an infrastructure model a lot of what I'm about to say isn't going to make any sense. Totally normal, but you have some work to do. Ed Bodmer has a video for basically everything project finance / infrastructure modelling related. You can find his resources here: https://edbodmer.com/project-finance-exercises/
Case Study Type 2A: Short Form Construction Stage Infrastructure Model
This is a fairly common infrastructure modelling test where you will also be provided 3-4 hours to complete a model and presentation. Within this type of case, there are three mutations of a case study that I've seen. The first mutation, what I'll call "Type 2A" is a construction stage, fully/partially contracted infrastructure asset. In this type of case study you will be given some or all of the following assumptions and be asked to model out returns. This is an example of an actual prompt I received for an infrastructure test (I can't remember the exact numbers so I'm using dummy figures to get my point across)
- Assume you are a developer who is constructing a solar asset with a 1 year construction timeline and an asset that will have a 30 year useful life
- The cost to construct this solar asset is $500mm spread evenly over a 12 month period
- The project has a nameplate capacity of 200MW and the asset will expect to produce power at a gross capacity factor of 30%. Assume degradation of 0.25% per year.
- The asset has arranged a 15-year power purchase agreement at $100/MWh without any escalation. Assume the post-contracted pricing for the power produced after the expiry of the PPA is $85 in real 2022 dollars escalated at inflation.
- Opex for the project is contracted under a full wrap EPC at $25mm per year escalated at inflation.
- Assume a tax rate of 25%
- Assume the asset is depreciated on a straight line basis over the useful life
- Assume that you procure a construction facility at 70% gearing, which will be refinanced by a long-term debt facility sculpted to contracted cash flows at 1.30x DSCR (interest rates for the facilities will typically be provided)
Based on this information, you would be asked to build out the construction spend profile, the construction debt draw downs, an operating model consisting of the generation profile, tax & depreciation, sculpt the long term debt that is used to refinance the construction loan, and calculate returns / sensitivities. The amount of time you are allotted will vary based on the complexity of the prompt. This type of test can also be based on a concession based asset with an availability payment (e.g. a toll road concession P3 with a government).
Case Study Type 2B: Short Form Operating Stage Infrastructure Model
This version of the case study is a bit easier. Generally the assumptions are very similar to what you'd get provided above, except you are modelling out the acquisition of an operating asset. In prompts like this that I've seen, you'll typically be given the assumptions required to build out the operating model, and then will get asked to sculpt a back leverage financing to get to some form of a post-tax levered return. Based on the assumptions provided you'll get asked to back into what you would pay to acquire the equity in the project given a return requirement of xyz%.
Case Study 2C: Long Form Infrastructure Model
This version of the case study will typically span over a weekend where you'll have 48 hours to build a model and prepare a more fulsome set of presentation materials. Basically a mock IC presentation. In instances where these prompts have been issued, it's typically the build of a financial model to value a publicly traded name. In order to occupy two days of someone's time, you generally need quite a bit of information and so going with a public name is easier. In this instance you generally won't have to build an infrastructure-like model described in 2A/2B above, and can focus on a more traditional DCF / public comps analysis. Generally the infrastructure names that you'd be given are operating platforms so you are valuing a broader company as opposed to a specific asset. I've actually seen a fund prompt candidates with a 1 week timeline to complete a case with materials comprising of 20+ slides. This is rather excessive and definitely not the norm.
Career Longevity
Not specific to the interview process, but I thought I'd provide some additional color on why I think this space is great to be in from a career longevity perspective. Infrastructure is seeing significant growth right now, and there are various pockets that can expect to benefit from decade long tailwinds, particularly in light of medium-long term carbon reduction targets. From a macro lens, the broader sector that underpins your job is incredibly stable, which is great to hear for us risk-averse PE lemmings. From a micro/job specific lens, because the technical skillset you develop in infrastructure is a bit more niche, it becomes less common for these platforms to develop a two-and-out program. It's a lot more efficient to train up an associate and promote them. You'll also find that a lot of infrastructure funds don't often hire MBA grads for this reason and typically promote from within. I've seen a lot of mid-to-senior level lifers who never pursued the MBA because they were just promoted directly. This is a trend that I think is becoming more common in buyout funds as well, so maybe not an infrastructure thing.
I'll pause here for now, but hopefully some of you who are interested in pursuing an investing career in infrastructure find this useful. Happy to answer any questions or expand on areas which I may have glossed over.
Thank you so much for this write up, very helpful.
This is incredibly helpful thanks for writing. Wondering if there is some overlap between industrial and infrastructure funds and can industrial bankers recruit for infra funds?
Happy it helped. Yes there are certainly some overlaps especially given the broadening of what we define as infrastructure. Funds who invest in core plus opportunities will also get looks at infrastructure-linked businesses which might see overlap in industrials.
Do you think it's possible for someone who works in secondary/co-investing space in infrastructure to go to a more direct role if they have some modeling experience or banking is basically required?
Fantastic writeup, I always try to read everything infra related on WSO.
One question I had, and this is going to be somewhat difficult to answer since infra overall is so broad, but what are some ways to better follow trends about what's going on in the space? Obviously each subsector (healthcare, telecoms, power/utilities, transportation, etc.) is going to be drastically different, but what are some news sources or anything of that nature that you follow to learn more about the way things are going? It's a niche enough space still that articles in WSJ and whatnot are pretty rare.
Thanks, I really appreciate that. I've been spoiled if I'm being honest - I had access to Infrastructure Investor and InframationNews since my analyst days which is where you get a lot of information on deals being closed and funds being raised. I also had access to a lot of proprietary thought leadership through my previous role, and in my current role banks are always pitching ideas and sending industry reports to us. I empathize with the fact that there isn't a lot out there that is free... if I had to try and find trends or something along those lines without my fund's resources at my disposal, I think the first place I would look to are investor presentations from one of the larger funds that are publicly traded (i.e. Brookfield, Macquarie, etc.). Typically these larger funds are first movers and trend setters so they'd be a good starting point outside of scrubbing the generic news outlets as you've mentioned.
Thanks for the write up.
Any thoughts on the challenges and best approach to moving into an Infrastructure Equity Fund from a large international Sponsor/government procurer? Particularly at Director/Senior level?
Not particular to infrastructure, but I think the general rule of thumb is that as you become more senior it becomes increasingly challenging to move roles especially if you are looking transition into something different. It's somewhat difficult for me to opine on your situation because there are a number of different roles within government functions that facilitate the procurement process on infrastructure assets. Without any context I would say that you have to play to your strengths. I've seen a number of individuals at a more senior level move from transaction finance-type roles at advisory firms or government entities to LMM infrastructure funds, albeit taking a haircut on title. Depending on the role I think there is some overlap in skillset when it comes to managing workstreams, marking up legal documents, reviewing P3 financial models, etc. To make a direct lateral move at a director level, I think you'd have to demonstrate your ability to source and lead transactions, which is not realistic coming from, what is my interpretation of, your background.
Great thread and a great space to be in.
You are a king and a beast bro, started process a few days ago and needed EXACTLY this :)
Hi, really appreciate you making this, I have a bit of a unique situation in that I'm not coming from an industrials or infrastructure coverage group, however, from a LatAm group at a BB, I work frequently with infra since this is the main line of business in the region so I understand PPPs and all the related infra jargon and regulations, I also speak the relevant languages for the region, I'm a non-target though, so what do you think would be the best form of entry for someone like me? Thanks again for making this post.
I think you're in a good spot - being in a generalist group isn't a bad thing, especially if you're interested in pursuing infrastructure and have gotten infrastructure experience. You've got a BB brand name on your CV and it sounds like you speak Spanish, which definitely works in your favor. I wouldn't worry about being a "non-target". Sure it might be harder to get an interview at some top MF's, but it isn't impossible and there are a ton of funds who would give you a look based on what you've described.
Hey, thanks for making this! I'm starting a process soon and in one of my initial interviews, was told to prepare paper/pen/calculator. Do you have any idea what kind of math questions might be asked in an infra fund interview as opposed to corporate PE?
Only thing I can think of is a paper LBO, but usually you're asked to do mental math here. Not sure, sorry!
Really appreciate the write-up! It was very insightful. I’m curious if it’s common/ difficult for energy/ Houston IB analysts from top BBs/EBs to pursue an exit into the broader Infra funds that you mentioned. I am interested in the feasibility of transitioning into Infrastructure on the buy-side.
Can't speak to the feasibility or the difficulty of making that move because I haven't gone through it, but I have seen this done on multiple occasions. Anecdotally it's been analysts from top banks in Houston joining large cap infrastructure platforms. There are two factors that come to mind when I think about why this is: 1) there is likely a smaller pool of energy bankers interested in infrastructure and so naturally the pool of energy bankers represented in infrastructure is going to be lower and 2) large cap platforms that recruit on cycle are generally more open to bankers from different industries so long as they check a number of the boxes (top school, grades, brand name bank, etc.). Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone in my circle who has made that move to a MM fund, but nothing is impossible.
Thank you for the response and information! Looking forward to starting off my career in HOU IB and exploring from there.
Have seen this move multiple times (from MM-ish banks so assuming BB/EB move would be simpler). Echoing OP's comments, having that energy (not renewable) skillset is not that common at top infra shops but still there (look at Brookfield/GIP associate classes). Also, funds are still looking at midstream opps given potential dislocation due to ESG-related outflows from the sector and the need to ensure energy resilience in the U.S.
Do infra funds hire MBB if you can model LBOs+demonstrated interest?
This definitely isn't common and I personally only know one person who has moved over from MBB to a mid-market infra shop. I think infrastructure investing generally places less focus on operational strategy, which is where an MBB consultant can probably provide more value. I also just did a quick Linkedin search for anyone living in NYC who currently works at the usual large cap suspects, who has identified that they work on the infra platform, and who was previously employed at McK, BCG and Bain and didn't see anyone who went Consultant/BA > ASO1. Would defer to anyone else who has made different observations. All that to say though I don't think it's an impossible move to make - infrastructure isn't rocket science and with adequate preparation and networking I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be qualified to do the job.
FWIW, I've met several people who are coming from renewable energy consultancies, who dealt directly with buy-side infrastructure shops make the jump. Maybe a case to be made if you worked on that specific niche within MBB/leveraged a client relationship to make that jump
Thanks for the write up. Have you seen people make the jump to infra funds from Public Finance? My team focuses on P3 projects in the transportation space mostly.
Love seeing infrastructure get some love on this forum. Especially a high-quality and accurate write-up. I work in renewables infra and it's a super cool space.
Good write up. Not to hijack but am joining an MF's infra fund this summer and happy to answer any questions as well. Currently AN2 at a BB in NY in a non-infra coverage group.
Hey, do you mind if I PM you a few questions?
let's keep it public (and my account private), happy to help in this thread!
How do you transfer from a non-infra coverage group to an infra fund? I would think they'd only hire from P&U/Transpo groups. How did you sell them?
many of the MFs hire from all coverage groups since their mandate is so broad, especially with the explosion of digital infra. for example, if you look at team pages you'll see a lot of people with TMT / tech investing (warburg, silver lake, etc.) backgrounds. i imagine those with narrower mandates (e.g. pension funds) are more focused on traditional infra backgrounds.
in terms of selling them, i think if you show an interest in the macro space, as well as an understanding of what infra is (and isn't) you should be good to go. at the end of the day, a platform is a platform, whether in infra, consumer, healthcare, or any other space.
Thanks for keeping this public. The big question a lot of us will have is what is the general comp structure for infra at the MFs (assuming you interviewed at more than one and can provide some comparisons)?
same as PE at the associate level for MFs (~350k AS1). i don't know how carry compares as im not senior enough, but there are two offsetting factors:
a) returns are structurally lower, which lowers the carry pool
b) AUM per IP tends to be higher (my fund has close to $1bn), which increases your carry allocation
so could go either way.
What have you seen in terms of people transitioning from project finance to infrastructure PE? Are there a lot of people with that background?
Hi,
I most likely have an interview for a 2022 FT role with for an Infrastructure group coming up. I am currently an undergraduate student with very little/no experience in infrastructure. I was told to be prepared for technicals and a possible case study.
The case prep seems like it is targetted towards experienced hires. Any changes to your advice for an undergrad?
Thanks
I just went thru an infra PE process (got offer) and can help you out with a mock interview + some general advice.
PM me if you're interested, no pressure.
Hello Lamron,
Will be you able to extend this offer to me. I am in the infra recruiting process
I would say that it would probably be pretty difficult. Typically most post-MBA associate / senior associate roles are given to candidates who have previous infrastructure, PE or relevant M&A experience. Typically on any given mandate, the extent to which we would interact with a group like yours is to lock in a rate hedge on a financing or hedge fx on something cross-border. Someone reviewing your profile at an infrastructure fund is likely going to come to the conclusion that there isn't much overlap between your role and what you would do at an infra fund. Never say never though!
I have a first round with a secondary infra group and this helps out a lot. Even if I don't get the role this definitely helped me get a better idea of what infra is like so thank you, cheers.
Thanks for the insightful discussion! Do you have any recommendation on good source to learn on infrastructure modelling?
There are quite a few resources out there offered by the training platforms, but they're kind of expensive. F1F9 and Corality are popular ones and I think offer individual seats for in-person group lessons where they'd tour major cities and run 3-4 day programs. This was pre-pandemic though so I'm not sure if they still run these.
Separately, the Ed-Bodmer resource which I've linked in my original post is about as good as it gets when it comes to free modelling resources. Ed covers basically every topic under the sun and is a great place to start.
Ed Bodmer is good with some neat Excel tricks (ALT + EIS being one) but a bit disorganized. When I really wanted to get good at modelling, I remember I just went through a ton of his videos and took notes - treated it like a course (in my first year of banking).
No better practice than actually being in the model with a MD coaxing you on the phone though
Good thread. Biased because I wrote out most of the answers here but would add this as a link in regards to some hopefully helpful discourse on framing valuation with an infra asset: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/private-equity/exit-multiple-term…
Thanks for the very insightful post! What do you think are the most critical skillsets to develop/have for someone who wants to break into infrastructure?
Also, do you mind to share how's the day to day like for infrastructure investment professional? E.g. what do you don daily basis besides working on financial model?
I would love to know about the WLB across the different types of infra funds.
infra IB tends to be quite sweaty due to the heavy modelling and legal and technical processes involved. Likewise I’ve seen top fund such as KKR/stonepeak to top pension funds just as OTPP and omers working insane hours constantly which is probably not something I find personally sustainable.
however I’ve seen people at lesser known pension funds, smaller PE shops , infrastructure arms of insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds have great hours with less pay. Also potentially in the infrastructure private debt space (although know less about this area)
would love to hear your thoughts
Good question - I would say that some of the reasons you've listed that cause infra IB to be sweaty are also applicable to the buyside. The WLB at any given fund is going to almost always correlated directly to strategy / appetite to deploy capital and there are pros and cons to this. If you work at a fund that is trying to aggressively deploy capital are you going to get a great experience? Yes, mostly likely. Will you get paid a lot? Probably otherwise how will these places attract talent. Are you going to work a lot? You bet. Is it sustainable? Depends, but I would agree with you and say probably not...
Some of the lesser known pension funds likely don't have the capacity to do direct investing and do mostly co-invest/fund investing which is less demanding in comparison to diligencing an actual business. Smaller PE shops tend to look at things with a bit more hair on them and don't necessarily do as many deals which could result in better hours. SWF - depends on the fund, I've heard some groups are sweatier than others. All else equal credit in general tends to have better hours based on my understanding.
Everyone is going to have different career and life objectives - the fact of the matter is if you want a good experience in the infra space you're probably going to have to grind for a few years. My personal view on this is if you want a long term career in infra, I think you should put in 4-6 years and get a solid experience and brand. If you really like what you're doing you can stick it out and make great coin, but if you decide you want more WLB you can take a step back and find another role in the space with a strategy that isn't as demanding on resources.
Thanks for the write-up. Can you speak about exits from MF/UMM infra funds? If the associates find out later they want to do generalist PE or HF instead, how difficult would the transition be?
It really depends on the platform you work in. As an extreme example, if you're working in a sector specific platform that only invests in renewables you may have a hard time moving to a corporate PE / HF role because the way you would evaluate those types of investments is different. If you worked in a generalist role where the definition of infrastructure and private equity are blurred, you likely won't encounter any issues trying to make the switch (I've seen it happen many times).
Any chance you could shed some light on OMERS / OTPP Infra teams / anything you know about them? Would greatly appreciate it.
Happy to provide some high level thoughts based on what I've heard. Anyone with better information please feel free to correct me, and don't quote me on any of this as it could be outdated.
OTPP's infrastructure team is primarily based out of Toronto and London, UK. I would say they are probably the most active out of all of the Canadian pension funds on the direct side, and if I was juggling offers between the Canadians, I'd take it over OMERS or CPPIB. I say this because OTPP are generalists on the infra side whereas CPPIB bifurcated its renewables/energy transition investments and their core infra group, so your sector experience may be handicapped; the latter group also has major toll road concentration which could dictate sector focus in the near-medium term if you joined them. I still think OTPP buckets infra and NR into the same team, but I don't have any purview into the nuances of their team structure to be able to comment on what kind of exposure you'd get. If you plan on being in Toronto they are also moving from North York to downtown if you ascribe any value to that. Based on my understanding, I think OTPP is also more advanced in its approach to managing its portfolio with the advancements they've made in building their value creation team.
OMERS also does a lot of direct investing in the infra space, but their platform isn't as robust as OTPP. They have also had quite a bit of turnover in recent time which probably isn't a good thing. They have a strong presence in NYC as well. I don't believe they have the equivalent of a value creation team and IP's are responsible for asset management to my knowledge. Apparently OMERS also used to offer carried interest on the funds they managed but I've heard through the grapevine that this structure may be changing.
If you have any specific questions I can try to be more direct, but hopefully this gives you something to chew on for now.
Thanks so much - just sent you a DM!
On the topic of the Canadians, do you happen to know anything about PSP's infra practice?
Anyone interested in sharing costs on WSP project finance course? Heard it’s pretty good
Would you be willing to share you answer to the sample model test you outlined above?
bump!
Hey, do you have an opinion on infrastructure debt investing at a place like Allianz GI?
Awesome post! Infrastructure PE has always been a dream of mine but for now I’ve been working in DCM commercial real estate. Do you think I could transition to infra PE after completing my MBA? I’ve heard that real estate modeling is similar to infrastructure modeling. My firm specializes in industrial, large retail, and multi family properties. Would appreciate any advice! Thank u.
Thanks - yes there are similarities to real estate modelling. You don't really see a lot of post-MBA hiring at the low to mid market funds because these places don't have the capacity to train you. Some of the larger mega funds and institutional infrastructure investors have grad programs which would be worth applying to.
are you referring to post-MBA type roles (i.e., Aso)?
Which valuation method can be used to best value infrastruction assets and how does that method differ from PE
Hi, does anyone have a viewpoint on asset management roles in these infrastructure funds?
This is a solid post for anyone that has an interest in infrastructure and needs a quick 101 on the industry.
One thing I would add in the "Know What You're Looking For" section is knowing the differences between the different infrastructure strategies, namely Core / Core+ / Value-add / Opportunistic, and how investing in those strategies look and change between the mega-funds, UMMs and true MMs.
On top of that, do you want to solely focus on a specific region? Working at a North American-only firm will provide a vastly different experience than a firm that targets investments globally.
Why I like infrastructure:
- VP at MM infra PE firm
How would you view someone with infrastructure co-investments experience when they recruit for your fund? I know it will be difficult but wondering if it is possible to go from co-investments to a more a direct role.
Assuming this would be an associate position? I think the background and industry knowledge would be a big positive. It would also depend on the co-investment style of your current firm. Are you guys pretty hands-on during diligence? More passive? What type of independent analysis do you run? Do you consult with outside consultants? Do you just regurgitate the PE firm's IC memos?
If you can prove that you've had solid investment and diligence experience and are hungry to join a direct investing firm (and know how much work that entails), I think you'd be a pretty good candidate.
How open are US PE firms to international hires with relevant experience?
any chance u can name some funds thats focus on power/utilities/pipelines and anything of that nature
Blackrock's global energy & power infrastructure strategy
Energy Capital Partners
EIG
Encap
Brookfield Infrastructure
I believe KKR does some them too but not sure if its their energy team or infra (likely the former)
GIP (not sure how their recent foray into digital will chance their focus since historically they focused primarily on power, utilities, midstream and transport)
Stonepeak (did a lot of midstream in earlier funds but now doing more telecom, value-add deals)
I'm sure I'm missing some of the MMs in the space (Alinda maybe but dont think they do midstream anymore)
Great write up! Would you be able to please provide some names of renewable-focussed funds, or point in the direction of where to find this information (such as Inframation)?
Incredibly helpful post! I would only add that many large cap funds (Stonepeak, GIP) are now starting to get divided into industry verticals with limited cross-pollination between teams. What would you recommend to someone in Infra PE focusing on one vertical (e.g., power) and trying to lateral into a generalist role or another vertical (e.g. digital, transpo, energy transition) at the SA/VP level?
Commodi ut officiis magni et consequatur corrupti quia alias. Eligendi doloribus dolores quia aperiam corrupti dolores. Vel sit provident doloremque nulla hic. Impedit quia earum aperiam libero eius.
Distinctio suscipit est aut blanditiis et quibusdam exercitationem. Perferendis quia autem facere delectus. Nostrum quidem quaerat sed reprehenderit natus.
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...
Quas minus saepe ipsam cupiditate modi. Sint similique quae debitis dicta ut vero.
Quam voluptatibus aut adipisci molestiae quasi. Id sed magni sed iusto ut saepe omnis. Magni suscipit possimus temporibus quia. Velit harum similique non consequuntur quos voluptas est. Placeat excepturi dolorem officia quisquam voluptatum provident et ad.
Eum distinctio sed et ut. Fugiat corporis quia minima esse qui consectetur.
Magnam neque quis dolorem. Facere quo voluptatum quisquam aut maiores. Consequuntur perferendis aut et veniam. Itaque sed nesciunt consectetur expedita.
Nihil aliquid a magni sit sunt. Ea recusandae ea aut architecto. Amet cupiditate voluptatibus nesciunt ea reiciendis corrupti et. Voluptas praesentium dolor quae blanditiis commodi minus et.
Ea est fugiat laudantium reiciendis. Tempora laboriosam rem dolorem rerum debitis id eos. Aspernatur earum nam incidunt enim odit qui voluptatem. Molestias soluta rem temporibus odio quas fuga. Voluptatem est beatae sint sapiente unde quae nihil rerum. Ut dolorum cumque voluptatem.
Autem dolorem doloribus occaecati debitis. Vel rem omnis natus suscipit voluptatibus corporis. Omnis quae quidem qui dicta qui sunt omnis. Tempore porro eaque voluptate aut voluptas. Hic cumque sint nulla. Voluptas doloremque aut aut est molestias.
Tempore dignissimos rerum ex modi officia non voluptas quo. Ipsum et voluptatem id nemo et. Reiciendis vel et quia accusantium facilis a. Est dolores impedit quod.
Sunt quo nihil molestiae pariatur nostrum consequatur nihil illo. Voluptas amet veritatis quasi eum sed quaerat. Non ut numquam autem qui dolores culpa fuga.