I wanted to get the opinion of those with more restructuring experience on whether it's worth trying a creditor-side (non-UCC) project after spending the last 2.5+ years exclusively on the debtor side.
What I enjoy about debtor work:
- The feeling of being "in it together" with management and working toward saving the company.
- The opportunity to build financial modeling, forecasting, and analytical skills that would be useful if I ever pursued a CFO-type role.
- The mix of strategic, financial, and operational work. Every engagement phase feels a little different, which can keep things interesting.
Why I'm considering trying the creditor side:
- Management teams can be great, but they can also be difficult or outright incompetent, which can be frustrating when you're trying to get data or just do your job properly.
- Debtor-side projects tend to be long. Sometimes it's nice to move on to a different company, situation, and group of people.
- I've heard creditor-side work is more aligned with thinking like an investor and less focused on building hyper-detailed operating models.
The last point is the biggest one for me. I enjoy modeling and analysis, but I've found debtor-side teams often spend a lot of time building extremely detailed forecasts for items that may still be directionally correct with simpler assumptions. I'm generally a believer in the Pareto Principle and prefer focusing analytical effort on the handful of drivers that truly move the outcome.
For those who've worked both sides, is that characterization of creditor work accurate? Is the modeling and analysis more investment-oriented, or is that overstated? I've also heard WLB can be somewhat better on the creditor side, but I'm not sure how true that is in practice.
I don't see myself moving away from debtor work entirely because I genuinely enjoy it, but after doing it for a few years I'm curious whether the grass is actually greener on the other side.
Appreciate any thoughts!
