TVM Calculator

Yes and no. I'm speaking from personal experience, friend / co-worker experiences, and stories I've heard instead of hard data, but I don't think what I'm about to say is inaccurate.

How much does group and bank matter? I think the answer is somewhat less than what a lot of people on this site think and somewhat more than not at all. If you're at PJT RSSG, then you have a noticeable advantage in recruiting. Why? Because traditionally the group has had very strong candidates who self-selected into a group that they know has placed candidates at strong PE funds and HFs. So it becomes a self-selecting process. The best candidates will often go for the best groups for exit opportunities (if they are interested in that). That's partially why Centerview doesn't necessarily exit the best. Fantastic firm with a top-notch M&A practice, but many candidates who choose to go there often are interested in potential A2A promotions in the first place, and so not too many will choose to recruit. Additionally, at PJT in particular analysts are given on-cycle off (as in they don't work that week) to help them recruit. So it becomes a cycle of good candidates choosing to go to PJT and getting some company help in recruiting. HHs are cognizant of this and will always reach out to PJT RSSG analysts because of what I described above.

However, this does not mean that HHs don't have every incentive to talk to as many candidates as realistically possible. For one, most of the big HHs represent not just a few MFs and UMMs, but also a ton of MM firms that are very solid but not as well-known. Second, is that they understand not everyone at GS is interested in PE recruiting. In fact, I know several people at BBs and EBs who are more interested in A2A, VC, Corp Dev, or HFs (in particular, many intellectually strong people who are more risk-friendly are targeting exclusively HFs). There are also many candidates who will explore PE at first, but decide to recruit off-cycle or next year or just lose interest the further in the process they go. There are also duds -- HHs understand that even MS M&A could produce a candidate who is not a very strong one (whether It be because of poor social skills, or bad interviewing skills, or seems weak technically). HHs also understand that there are plenty of smart, motivated candidates coming from non-top tier groups who are interested in PE or HFs or whatever. Its not like CS or Barclays or Citi hires a bunch of dumbasses who couldn't get an offer at Evercore or JPM. They understand that many candidates now sign early with their firms, or maybe just liked the culture more, or were not particularly interested in an EB etc. There are plenty of smart people at CS and DB and BAML etc. who may be just as qualified, if not more, than someone at GS TMT.

In the end, it will be safer for a HH to contact and give interviews from people at the top 5-10 groups on WS. All else being equal, someone from Barclays will not place as well as someone from MS. But, this isn't reality, and almost everyone at a BB or EB will be given a chance to demonstrate that they are a capable and quality candidate for PE or HFs or VC or whatever someone is interested in pursuing. Its kind of like going to a target school -- its easier to get your foot in the door when recruiting for IB, but If you're able to make it to a super day the kid from Harvard is not going to get an offer over someone else from a non-target just because they went to Harvard -- your interview performance will matter infinitely more.

When recruiting for PE or HFs or whatever, be cognizant that your bank, group, school etc. will all matter, but in the end you will likely be given a shot at almost any fund from any BB or EB and some of top MMs. You might be at a disadvantage versus someone from GS TMT or MS M&A or PJT RSSG etc. but you will be given a chance to impress. I myself am going to an UMM which I believe a lot of ppl on WS would be delighted with, including kids from the top 5 or so groups in WS, from a coverage group and perhaps it was because I went to a target, or because I was exceedingly lucky, but I personally think its because my performance when interviewing.