Direct Lending to Mezz/Opportunistic
Hey y'all, I'm an incoming 2025 Direct Lending SA. I ideally want a career in credit and am going to do all I can to secure a return offer.
That said, as I think about my career longer-term, I would like to end up in a seat where I'm investing in slightly riskier debt. As far as I can tell, my options in that regard are Opportunistic/Mezz funds.
What can I do to best position myself for those sorts of jobs? I'd imagine FT recruiting out of undergrad is quite competitive, but is there a pathway there?
If I were to look to make a move for my associate years, is that a possibility? What are the timelines and opportunities like there?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Based on the most helpful WSO content, here are some insights and advice for transitioning from Direct Lending to Mezzanine/Opportunistic funds:
Positioning Yourself for Opportunistic/Mezzanine Funds:
Skill Development:
Networking:
Experience:
Pathways and Timelines:
Full-Time Recruiting:
Associate Years:
Internal Moves:
Additional Considerations:
By focusing on these areas, you can better position yourself for a successful transition from Direct Lending to Mezzanine/Opportunistic funds. Good luck with your career journey!
Sources: Direct Lending --> Distressed/Special Situations Investing, Credit Hedge Fund opportunities, Credit Hedge Fund opportunities, Alternative Lenders & the End of Risk Taking for Banks - Opportunity or Risk?, CRE Lending Exit Opps?
Bump, thanks
Also interested
Great ask, definitely following
Bump
Coming from a similar background, but did special sits/opportunistic/hairy direct lending myself last summer. Ngl for FT recruiting it’s prob gonna be tough simply because there aren’t those many seats, and I’ve actually seen a couple of people go for RX banking and THEN decide what they want to do with their careers. Also seen some people do their analyst years in a credit shop and jump ship to another credit shop with slightly different strategies (special sits/hairy DL -> distressed, for example) so I don’t think it would be too hard to jump down the cap structure coming from plain vanilla DL as a junior.
mind if i PM? similar background
Ofc, feel free
At a fund that invests across the capital structure from 1L to common equity and everything in between. Few notes:
EDIT: Had a post thought: Worthy to ask how the fund sources its deals and what types of transactions they focus on. Know that if a mezz fund is focused on sponsor-backed transactions, the 2L and mezz market is on a lifeline again if not dead. After spending almost a decade in the space, when it comes to sponsor-backed junior debt deals, its a tough go. You are very expensive paper, you're competing against all-senior solutions with much lower cost of capital, the appetite for junior capital is often a reflection of tight capital markets so you may be investing into a tough environment, can't get much/ any fund level leverage, and you're stuck in a duration conundrum: If the deal outperforms out the gate, you're getting refi'd within 1-2 years and MOIC sucks. If the deal underperforms immediately, you're probably driving a workout process and likely going to be the fulcrum security in a RX or BK scenario. Unless they can prove they can
Hope this helps
not op but thank you! do you mind sharing the names of the textbooks on opportunistic investing?
My 2 go to's are Private Debt and The Credit Investor's Handbook.
any other thoughts on DL as a career? True its commoditized but isin't other forms of capital also commoditized but with additional steps? Ie. you can say middle market industrial buyout where every process is ran through an auction is for the most part commoditized. Just pushing back a bit but would love to hear your thoughts on whether DL is still a good place to make a career in?
Comment came off harsher than I intended. DL is a fine place for a career and you can make a good living doing it. But IMO there isn't a difference shop to shop. Across the megafund direct lending vehicles and BDCs, and given their portfolios are all 75-100+ credits, they're all the same thing and returns are the same (except for those unlucky few that got caught up in PluralSight). This isn't a bad thing, these guys are just no longer focused on individual credit quality or being interesting. They are focused on growing AUM and generating fees. and that's fine. Look at Blue Owl: They pay out the ass, took it public (cha-ching), growing AUM like hell, but there is a running joke that they don't do diligence and don't care to do diligence: they just want to do as many deals as possible and will do it on any terms possible. But they're still killing it and making gobs of money, so can't hate it!
But take a BXC TacOpps fund or an opportunistic strategy that can go up and down the balance sheet, the analysis is just way more interesting and capital providers tend to disperse returns. But then again, another joke is that some of the distressed guys pride themselves on being "smartest, sharpest" etc etc, but they can't put all their money to work (dont worry, big dislocation is coming!) and over the medium/ long term, the comp probably isn't as good.
In industrial LBO's are the sponsors are somewhat differentiated, the PE product is not commoditized given the operational value add (a term thrown around rather generously).
As someone who currently still works in DL, I can confirm that the modelling is done on a very high level.
How would you approach modelling at your firm? What's the typical level of granularity?
Velit itaque vel nesciunt non. Deleniti velit ea et excepturi.
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...