Monkeys, currently a BB VP and recently landed a PE offer in a MM Fund but for an experienced Associate role - yikes! Got the offer before VP promotion was received. Comp in line with 3rd year associate but lower than VP. Also, MBA not required for progression (makes sense since I already have one)
There is no headroom for a title bump but PE career in line with my medium to long term goals. Really confused here - finally getting to a point where I no longer do the bitchwork and focus more on the interesting aspects of deals. However, sellside sucks! whichever way you slice it. on the other hand, being an associate, while confident that I will be highly ranked, scares the shit out of me going back to gruntwork - will you take the position if you were in my shoes.
Let me put it to you bluntly. You'd be stupid not taking the gig, and I mean this in the most loving way.
1) you can ALWAYS go back to banking as a VP, especially after having direct PE investing experience. Your insight to a business is just better than a banker. This is a fact. 2) Not a lot of opportunities to move to PE at the Sr. Associate / VP level without prior PE experience.
Your goal is PE, as you stated, and from where I sit, this is really a life time opportunity for you. I hope you take it!
You are currently facing one of the more frustrating career progression dilemmas. You are clearly over-qualified for the Associate role (that your analysts are applying for), but don't have the buy-side experience to jump in at the VP level. From my perspective, whether you take the job or not comes down to how much you care about your comfort level in the short-term. If you value the money and the lack of grunt-work for the next few years, then stick with your current gig. If you are tired of the sell-side and willing to take a small step backward to get out, then take the PE Associate role.
You are fortunate in that you have already cleared some tough hurdles in banking (i.e. making it to VP), so there is no wrong choice here depending on your goals and willingness to take a risk.
1) he is offered to join as experienced Associate. This is not A1, so most likely A2 with a wink and nod guarantee to Sr. Associate as along no major fuck ups like telling a PortCo CEO to f himself.
OP also mentioned this is for a career track PE opportunity and he has MBA already. The opportunity to transition to PE given his profile is so exceedingly rare that I only know of 2 others that made this transition. If this is just for a 2 & out type of situation then I'd say OP should stay put as VP in banking.
Also to add: his promotion to VP in banking does not automatically qualify him as a good Associate in PE. Very different roles. If they gave him a VP role in PE, it would set him up to fail, from day one.
It's only a hard decision if you think words mean a lot. If you think the word "associate" is a big deal because it's the same title your analysts are going for. Or if you think the word "Vice President" is a big deal because it's the same title that some respected senior-ish folks hold at your bank. If you really put this much stock in words, I have to be honest and say I'm surprised that you're as successful as you are. I imagine most people would place very little value on a word.
As for being a grunt . . don't think a PE Associate can't call up a banking VP and tell him to work the weekend. Happens every Friday somewhere in midtown.
Less about title and more about responsibilities. Not sure if you are in college or have prior IB experience. If you do, you would know that the silver lining to years of brutal work condition is becoming a VP (essentially a different job from analyst / associate), having a life and working on more interesting aspects of deals (leeway for business development, managing deals, effectively becoming the deal "manager" etc). A senior associate in my opinion would have been more appropriate where responsibilities are similar to that of a BB VP at this particular fund.
To your last point, having worked on both sides, it is plain false that a PE associate will keep a banking VP working all weekend - sure some work may be tossed the bankers way (and in most cases driven by / approved by someone more senior in the fund) and that work will be done by the analyst if reasonable. I personally push back on unreasonable timelines without flack from anyone.
Weird thread. We're both looking at eachother's comments and seeing a guy who seems to not know how things really are, despite having about as identical a career arc as two people can have.
I left banking as at the end of my VP1 year to join PE, although a bit different because instead of joining a MM PE shop I joined more of a mixed PE/VC role in a family office.
I don't see any reason you'd be lying, I'd just say two comments indicate your IB experience to be quite different from mine.
You describe becoming a banking VP almost like it's the other end of the rainbow. I know you weren't saying its all roses but you present it as a pretty stark contrast from Associate. Personally I didn't find the difference to be significant enough. Maybe I was less of a rockstar VP than you (I mean that sincerely), but I still had too many layers above me (product MD, coverage MD, 1-2 directors, coverage VP) to feel like I was getting to steer the ship. Half the time I'd feel like a junior end of MD (good) but the other half I'd feel like the senior end of Associate. That's life in the middle. Also, I gradually got more responsibility as an associate so the move from A3 to VP1 was no different than any other one-year move. Nothing magical about the promotion.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on what happens when the PE client on a sellside calls in casually with an ask. Even if it's just the associate. In my ~10 MM PE deals the result was always the same - client says jump, banker asks how high. If your experience was different that's fine, but you speak with a lot of certainty for a guy who's still deciding which side he wants to be on.
Congrats on your potential move. Despite what others might say on this thread, it's an avenue that is rarely available. Won't surprise you to hear I'm a vote for PE. Ultimately I just don't place a ton of value on the VP title in banking, for reasons explained.
2 years from now you will be a banking VP.
2 years from now if you play your cards right you'll be a PE VP.
Who cares if for 24 months you had a different title (it's unlikely you'll be changing jobs within that window anyway).
"There is no headroom for a title bump but PE career in line with my medium to long term goals."
There it is, no? Seems like that should settle it right there.
Re: Gruntwork - FWIW, senior guys in PE were getting in the weeds way more than senior guys in banking. Like in my IB stint, VPs never touched models, but in PE, it wouldn't be uncommon for senior guys (including the more junior partners i.e. the non-founders) to be digging into models themselves.