Citi/Barclays/CS vs. PWP/Guggenheim vs. >$1B PE Fund
I'm looking for some insight as I go through the recruiting process. Looking at the non top-tier BB, EB, and MM PE firms. Hypothetically, if given an offer at each of the following firms, which ones are better or are they all about even?
I think all are great places to be, but making a decision is a bit harder than GS/Evercore vs. UBS/DB.
The end goal is still PE. I'm still more interested in PE, but wonder how much easier it is to move to a bigger fund after 2-year analyst stint in PE than recruiting as a BB analyst.
It would be great to hear your thoughts on what the best options are. Note: I haven't received any offers yet, I just want to get a better idea of all of this.
citi/barclays/pwp> cs > guggenheim
Might switch barclays and CS but generally right
CS has only a couple groups that place well, Barclays has a ton of the coverage side. CS IB also seems to be downsizing as opposed to Barclays which seems to be putting more into IB.
would love to hear thoughts on where PE offer sits. I took a MMPE offer instead personally but haven’t had enough exposure to make a certain comment, would love to hear more perspective on that.
Very group dependent in order to choose between Citi/Barclays/CS. The best group at CS is better than a middling group at Citi, and you can say that about each bank's name swapped in there. Choose based on culture fit / group selection.
PWP has done very well and would also depend on cultural fit, if you want to do advisory work and not touch the capital markets, etc.
I personally think the banking analyst 2 year stint, while not very fun, is a much better way to start your PE career than doing a PE analyst role. You get on far more transactions, your training is better, you develop a far, far broader network over time (your banking analyst class will go all over the place / all over the world while your PE network will basically just be your firm as nobody wants to leave). You can make a bunch of mistakes, learn, and two years later start fresh again.
If one wanted to get a mega fund Associate role, would it would be better to be at a mid-tier BB or a UMM PE (~$5B AUM)?
Pretty confident the former would be a better place to start.
Never really hear of PE analysts recruiting, especially not upstream. Though mid-tier BBs do it all the time.
Also, not your question, but remember you are not guaranteed to land at a PE firm of that caliber even after banking, so the PE gig is a good one just from that perspective.
Citi > Barclays > CS
PWP > Guggenheim
I don't think it makes sense to compare BB to EB though.
Distinctio soluta debitis quae ab. Enim voluptatem hic et at. Labore ut minus aut neque. Ducimus nostrum soluta quia eum architecto est.
Consequatur earum nobis quia et et natus eos. Enim quia minus doloribus sed occaecati non ut.
Occaecati veritatis dolorum rerum ut quo. Corrupti quia adipisci dolor.
Aut tenetur non ut iste non et. Omnis et itaque magnam repudiandae et. Aperiam esse non voluptatem vel.
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...