LDN PE Exits MBB vs. IB
Hey guys,
I am interested in a career in PE - albeit not dead set on it. I have made some research and for now do find the work stimulating, as well as the responsibilities and pay down the line to be great motivators.
I have a FT offer from an MBB but am still debating whether I should gun for a FT offer at top IBs. Should I be successful in my applications, I wanted to understand what would be the ‘banking cut-off’ from which exit-opps to MF/UMM PE become marginally worst/equivalent to MBB, and therefore not worth the worst WLB.
My current framework is the following, please feel free to chime in and use examples for me to properly understand!
Top exits (worth the grind and long hours over any MBB)
GS
MS
JP
———————— McKinsey Cut-off
Very good exits (still worth the grind, but arguably worth going MBB for better WLB and option for MBA)
Lazard/Evercore/PJT/Rothschild
Side question - what about doing an off-cycle at a top PE fund, then MBB in their PIPE team then come back for FT roles?
Thanks all for the input!
Would absolutely not take Evercore or PJT over BCG/Bain, purely judging by exits.
Interesting, what factors do you think BCG / Bain PIPE teams have that help get better exit opps? What about other EBs such as Laz/Roth?
I was always under the impression that PE exits from GS / MS was a lot better than from McKinsey. Some PE firms seem to barely take any consultants at all. Could this be because consultants generally don't want to exit to PE or is it really more difficult to recruit from consulting to PE?
Little of column A, little of column B
That is what I am trying to figure out. What PE funds are actually MBB friendly?
That it what I am trying to figure out. Which funds are actually consultant friendly, especially if MBB is the last experience before PE - no to little IB prior.
deleted - edited
The consulting to PE path is mostly a US thing
Even though I appreciate the question, it seems that your classification is mainly based on "prestige", since it's virtually identical to many such rankings found all over the internet.
That doesn't make it inherently flawed; however, other factors must be considered as well. For example, would you take an offer from JPM if it concerned being in a team whose industry or vertical you don't really like, just for the name of the bank on your CV, over doing what you prefer within PEPI/PIPE/PEG in MBB?
But you say that you would not care, and would pull through regardless. I respect that. But what if we examine the quality of the experience instead, how can you be certain that the holy trinity of banks will most likely provide you with a superior experience on what you would like to do (which seem quite vague, aside from maybe wanting to go into PE in the future), rather than consultancies that offer much more rounded experience and more differentiated exits?
Of course, this is not a rant against your dreams or the banks mentioned above. I'm just saying that, unless you have a clear target in mind for what you'd like to gain or learn by going down the IB route, maybe prestige rankings will not offer you the most optionality or the best chance to "succeed", whether that is joining an MF or achieving long-term satisfaction from your career (which two are obviously not necessarily mutually exclusive).
tldr; maybe consider first which criteria exist and can affect your decision, how important each of them are to you and your specific goals, and how can they be best maximized in practice, and then come up with a list curated to address them.
Just my two cents.
I am in a smaller European market than London so don't take my word for this.
My impression is that larger buyout PE firms tend to prefer bankers, as the deal sizes you work on usually warrants onboarding CDD consultants as part of your buyside team.
For smaller PE firms however, that work on private-only deals, and do lots of the DD and execution work in-house; then someone who can conduct market analysis, do the CDD work themselves, come up with strategic improvements (I.e consultants) can bring more value are more common than on the big firms. (Bankers are ofc also needed but talking about the % split here)
TLDR; If you want to to VC, GE and not big buyouts, consulting might be the way to go.
Generally top 5 BBs + roths are better for PE than MBB, even for consulting friendly firms. MBB will also dead on exclude you from certain firms. For firms who take consultants all three can offer the same opportunities but generally Bain is seen as above the rest, then McK then BCG. After that it’s second tier BBs etc. Tier 2 consultants don’t really stand a chance at large firms (rightly or wrongly)
Which funds are completely closer to consultants? What about MBB exits to top IBs, do you stand a chance to make Snr Ana, or Jnr Asso in Europe at a US IB post MBB, and then sweat for a couple of months while you search for strong PE opportunities?
It would probably be difficult given how different the required skillset is. You will probably have the required skillset in creating slide decks, but you won't have much knowledge regarding modelling or transaction processes.
In tempora nobis consequuntur voluptatem non ab est ipsam. Similique animi consequatur omnis quibusdam omnis aut architecto doloribus. Reprehenderit et iure est non. Quod similique tempora dolores quas consequatur corrupti provident.
Reprehenderit nulla deserunt voluptatem officia aut omnis ex. Ut natus voluptatem expedita accusamus.
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...