Natural resources groups pigeonholing to infrastructure PE funds
Hi guys,
Does anyone have experience / knowledge of exits to generalist PE from a Natural Resources group (P&U, O&G, chemicals, infra) at a strong BB (think GS, JPM etc.)?
I have an opportunity to join a strong Natural Resources group, but have 0 interest in joining an infrastructure fund after the analyst years, or to stay in banking beyond 2 years (which I guess would enable me to switch groups internally / lateral to other bank). Based on LinkedIn stalking, it seems that almost all of the people (that disclose their IB group on Linkedin) who managed to land MF / Upper MM spots from these groups ended up in the infrastructure funds.
While there is probably a number of explaining factors for this, I am wondering whether this finding is mostly due to:
- Selection bias by analysts (people who choose to go to Natural Resources also prefer to go for Infrastructure / similar funds in PE)
- Incomplete / skewed group disclosure on LinkedIn / fund webpages (people / companies prefer to disclose previous group if its more related to current group, and leave it out if not)
- Genuine pigeonholing based on group (analysts forced to either accept infrastructure only roles at MFs or go for less competitive smaller funds)
Any insights appreciated.
Thanks!
I'd agree - from what I've seen, it looks like most junior bankers in Natural Resources groups tend to end up at PE funds with a similar sector focus. For Houston-based banking analysts, I feel like it could be a geographical selection bias (both on the part of the candidate and the fund). I think I could count on one hand the number of analysts that I've heard of, or seen (via LinkedIn / website bios) that ended up at an MF PE shop in a group outside of Real Assets, Oil & Gas, Power or Infrastructure that came from a Nat Res IB background.
My opinion is that top MF groups outside of those mentioned above already have plenty of candidates to choose from (generalist M&A, TMT, Consumer & Retail) that they don't necessarily have a great reason to go after a similar candidate in Natural Resources IB where the experience tends to be very specialized and geared towards the nuances of the sector (there are exceptions, of course, granted you are at a shop with top placements like EVR and come from a target school / Ivy background). The most likely path I've determined for rotating out of Nat Res / Infra while staying in the MF space has been 2+2(at an MF or elite MM)+HSW -> Megafund PE group with a different sector focus. That being said, I'm sure there are exceptions to this... just seems to be the most common path. Take this with a grain of salt -- I'm currently a first-year analyst in an energy banking group in Houston and not speaking from my own personal experience.
Also interested in this. Anyone with experiences from Europe?
Bump
Provident enim perferendis voluptatem sed et libero iusto autem. Ipsa eos et in quae consequatur praesentium. Quasi sit repellat excepturi voluptatem beatae. Debitis repellendus deserunt reprehenderit ullam omnis accusantium.
Aliquam consequatur quas mollitia aut aut. Vel aut doloribus debitis accusantium ea. Cum quia quaerat numquam consequatur. Vel nihil nobis nisi itaque non.
Occaecati non laborum ut sed. Mollitia quia laboriosam dolore architecto iste. Consequatur adipisci quisquam id quibusdam.
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...