UMM PE Firms - Updated List
As PE on-cycle recruiting for class of 2023 seems to be looming, I wanted to get an updated list of UMM PE firms.
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +145 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 38 | 3h |
| +111 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 51 | 16h |
| +98 | Woman who emptied Knicks trashcan on street then stole it was DEI exec, worked at JPMorgan Chase | 25 | 14h |
| +79 | Stop sleeping on UBS - it’s pretty good | 29 | 13h |
| +72 | Hot take: I’d rather be at Desjardins than UBS for investment banking in 2026 | 13 | 8h |
| +56 | 2026 VAULT PRESTIGE RANKINGS | 30 | 13h |
| +39 | AI + Financial Modelling | 12 | 1d |
| +34 | Hardest interview experiences? | 20 | 11h |
| +28 | Summer before college | 18 | 7h |
| +26 | Current State of UBS in North America | 8 | 3d |
Career Resources
.
Second this, Audax isn't UMM, platform companies they buy are smaller than UMM
These cut-offs are all pretty subjective. In general would consider any firm with latest fund size between 3-6B "UMM".
The size of assets the firm usually goes for factors in as well, but this isn't always consistent / clear-cut.
Given the new fundraising boom in PE, UMM would be best characterized in the $5 - $10bn last fund size range. Between $1 - $5bn last fund size is MM, and sub $1bn would call LMM. When I think UMM, I typically think Clearlake / Veritas / NMC / Francisco / GTCR / BDT / MDP / Berkshire / Centerbridge / Ares / BC Partners / Leonard Green. Other ones mentioned above, would consider them mostly MM.
Labeling a firm MM vs UMM is usually a viewpoint on average check size, but usually hard to pinpoint that without very deep research, so easier to look fund size and assume 15-20 investments per fund as a general proxy. AUM is not a good proxy as there are some funds that have huge AUM but are making small investments (ie HIG with $40+bn AUM and largest fund being $3bn).
Leonard Green just raised 12bn for their latest fund
Yeah that's right, but I don't think that automatically means they are a megafund. Perhaps a better way to characterize is to use the above criteria for fund size as a first screen. Then, would use the following criteria - whether or not the fund either A) operates on a global scale (ie in countries other than the US) or B) has multiple asset classes outside of buyout. Probably the only megafund that doesn't fall into the criteria listed above is CD&R, which I would still argue is a fairly relevant megafund given their check size and who they typically compete with on deals.
Just because Clearlake just raised a $10bn last fund or Leonard Green raises a $12bn fund means they are immediately considered a megafund - it's really a term that used to describe more historically relevant firms, or more recently, firms have have an outrageously quick & large fundraising cycle to blow past $15 bn buyout fund (ie Thoma / Vista). I don't see Leonard Green do $5+ bn deals with a high degree of frequency, nor I do see them partner with your standard laundry list of MFs when doing a $15 / $20 bn deal.
Theses are more LMM
This is dumb
Why do you consider them a MF? I would have perhaps called it an UMM but based on one of the above posters criteria it would only be a MM fund with sub $4bn latest funds raised.
Charlesbank
Nemo similique veritatis incidunt. Soluta voluptatem necessitatibus tenetur temporibus esse quia amet. Et inventore in molestiae quia. Doloremque doloremque aliquam reiciendis et accusantium quia molestiae. Corrupti ea et voluptas perferendis sint et minus. Corporis tempora blanditiis odit et veritatis.
Consequatur voluptatum facere aut esse laborum culpa aut. Asperiores saepe mollitia est cum et dolor quisquam. Enim repudiandae dolores et ipsam repudiandae. Est consequatur recusandae non alias.
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...