Who are the people that keep moving “up”?
It’s been noted many times that the path to the top is ultimately a pyramid, meaning fewer and fewer people reach MD level in banking or Partner level in PE. A lot of college kids apply to banking, fewer move on A2A or PE, and so on and so forth. Something I’ve been thinking about… do you think the people who ultimately get to a senior level position always “had it in them” as a junior? I understand a lot of it is self-selection, and people opt to pursue other interests or prioritize other things in their life. But is it evident at the junior level who will make it to the top someday? Or is it just the job itself, and some luck i’m guessing, that molds you?
Most people who truly want to reach md in ib, do so. Partner in pe however is much more difficult and that requires just being better then the best. Thats why comparing md in ib and pe partner has never be fair.
Incorrect. There are many who want to make MD but don't make it. They often only get to VP or D and then get exited.
Let's not pretend PE providing capital to high growth companies whilst mgmt teams do all the heavy lifting to grow the business whilst PE principals sit on the board and observe is difficult. You're not transforming or operationally reorging the business 95% of the time at a normal non distressed PE Shop.
I agree and disagree but think you misunderstood my point. Even if you get excited you still end up an md at another firm. I didnt mean that pe partner itself was hard, I meant making partner/past vp is much harder then md. The average kid that breaks into ib is almost always better off staying in ib compared to pe unless they are truly elite in finance, saying that as someone who spent 3 years in mfpe before returning to banking.
Speaking honestly.
It's a commercial mindset, relationship building and the ability to sell your advice and bank (depending on EB vs BB). Nobody cares that you were the "model guy" or an excel savant as an Analyst.
In big banks you do well by being more of a concierge banker and selling the bank. It's about being a front man in an institutional relationship. It's rarer to see content led aporoaches and more favour trading or balance sheet for advisory trades.
EBs are content and advise led, as you don't have a balance sheet to wield and you don't have a suite of products to sell for any occasion.
Both come back to the ability to be commercial, build relationships and ultimately monetize both for your firm.
Absolutely this. A lot of analyst/associate "model superstars" wash out around VP, where you are expected to have a book of clients and start selling well. Excel skills stop mattering and you need to be a great relationship person.
Great answer. I was low/mid bucket throughout my analyst and aso years. When I got to VP, I came into my own because I had focused on relationships and clients, not modeling/excel skills, which I was quite bad at. Relationship building is key in this business and quite frankly easier then ever due to soo many bankers just being weird/not personable or good salesman.
There is limited skill involved, at some point it just becomes luck (i.e. you managed to suck the right dicks and the right dicks sucked the right dicks themselves and managed to move up) and how much you are willing to sacrifice everything else in your life for this (including your kids, marriage, waistline, and hairline).
Least salty CorpFin exit guy.
Tempora commodi molestiae magni a sit. Nobis consequatur nam unde sunt rerum aut totam. Ea iusto quisquam sit non et. Deserunt eligendi ducimus in amet eos.
Quo quos occaecati nemo qui voluptatem. Et asperiores quos et illo. Voluptatibus porro quo provident nulla architecto suscipit reprehenderit. Tenetur ut cumque non cumque.
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...