William Blair Reputation/Top Groups/Exit Ops?
Hey guys,
I'm wondering if anyone has any information on William Blair's top groups, their reputation in the middle market relative to other MM firms, and the exit ops that are available to WB analysts.
Trending Content
Career Resources
Tech, especially software, and Healthcare are respected. Given Blair's recurring work with the sponsor community, analysts place quite well in the UMM for a MM firm.
Sorry man but they really don't place into UMM. LMM or MM if you're lucky. I worked there and had to transfer to a BB/EB to get looks from respected PE funds
Perfectly fine. My cohort from undergrad in Blair's Tech team placed extremely well. My sample size may not be indicative of the firm's broader placement.
Blair prides itself on culture and they want people to stay. I don’t know what this plays out like for people recruiting, so I’ll give a hypothesis from my prospect mind.
Blair is excellent at what they do, especially software. If you want a MM bank, I’d choose between Blair and ... literally nothing. I’d pick Blair. They have a good culture and the software group closes a deal (on average) every 3 weeks. You might ask then - why doesn’t anyone place into MFPE or into UMMPE?
Hypothesis: Blair doesn’t want you to leave and people don’t usually want to leave Blair. Most bankers stay. Some will go to bschool, some place into PE, but a large majority stay at Blair. This is either because the exits suck or people really like Blair.
I’d call Blair a lifestyle bank because of its culture. I wouldn’t say they have the constant 70-80 hour weeks of most lifestyle banks (like BofA and GHL from what I’ve heard) but the culture is apparently unbeatable.
Maybe nobody exits because it’s extremely frowned upon and you’ll get fired if you recruit - I don’t know. They definitely make it clear in every presentation that they really want people to stay. I’d say that a majority of people go to Blair because they want to stay in banking indefinitely, from my limited perspective, and that’s why we don’t see many UMMPE/MFPE exits.
TLDR; could be wrong but I think people stay because they like it there, not out of lack of opportunity.
You’re not going to end up at KRR, period. Also not H&F or NMC most likely. Maybe GTCR or MDP if you’re lucky and very good and lucky. That being said if you want to end up at a middle market fund ($500M - $2B latest fund) that’s attainable depending on your skill and luck. End of the day, even if you go to a BB you probably won’t end up at a MF and if you can’t climb the ladder in the MM you probably wouldn’t be able to at a MF. End of the day if you go to Blair or a similar bank and you want to do PE you can and you should pick the bank that best fits you culture wise and location wise. Because I can promise you, if you pick a bank you don’t like especially somewhere you don’t like, a few months in you’ll be miserable. I have a friend at a Goldman/JPM type of bank who’s going to a H&F/NMC type of fund and he hates his job, hates his group, hates his life and it’s made him not want to even go to his PE job in 2021 because he’s had such a bad time in finance.
Ok, I work at Blair and wanted to clear some misconceptions about the job, exit opps, future goals etc. If one of you wants to message me I will gladly hop on the phone with you and explain the difference between firms and whether the firm would make sense for you. Glad to answer your dumb questions either anonymously or not.
In regards to comments, first off, let's clear some blatantly false information above: the analyst above claiming he lateraled from Blair to another bank in order to "get looks" makes me think he/she is lying and possibly either someone who was canned from the firm, or an undergrad who maybe was rejected from WB and received an offer from a BB and wants to feel superior. Lateraling from Blair to a BB to "Get looks" would be deeply irrational and you just don't see it. I haven't seen anyone lateral to another bank at the junior level (aside from a few senior analysts being poached by former Blair MD's who went to new firms). I challenge you to find this outcome on Linkedin--it just doesn't happen. The truth is, if your goal is to work at a large private equity firm, a more linear and reasonable path is just leaving banking after a year, working in private equity at an upper mm or mm and then transferring to a larger PE firm once you have 2 years of buy side experience. More common is actually seeing people lateral from places like Moelis to WB because they want to be a long term banker and see a better long-term career trajectory at WB.
The second comment that is just horribly wrong is tech's size: its not small. There's about 50 analysts at the firm in the technology group. It's also the biggest group at the firm...
Third comment is regarding mm banks and what I think is largely just a misunderstanding of the job and career path propagated by people who have no clue what they are talking about. WB calls itself a "Premier Boutique". Regardless of what your thoughts are on that branding and how true it is, they do this because they are now a global bank and creep outside the MM frequently today. Deals range from about $100m- $4B with deals above $1B being not common, but also not rare. Especially in the better groups, you will likely work on a $1B+ deal at some point. That said, the businesses the firm looks at are largely growth businesses that are closer to $400m. Now, the misconception undergrads have is that somehow this is worse, or makes you less qualified than a BB experience. Really it's just a different stage in the life cycle of a company. Much in the same way one wouldn't say venture capital investing is worse than investing in public equities, investing or banking in the middle market isn't worse than investing or banking for large companies it's just different. In fact, WB by and large, has realized they can be enormously profitable and many of the MD's made a deliberate career choice to target the MM because they realized they could be wealthier doing many mm deals rather than hunting for a few large deals at a BB. The people at the bank are smart and are as sharp as any analysts you would find at a BB or EB. Also, in terms of pay at the PE level, it's not exactly tiered where you will certainly get paid more at a megafund versus a MM. Some MM's might have a better path to carry which could optimize your long term earnings. The obsession with megafund and UMM exits is really weird on this forum and I encourage you to do some introspection to understand what exactly you find interesting about firms that size or what you are looking for.
Now, for exits, here's where culture really comes into play. WB does pride itself on having less assholes per capita and holding midwestern values. Also, because it operates in the MM and has headquarters in Chicago, the people who feel their self worth comes from name dropping KKR at a NYC bar don't work at Blair and likely didn't even interview here. Instead, you get many individuals who are likely trying to stay in the Chicago area and who came into banking with an open mind and who usually begin to gain serious appreciation for growth businesses. After a 2 year stint at WB, you will have 2 years analyzing growth businesses and transactions that are largely around the $400m mark. Most people after having this experience don't decide, "Hey, even though I gained all this experience looking at growth businesses, now I want to interview and go to an investment firm that targets non-growth businesses outside my expertise." It's a bizarre career move and takes some convincing and explaining making those exits harder. Is it possible? Yes, certainly if you are smart and capable. But, you are fighting against potentially less relevant experience and a less common career path, so networking likely will need to play a huge role. With a compelling reason and being determined, individuals from Blair have exited to large funds, it just really isn't what most analysts want to do and is harder.
In terms of should you accept or reject the offer, there's another post on this website that breaks down the difference between WB and other firms that does a good job, but succinctly, its a question of do you want to look at growth businesses or not? A BB will be more relevant to large PE because it is facilitating bigger deals and investing in bigger deals. A good MM, or WB, facilitates smaller deals so it will be more relevant to investing in smaller deals. You likely will see more deals at a good mm, but won't get to see complex carve outs, distressed companies, or multi-segmented $5B+ companies. No one can decide whether you should reject or accept an offer, but I will say the only option you really are eliminating/ limiting at WB is moving to the largest PE firms after 2 years. But, if large PE is your goal I would ask whether you would rather gamble on whatever BB offer you think you might get with the option that you could do WB for a year, MM PE for 2 years than join a megafund. That said, I'm willing to bet if you choose WB you will eventually learn why no one does this. Also, for what it is worth, Blair analysts exit to pretty significant UMM shops like GTCR, Marlin, WCAS, Insight, TCV, Sumeru, and others every year.
Seriously, glad to talk you through this if you give me a message.
Boston has about 25 people in IB. It's largely technology--a co-head of tech is there as well. There's also some FSG and healthcare. In terms of differentiation--this is a HUGE HUGE HUGE point about William Blair. The firm cross staffs. What this means is there is no difference between being an analyst in Charlotte, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, SF outside of location. I'm on a deal currently where the MD's are in SF, the VP is in Boston, and the analysts are in Chicago and SF.
TMT UMM PE associate here.
Touching on exit opps first since college monkeys seems most curious about that. Can echo, MF/UMM will be rare. I’ve gone through 2 recruiting cycles at my UMM. Headhunters have never presented to us WB candidates (or any MM bank candidates for that matter, outside of female/minority). Could be selection bias in that WB analysts proactively told headhunters they don’t want UMM or MF (I don’t know if so).
In TMT, specifically software/tech, WB is king amongst the sponsor community. Their transaction experience and market knowledge far exceeds any other banker in this space. Sure your (insert BB/EB) might be running sellside this time but more often than not WB either sold it before, was the runner up in bake offs, or know the CEO/business deeply.
WB tech is a sellside machine. They are the only bank that consistently sends sellside models in the first round. Their sellside models look like something we’d build on the buy side (sometimes unnecessarily more complex). I imagine WB analysts can model the shit out of any straight forward tech company out there. But what is missing that might potentially bar them from entering UMM/MF (especially MF) is the complexity of business. Rarely does WB run carve-outs, multi-segment / conglomerate-like processes, complex structures, distressed (in my experience). This is where the true UMM/MFs excel...stuff that isn’t a straightforward vanilla software LBO but rather hairy/complex/multi-faceted businesses (now I agree UMM/MFs do more vanilla software given valuation levels/check sizes).
I answered this question above regarding lateraling or not. But, I would love to have this dialogue for people to see because I think it is important and something I didn't understand until actually working in banking. And maybe you can answer these questions well, but I'm betting you can't likely (which is ok) in which case I would say maybe do some more research and call some people to get a more informed opinion (This will help you when you recruit). Not necessarily saying you are wrong and I'm not trying to belittle you, but more want to get to the root of why you think before you have started a banking position, known any of your colleagues on a fulltime level, or even seen a transaction (no your internship doesn't count), you already KNOW you want to go to a TMT megafund. I'd start with the following questions--I promise this will create a better outcome for you long term whether you actually do go to a MF or you do something else:
Work Related: What defines UMM or MF? Where is the line for LMM, MM, UMM, and MF investing and what makes you think UMM or MF investing will be better (however you define better)? Do people at MF's always get paid more at every level? What is the career path for the average MF associate versus a MM associate? Are there meaningful differences in MF and MM fund business school exits (do you even plan on going to bschool)? Are you interested in a specific size of a business and how does that change business strategy for portfolio companies and for your firm itself? Do you have an interest in operational experience? Are you planning on exiting your PE firm eventually? Do you believe you will get paid more, or will be able to work with sharper people at a MF--is this always true? How does the day to day responsibility differ for MF associates and MM associates? What does the macroeconomic outlook look like for mm funds versus MF's and does that change in a downturn?
Personal: Are certain funds more focused in geographic areas/ would you be willing to move anywhere to work for certain funds? Do you desire to live in a certain city, why and for how long? How much money are you trying to make and why? Related, how many years are you willing to give up doing personal things such as dating and hanging out with friends for your job/ money? Do you have a place you are trying to live and concrete financial goals, or are you trying to make the most amount of money possible for the sake of it?
Again, I'm not trying to dissuade you, more I know a ton of people who were like you and are now very very unhappy because they didn't ask these questions.