William Blair tech exit opps?
Deep in process for a lateral position here and want to get a sense of exit opps-
Know they do really well in MM tech and play against BBs/EBs pretty frequently from what I’ve seen on here and talking to some friends in the sponsor world, but does that help at all when it comes to branding/exit opps or is it still stuck in the MM bucket?
Having spoken to some people there, it sounds like nearly all tech deals are $500M-2B, which is basically where every bank other than a select few (GS, MS, Evercore, Q, a few others) also operate. From what I’ve heard (and confirmed looking at announced deals), they’re typically working with MFs/UMMs as buyers on deals in this price range. Based on friends at BB tech groups, I’d say pretty similar deal types to Citi, BofA, etc (in tech only- very different at these BBs top groups of course)
Would it be possible to exit to a top tech PE firm (Thoma, Vista, Silverlake, etc) from this group? Mainly wondering if good deal experience + as many reps if not more than probably any other IB analyst program can outweigh the “MM” branding and make you competitive in PE recruiting. Also a little nervous that HHs will just go off brand name and take the UBS analyst over the Blair even though the Blair will probably have more and higher quality deal reps. Before everyone tells me to check LinkedIn, hard to search LinkedIn by group and it isn’t as helpful given that tech does bigger deals than the rest of the firm. Also think it’s a bit unclear because many people there either want to stay in Chi or are really interested in the MM, and I’m unsure if that’s why you don’t see a lot of MF exits or if it just isn’t really possible. Especially interested in anyone in the sponsor tech world weighing in on how you’d look at a Blair analyst. Thanks to all
A lot of HH / PE hiring decisions are based off of brand signaling it’s unlikely for WB to get MF looks
WB places lights out into MM PE, but doesn’t place as well into UMM PE compared to many other firms and MF is very tough. For PE recruiting, brand matters a lot, and the fact of the matter is, headhunters don’t like MM firms.
The fact of the matter is self selection is enormous from Blair tech. Preference for Midwest exists and a rebellious streak (the firm’s culture is anti-BB, anti-NY) makes it where very rarely do people even want to recruit for megafunds. I would guess it is probably less than 10% that would want to go to a megafund, if that. Those that do recruit, often face an uphill battle because there aren’t alumni that have placed before you and firms and head hunters can be unfamiliar with Blair since the firm has only become a powerhouse in the last decade being borderline non-existent in tech prior to then. The firm punches above its weight and is really closer to an EB from a tech standpoint, but it’s still a non-NY based middle market, so you should likely choose another bank if your goal was to go to a megafund.
As an aside though—why do you think megafund PE makes more sense than a MM fund? I think by the end of an analyst stint most WB analysts realize the megafund life probably isn’t the most optimal path.
Edit: just to add despite this MS, I am going off my analyst class in which many left the industry entirely, stayed, or targeted niche funds/ geography’s. Don’t know what else to say besides I’m clearly the only person who has inside understanding.
Kid, I'm in WB Tech. No need to educate me on my own group.
First of all, in terms of culture, WB Tech is definitely not the same as WB HQ. The seniors in the SF office are definitely more of a "midwestern vibe", but the juniors in Tech are definitely nowhere close to the juniors in Chicago in terms of culture (SF office is definitely much closer to the UC-Berkeley hardo culture comparable to other SF banks than WB's Chicago culture). You're right that MF interest is less at William Blair Tech than at better SF offices, but it's much higher than 10% and a lot of it is because people self-select out of MF recruiting because they know how much of an upwards hill it is. William Blair SF places extremely well into MM PE, better than any other SF MM group, and also has solid placement into UMM PE, but Blair simply doesn't place as well into top UMM and MF as EB and BB offices.
In terms of deal flow, the firm does punch above its weight and runs the MM sponsor space and is better than most EBs. However, that simply doesn't translate into exits. Headhunters have a preconceived notion and a bias towards firm brand, that WB's deal flow simply can't make up. If deal flow was the only indicator of PE placement, Greenhill SF's placement would be shit, which it's not.
I was an analyst 3 years ago—so, I’m going to call bullshit on you being in the group and this post you made actually. I’m going off actual exits of my analyst class, wtf are you going off?
further proof this person above is lying—they make a distinction between locations and state that WB tech is different than HQ/ Chicago. Tech has the largest headcount in Chicago, not SF. They also work the same staffings. I don’t know what to say to posters besides the person above clearly isn’t telling the truth or is a new hire.
This is my last comment: I still think you must be new to the org and think there’s a chance you are a new analyst not an associate by the way you are framing things.
SF analysts are more likely to go to west coast firms since they are closer, Chicago analysts are more likely to go to Chicago firms. There are larger firms for the most part in SF compared to Chicago. But arguing something like sumeru is “better” than a place like Waud capital or GTCR ignores that searching for a job is a pretty complex decision and self selection largely dictates the process. From my experience, very few Blair analysts say or are optimizing for going to the largest most prestigious fund possible. My advice to the original poster and others is that you are better off going to a BB if that is your goal. We can argue all day about whether analysts from WB self select out because they know it is hopeless or not, but from my experience it’s more of a life decision with most the analysts I knew recognizing working for a megafund post banking is signing up for another 2 years of a shitty lifestyle, which vary few people wanted after 2 tough years. I think if you were someone who was super prestige focused, you wouldn’t have ended up at Blair to begin with.
Guess this is actually my last comment. Yet another example why I strongly question the individual above claiming to work for the firm and that they aren’t just some undergrad. My guess honestly is it’s an intern with a return offer because they are sorta right, but not exactly with the things they say. Calling someone kid too makes me think they are riding a power trip of some sort.
To answer your question: You have relatively the same deal experience in the different offices and there is no SF Blair tech or Chi tech, it’s just Blair tech. Boston is included in that along with Atlanta. That said, I’d bet money some of the Atlanta analysts will target Atlanta funds in the coming years. Again, it’s a preference thing.
That said, exit ops differ because if you spent 2 years in Chicago and chose to work in Chicago coming out of college—you are more likely to want to stay working in Chicago, maybe you have ties to the Midwest, or maybe you eventually developed ties after 2 years. Similarly, many of the people that go to the SF office want to stay in SF or are more open to west coast opportunities. The exits are different because the people that chose those locations self select different opportunities—further illustrating my point about self selection.
My analyst class had many people who outright told headhunters they wouldn’t consider west coast offers because they didn’t want to live there due to the cost, social scene, etc. I think for the first job a person takes the location can be less of a consideration, but as you start to get older location is a HUGE factor. Being close to friends, family, and significant others isn’t overrated. I think undergrads seem to think PE firms are like US news college rankings with some sort of levels of greatness and prestige, when really your career has so many personal and professional variables that it’s just not that simple.
Blair is certainly the best MM tech group. It is better than many boutiques such as Moelis and PWP tech, and many BBs who are doing a lot more debt/equity than M&A.
It is still a stretch to say “nearly every deal is $500M - $2B”. They do many in the $200M range. Therefore, I can’t imagine every analyst’s resume is littered with billion dollar deals. They place very well into MM tech PE or growth equity (Accel-KKR, Marlin, etc.). Which are extremely attractive exits.
If anyone actually wants information on WB tech feel free to PM me and we can set up a call, current 2nd year in the tech group. Broadly for people who are afraid to message or don't want to waste my time--I would echo the self selection thing being pretty big. Also, from my experience the analysts across almost all banks were pretty interchangeable coming from my undergrad. I found the kids that ended up at Qatalyst, versus Centerview, versus Barclays, versus Blair, versus Goldman, versus Evercore, versus DB, versus Citi, to all be pretty equally competent, having friends at each (I think this really just gets to the interview process and the luck and culture aspects involved in it). One thing to note, the experience and culture at Blair can be different and as mentioned a large Chicago headcount and Blair culture broadly definitely creates different exits and analyst preferences compared to most other banks. I would strongly encourage anyone reading this forum to just give people that work at a bank a call to get first hand information rather than reading this forum for information. It's largely undergrad hearsay which just isn't accurate and can lead to some poor decision making if you are trying to get information on any firm. Just call people guys/girls, they don't bite and that's really what networking should be--getting answers to questions like this.