Anyone else feel like the people they work with just aren’t that smart?
I work at a MF in NY and have kind of come to the realization that the people I work with are pretty hardworking, very docile, extremely political and calculating - but idk, just not that smart? I remember when I was at college doing an internship in S&T, there were some (not all) really sharp people there who could process information extremely fast and had great judgement. I was really impressed by this and have not come across a single person in the space who has struck me as being like this - not that I am at all, FYI. I feel like PE caters to a completely different type of person, which makes sense because you don’t really need to be a genius to do this job. It seems like most of the guys at my fund and at all the other PE professionals that I speak with think they are gods greatest gift to earth and always tout that they get to work with “the smartest colleagues “ but I suppose I don’t see it that way. There is huge level of groupthink, lack of contrarian or inverse thinking, and I think it all just ties back to the fact that this is basically just levered beta invesing. We aren’t really doing anything unique, this is basically just a sales role / financial engineering at the end of the day to try and get LP dollars. Idk do you guys feel the same? Maybe I’m just a pretentious douche
Your colleagues
I work at a MF in a hybrid value/special sits group and I disagree, anecdotally. It’s more of a mixed bag in my experience. I’d say about half the people I work with are extremely sharp. I find the people who have/had other interests before PE are the more intelligent ones — people who studied computer science/physics etc. and still engage with those types of things outside of their jobs. The Wharton finance majors who knew they wanted to be in PE since high school are a little more as you described, but I would say they’re still smart, just not “outrageous IQ” smart.
One thing to understand about PE is that incentives are not usually set up for displays of hyper intelligence, perhaps particularly at a MF. If you’re an associate, you’re probably on average really tired and need sleep. You’re incentivized to accomplish what you absolutely have to for the day to appease your VP/principal and nothing more. Pushing back on something to be contrarian or find a more intellectually honest/rigorous method or suggesting a creative, novel analysis is just going to create more work for you. You just want to have a few spare hours to hang out with your girlfriend and sleep, not go the extra mile to show up as “smarter”. When people are burnt out and in survival mode, creativity dies.
If you want contrarian thinking maybe Apollo is the place for you, according to their Youtube videos.
In MM PE and it’s hit or miss. VP I work with is extremely smart analytically and on key deal drivers. Sr ASO seems a bit clueless and slow to break down fundamental business drivers but seemingly works hard so seniors eat that stuff up.
I think people in the industry I’ve met are highly capable people but plenty of duds that have strong background. Like everyone else, they just followed the typical banking route and got the stamps of approval along the way.
Yeah no shit top talent hasn't been giong to PE for like almost 20 years, and the only reason people in finance think they are super smart is because they incorrectly identify with genuinely super smart people (Rob Granieri, Ray Dalio, Soros). Even the supposed "masters of the universe" like Chase Coleman are almost certainly not that high-IQ, just in the right place at the right time to ride tech beta.
Do not diss on the almighty Coleman, he is from a blue bloodline.
I think this is a fairly out of touch comment, respectfully. The people you are describing are probably all in the top 10 percentile for intellect, regardless of rating metric. Now, are they in the top 1%, the top 3%? Are they as sharp as some of the quants at HFs, as leading researchers in biomedicine, as the engineers revolutionizing AI, probably not.
To make it into banking you probably dont need to be a rocket scientist. But to survive at a top fund, I think you have to be pretty damn sharp. Excluding nepo hires, I would challenge the assumption that even ~5% of your colleagues aren't close to brilliant, at least when zooming out and comparing them with the gen pop.
With that said, intellect like most things is relative. Personally, I joined my current team because I felt like everyone I interviewed with was smarter than me. 4 years later, I still feel like the I'm in last place when it comes to raw compute power and ability to grasp complex concepts quickly. But perhaps you would join my team and feel that there weren't any sharp people here either. You really might be that brilliant, I have certainly met people that outkick all of their competition by that much. If that is the case, it is important to show humility.
However, I have never once worked at any PE MF, just sharing my initial reaction.
Fully agree with this. While not “revolutionary / change the world smart”, objectively MM/UMM/MF PE seniors are among the most “traditionally” smart ppl in the world. Of course there are duds and nepos and idiots who slip through. But if you step outside the bubble and go interact with like normal Americans, it’s pretty obvious that most ppl inside a top PE firm represent 90-95 percentile easily. At least that’s been my experience too.
Exactly, and I say this with a fair amount of reflection. I have worked in some extremely cut-throat environments, with brilliant folks from top firms and top schools. However, I doubt I would last 6 months at a MF PE.
To discredit the folks that work there for years by implying that they aren't that intellectually gifted is to sell them short.
I certainly don't find my colleagues in PE smarter than my IB colleagues
I work in co investing / secondaries at a family office and I think the people I work with are really not that smart. VP is kinda just dumb and I don’t trust my MD’s judgement when it comes to investing. He’ll just get an idea in his head and convince himself the business is recession resilient but he’s not even looking at the materials which clearly show it’s cyclical. Partner is kinda mentally checked out cause he knows his job is safe and he’s already made good money.
Yeah. I work at Blue Owl in their lending department (specifically software). Anyway everything is fine here and our loans are doing great!
Must be hard working alongside geniuses
I mean what is being smart? Honest question. If we mean standardized tests, then certainly by definition almost everyone I work with is smart. But that is likely not what we mean. So what do we mean?
Here’s what I’ll say, I think the trait-set that is differentially present in people that remain in PE is opportunism and resourcefulness. They are all skeevy.
I also don’t think it necessarily makes sense to evaluate intelligence based on someone’s propensity to engage in endless, useless “analysis.” I don’t have high confidence that spending my time on “analysis” is going to increase the present value of future cash flows accruing to me more than doing other things with my time; I also would rather golf.
By the way, you are obviously correct that PE is not like machine learning or petroleum science in its technical component. This industry = a bunch of bankers that said “we sell these companies for batshit multiples and only take a small vig while the owners and founders make out like bandits. Seriously, if everyone could be on the right side of deals like that, we could probably meet the ridiculous assumed return profile on defined benefit retirement programs, lmao. Wait a minute…”
In my experience, the most intellectually curious and engaged people I’ve worked with tend to be not so intellectual at work, saving it for their intellectual interests, be it history or philosophy or political economy or whatever. The “smart” thing to do in PE is often to not be so “smart.”
That's why i left pe to go to a hf
At a family office now so it's a bit different but I do kind of feel this way. A lot more "B" players whereas prior firm really was mostly "A" players.
Which comes w/ both good and bad parts - life is relatively chill and I can skate by doing my version of B work that is perceived as an A. But lower bar for quality can be tough to deal w/ and the firm as a whole unfortunately has an inflated sense of being top tier when it's just not, which is also annoying (and I fully acknowledge maybe I am at risk of falling into the same trap perhaps).
MF of retards? Is this Carlyle?
Hahaha for sure
Sit vel et repellat quo. Enim accusantium et exercitationem et voluptatem mollitia sed.
Odit mollitia libero quas sit. Fugiat minus voluptatem repudiandae ut accusamus sed id. Laudantium molestias sit maiores suscipit quia et. Maiores laudantium excepturi id quae.
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...