Argue Why MM/UMM PE?

Also interested

1. The opportunity to be the top 1-5 guy at a MF (this will hands down be one of the most lucrative jobs in all of finance, especially if you can become #1)

2. Easier to raise capital for your own fund if you're high enough up the ladder (e.g. Clearlake, all the Apollo spinouts, Recognize)

3. Certain exit opps are only available for MF talent (e.g. large activists, certain SM HFs, and even some top growth shops too nowadays)

I heard one I thought was interesting, a MF gives you the opportunity to work with well run businesses at scale. As an early professional, it’s a better learning opportunity than trying to turn around / grow a down market business when you don’t have as much experience. Not sure I fully agree with it, and it definitely has some caveats but differed from prestige / exit opps etc.

This is great summary. On the not hard and fast rule (true), my UMM has a lot of layers… so much so that I imagine it’s not all that different from MF on progression chances at the end of the day. Good proxies to feel this out are probably how long the firm has been around (more time to develop rigid structures) and obviously fund size within the MM/UMM band (more reason to have more structure).

SaaSChimp

MM often also has better career trajectory / promotion path as MFs can be fairly jammed up (lots of layers of VPs, directors/principals, etc.) since firm has been around longer versus MMs can be newer with more growth potential (AUM-wise) which makes more room for internal promotions and filling out layers

Not a hard and fast rule but generally true

Would be careful on this point though as certain fast growing firms I've seen layers dropped in as they grow faster making the very flat structure spread out.  

Like a shop that was associate -> principal -> partner moving to a model that has a senior associate, vice president, and managing director ranks or similar.