At what point is an analyst PE program better than IB?

Following

A fund that is exactly what you want to do, especially if happens to be at UMM/MF. MM seats aren't too hard to land out of IB, you can be a little pickier with those. But MF is such a shitshow for oncycle let alone getting the strategy/group you want, if you get the opportunity out of school I would take it.

Sounds like you're aware of the pros/cons list already, so diligence training programs, talk to analyst alums etc. But yeah, unless you have a MM you are dying to be at because their strategy is so unique and in-line with what you want, I'd take a top IB group over many PE programs any day. The training and branding is not something to pass up for no reason just to get to the buyside quicker.

I think straight to PE instead of top IB is generally a bad idea unless it’s BX-tier for a few reasons.
1) A lot of PE funds don’t have the resources or desire to train you and there’s no pre-existing structure you fit into with a defined role which means you may end up not doing much
2) You typically don’t get the big Analyst class experience where you have a group of peers to learn with and get that network
3) You don’t get that safe 2 year environment to mess up with little to no stakes if you’re planning to stay at the fund
4) If you’re planning to recruit somewhere else, you’re at a disadvantage because you’re not part of the banking pipeline and other funds aren’t sure if you did anything worthwhile and there’s less of a chance to switch industries
5) If you want a long career in PE, it’s good to have just some insight on how the sellside works as you will be working with banks a lot

Unless it’s such a good fund that you couldn’t land it after banking or an amazing fit, I don’t think it makes sense. Currently in MFPE and did banking before if that helps.

Would likely look at the analyst to associate pipeline and split between sourcing, diligence and execution work at the analyst level. I’d also consider whether the firm pushes MBAs or not.

I personally would have to be sure that it’s the right type of investing style for me — I know plenty of people who went into on-cycle thinking one thing and ended up doing off-cycle for a different strategy.

Other factors to consider are recent exits from your banking group/patterns. If you’re in a natural resources group but want to do tech investing, a tech PE analyst program might be a better fit.

Agreed with the above.

You'd be crazy to take some MM shop over your top IB, because you'll at least have the chance to land at a MF/UMM, or an MM that fits exactly what you want.

Training programs at banking always going to be good, since they've been around so long and are very structured as a result. Only a few PE firms (typically the larger ones) have analyst programs  with solid training, promotion structure, and are established, among other factors. Also, many of these, if not all, are MFs so no matter who you are, there's a small chance you'll get such an opportunity again.

For example, I would be extremely surprised if any such candidates decline a Blackstone, KKR, Warburg, Vista, Bain, or Silver Lake offer for anything except each other. But on the other hand, I can totally see the case for choosing a top bank over Audax, GTCR, JMI, given the concerns highlighted in this thread.

The real value of a PE program is building that investor mindset from get-go, and these are extremely selective spots, as so few funds do it

I'll be contrarian here.

I was / am at a MF with a 'prestigious' analyst program mentioned above, and have interacted with many analysts and watched their progression through their program. Though my sample size is admittedly small, I would hands down rather work with a banking analyst with 2+ years experience --> PE associate than these direct PE analyst promotes. The ones I know who started in PE are far slower, can barely model after 2 years (given associates generally run the models), and frankly have a chip on their shoulder in thinking certain work is 'beneath' them / not working late. 

There were a few exceptions of amazing PE analysts I've worked with, but overall, the banking to MF associates I worked with were far better than the direct promotes. 

Have worked at a top bank and am working at one of the pe analyst programs mentioned in this thread. I think a key consideration when recruiting for and interviewing with the major analyst programs is personal interest in the firm’s investing style. For example, even among two similar firms (Silverlake and Vista) there are significant differences. Silver lake invests at all levels of the capital structure in TMT companies. Vista invests only in Enterprise Software. Reading about these firms and speaking with investment professionals will help elucidate these differences. Being able to articulate a genuine interest in their specific style will make you a stronger candidate than those who just say “i’m interested in SL bc i like technology.”

Nothing new here, just saying I agree - funds with more established analyst programs are best given the training/culture oriented around mentorship (i.e. places that are used to having analysts around, expectation of having to teach or guide, etc.).

Wouldn't worry too much about comparison vs. associates coming from IB once you get to that point. What you included about your profile puts you in line with PE analysts who end up being successful. You get the chance to cultivate the investor mindset earlier, get used to the fund's way of thinking, etc. Developing skills around the more mechanical aspects of the job (modeling, analysis, etc.) will come down to your individual effort. Put the time in, reap the reward; you'll have a leg up if you have the right mentality (nothing is beneath you, understanding what's important to learn, putting yourself in position to get exposure to the high-impact aspects of the job, etc.), so it's up to you to choose which mold you want to grow into.

Similar to the above posters, if comparing top IB to random MM buyside role, then go top IB. Not buyside, but your opportunity set for buyside roles from top IB will be immeasurably more plentiful than if you want to make the transition coming from another random buyside shop.

One other thing to add that could be important (not mentioned by other posters) - some funds will recruit analysts out of undergrad with the intention of promoting from within. Some firms (e.g. JMI, Alpine, Vista to a certain extent) will be much harder to access, even for associate roles, due to their entrenched belief that uniform cultures are best cultivated by having folks start from the bottom and work their way up. If you happen to have identified funds with strategies/styles that match up with what you want to do, then try to reach out or otherwise do research to see how they think about building the team. The shops in this category that I know off the top of my head are all good landing spots, so if you want to go HAM on those opportunities for your post-undergrad role, then it would be time well-spent. This is really the only category of fund where going through an IB analyst program would decrease your chances of landing at that shop for your associate stint. 

I think it’s more about what you want to do as a next step in your life/career. If you want to invest in private equity then just go do that especially if someone is going to be pay you to do that for them :). If you want to go to IB and all that then go for it. Maybe just getting clarity on what you want to do with your time may help. Good luck. Best wishes 

Following, interested in this.

Incoming 2024 summer analyst at a growth shop. Looking to be more active on WSO lol.

I recommend talking to previous interns / current analysts / asking intelligent questions to HR / your interviewers regarding what your responsibilities will be during the recruiting process. This shows the team you are legit and value where your skills are being put to work, while showing them your knowledge of what investing work entails, as long as you do it intelligently. This will give you a strong sense of what you will do for training and day-to-day. Browse through LinkedIn to get a sense of if analysts are getting promoted, and if they leave, where they are going. This will give you a sense of the level of training, and how it is viewed amongst competing firms. If you see Analysts out of undergrad getting promoted to Associate at a top MF / GE firm, and / or leaving to competitors, regardless of your view of IB vs. PE out of undergrad, clearly the training is top notch and puts you right in line with all top IB candidates. Every junior role at each fund is different, and despite the notion junior level buy-side training is not as strong, I would strongly disagree if you look at some of the top PE / GE firms and how many stay, and if they leave, are they going to the same caliber fund. 

While cracking into high finance is ultimately the goal, you are still a young person looking for a job. If you believe the fund you are speaking with does not align with your goals / desired investment strategy / desired career progression, take the IB stint. In my case, I weighed IB vs PE, have constantly found myself asking internal questions much more aligned with investing rather than advising, thus leading me to pursue a goal of striving to be a strong investor as quickly and best I can. I have never understood the argument that someone would take a top IB stint to learn modeling and be worked into the ground (meaninglessly at times) rather than mentorship / learning what investing really is from a small team of experienced, successful investors. You can improve your modeling skills on your own, whereas not everyone possess the mindset, outlook, thought process, and desire to be a strong investor you can start developing right out of college ahead of your peers.

All being said, I think this only holds true for only top MF / Growth shops (some growth junior roles MUCH better than others). I completely agree taking IB instead of straight to MM PE, as this keeps your options open and leaves you with the room to grind and go to a top fund.

I am a junior in college and this is just my view to date. I understand I have much to learn.