Best UMM Seats
What is the best overall UMM seat factoring in fund performance, comp, perks, prestige, B-school placement, deal experience, and upward mobility? Would anyone take any of those over a struggling MF (European MF or one with bad returns)?
Share specific stats (i.e. LGP and New Mountain $15bn recent fund, $340k first-year ASO comp etc.)
Seems like the best are LGP, GTCR, Berkshire, New Mountain, Francisco and historical names THL, MDP, Am Sec, BC struggling
How does Lindsay Goldberg compare with only 30% of fund size compared to LGP and New Mountain but seeming similar HF exits?
I’m personally very impressed with GTCR latest performance.. If I were given the opportunity I’d probably pick it over more than one MF as of today. And I believe you forgot HIG too, some really sharp/creative (you get the point) people there
Best overall UMM seats right now are probably LGP, New Mountain, and GTCR—strong platforms, real growth equity exposure, and comp pushing $325–$340K all-in for ASO1. New Mountain’s got great performance and sends people to HBS/GSB consistently.
Francisco and Berkshire also place well, but lean operationally heavier. GTCR is more thesis-driven with great partner development.
Lindsay Goldberg has a solid rep for culture and HF exits, but fund size ($3–4B vs. LGP’s $15B+) and platform depth make it less scalable. You’re not doing badly there, but LGP and NMC are still a tier above on brand, deal flow, and comp.
If the MF is truly struggling (e.g., performance, culture, or brand erosion), I’d take a top UMM over it. Exit and mobility > name only.
Genstar
How does Genstar compare with the other funds listed on prestige, B-school placement, and deal experience? Know that returns have been stellar and fund size is top-notch. What about comp?
Following
The best UMM for ability to get promoted and have a lucrative career as someone joining as an associate today is not New Mountain (and that fund may not even be considered ”UMM” today) - the answer would have been New Mountain five years ago and you could’ve ridden the wave of what it has become - that’s why this is a hard question to answer. This website has such a bias towards recent headlines and extrapolating past performance but you need to skate where the puck is going. You want to find the place with good training and lean smart team with headroom to double/triple/quadruple fund size while you climb the ranks. Not saying NMC isn’t a great firm, but next 10 years probably look very different from the last 10 as an ambitious young professional. So many people on this site are so prestige-focused and risk-averse that they think you can join a firm with golden pedigree, big recent fund, and that somehow also means it’ll be the next big thing in ten years. Spoiler alert: 99% of the time that’s not the case and you don’t strike it big without taking risk. Fund growth gradually slows and then the climb becomes a hunger games of ass kissing and working like a dog to win a limited slice of the economics over a longer and longer path to the top. Sometimes there are exceptions of storied funds that end up growing (e.g., GTCR, CD&R a decade ago) which might be closest thing you get to best of both worlds but they could easily have gone the path of underperformance, stagnation and dysfunction like AmSec and others and neither firm was as prestigious ten years ago as it is today. All I’m saying is if you want to do your two years and go to business school or public markets then by all means pick the biggest, shiniest fund, but if you want to build a lucrative 30 year career in this industry, focus on identifying the next Genstar, New Mountain, etc.
This 100%... usually raising a significantly larger fund means that the firm is going to underperform the next ~5 years vs historical (when looking at avgs). Of course some funds buck that trend, but it's the exception based on what I've seen.
But look it's also not a bad move going to a fund w/ a ton of freshly raised capital as an associate or VP, do a bunch of deals, and then evaluate where you want to be after that point.
This. WSO users are typically extremely risk averse and gravitate towards what is universally seen as prestigious rather than critically evaluating themselves which funds are the best for career opportunities
Definitely agree with these points. I'd personally go for the shiniest UMM role during my associate years, spend a few reps learning UMM deals, and then trade in my pedigree for a growing fund (LMM - MM), do my best to outperform, and see an accelerated promotion timeline to VP / Principal.
Placeat repellendus quis consequuntur maxime. Qui et sequi ipsum numquam ab. Cupiditate ut consequatur corporis pariatur qui totam. Illo laborum qui quod doloremque labore ipsam illum.
Quisquam distinctio architecto nemo nemo fuga omnis sit. Voluptas itaque dolorem nihil qui.
Laudantium vero ut reiciendis et voluptatem. Ipsam accusamus laboriosam quibusdam optio voluptas odit.
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...