Tier 2 GE or Top SWF (Direct, Not Co-Invest)
Title is pretty self explanatory. Would you take a direct investing role at a brand-name SWF or a traditional GE role at a Tier-1B/2 growth firm?
^I don't actually believe in any tier systems, but it is a helpful way to contextualize the type of firm I'm referring to.
This is pretty dependent on what you actually want to do, both are excellent spots to land so think about your personal interest instead.
SWF is a pretty chill lifestyle and people tend to stay - there are sometimes culture differences / difficulty moving up the ladder if you're not from the country of the SWF
GE also a great gig but many firms are heavy on juniors doing a lot of sourcing. If your job is more sourcing than modeling that may limit your exits to traditional PE
I'd personally take the SWF but either role would be a great place to land
Want to be in tech growth equity long term, so not too worried about buyout exits. I'm trying to handicap the likelihood of raising capital for a small growth firm after spending a few years (hopefully doing excellent work) at a top SWF. I wouldn't expect to stay, so my main motivation is the possibility of raising a fund.
Highly unlikely. Even if you are doing amazing work, your competition for first-raise funds will be guys in their 40s/50s with decades of experience, often at blue-chip PE funds... hard to compete when you have a few years at a SWF where things are a hell of a lot easier vs at a small fund that has to truly raise capital and answer to investors in a way you won't experience at the SWF.
In this case I'd take the GE role, cruise long term in that industry, and start your own fund down the road
Thanks for the advice!
SWFs always scare me long term. Glass ceiling for foreigners or requires moving to the home country
not really sure what tier 1b/2 GE firm refers to...but I'd say there are way more GE firms with better "brand" than SWFs. If you want to do growth long term, this feels like a no brainier. SWFs can be a sweet gig if that's actually what you want to do long-term, but I wouldn't go to one with the focus on exit opps.
It was more just referring to the strength of the team. For instance, this would be a different calculus if it was a pretty weak growth shop. I’m leaning toward the growth route.
Agreed with posters above mostly, but would note your answer would depend on what you're looking for. Going by your title, at your stage in life its probably better to prioritize learning and branding, so if we're talking like an AKKR vs. a CPP / GIC, I would pick the former if I were you. Again, if its very sourcing heavy that might not be the best, but I think is the better pick if you want more reps on modeling and diligence.
Going to a SWF is more of the final exit opp / lifer move for many people. WLB is pretty good alongside $ / hour, but you'll likely see less reps as you're not really getting grinded as much.
This is coming from someone that works on the Directs (and some Co's) team at a SWF (but I'm also in my late 20s)
Ea laborum assumenda voluptas sed. Voluptate sunt rem accusamus. Ut omnis non molestiae debitis.
Ut vitae et sequi quas. Maiores voluptatem quia dolor voluptatem aut error expedita blanditiis.
Quas est animi fuga necessitatibus qui et. Vitae accusantium sint repellat quaerat earum. Eveniet repellat expedita nihil. Tempora ipsam non eius dolor voluptas dolorum tempora. Ut quis vero dolor qui.
Expedita sit nihil et est est minima. Ratione aut debitis adipisci nihil qui doloribus.
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...