Do you NEED IB for 2 years before PE?
Hey Folks,
Here's the situation:
- I have a full-time analyst offer to a top BB in their top IB coverage group.
- I have late-round interviews with a MM PE firm + a recently founded PE fund with some industry-famous founders and partners.
- There are 2.5 weeks for me to make a decision on my return offer to the BB.
Here's my question:
If you jump to PE as an analyst, would you be underprepared?
Background worries:
I would be learning the majority of my technicals on the job or during senior year. I would work at it because I'm scared as hell of messing up early in my career. That said, the PE funds have pretty good training programs. I just wanted to know whether it's foolish to give up an incredible IB name-brand for an early entry into PE, where I might not be fully ready.
make sure u r set on doing PE. banking is often a good place to find out what you really like.
I would take the IB offer. Neither of those PE offers sound like once in a lifetime opportunities.
IB will let you decide what exactly you want to do, have tons of recruiting opportunities down the road, and importantly have a top brand on your resume which will benefit you for many years. You will have a million MM/early fund PE offers, and you will have some time to figure out what makes sense for your career.
Also even if those programs have good training, it's more than likely not even in the same ballpark as the training of 2 years of IB. Let's be clear - PE isn't rocket science, it's not like you're going to fail at being an analyst or not understand it without IB, but there is still a large benefit to starting in IB.
Echoing above, take IB. No door will be closed to you when starting off at the kind of bank you’re alluding to. IB will provide you with a more broad skill set. It gets shit on a lot here but I’ve noticed the majority are either college kids or analysts and Im not sure they understand how much of a leg up they have in corporate america vs their peers. IB prepares you for anything more or less.
Nah, I didn't and I work with/know plenty of other folks who didn't either. It's the "easiest" (most straightforward) path for sure to the execution side. If you wanted to start in sourcing there's plenty of opportunities out there. Tread your path, just learn a lot and make sure you know your technicals from side practice.
I would say a "pro" of joining PE directly from undergrad is that you are indoctrinated extremely early on in your career to an "investor mindset", which honestly is a big hurdle for some people coming from banking and transitioning into PE. I've directly seen good bankers fail the transition into PE because the jobs, in all honesty, are very different.
Who is a “good banker” as an analyst?
I would completely agree with some of the above comments. If you're sure PE is where you want to go then go to PE. IB gives you the largest number of options and you get a chance to learn what you may want to do. I only wanted to be at a HF coming out of uni, but after going through a BB IB program, it changed my mind. Do what you think is best for you but IB will always give you the most options.
I'm in a somewhat similar position. I have an offer from a UMM PE firm and am weighing that against applying for FT in IB. Of course, I do not have an offer in IB yet, but with IB + VC + PE experience and good grades from a target, I figure it should be possible to get an offer from a BB. Here's some of my reasoning.
IB:
+ Brand name that exists outside of finance. Except for being good for the ego at social events, this could prove helpful if I want to go into corp dev.
+ You are certain to get a structured training program.
+ You get more time to try out things and figure out what you really want before deciding what to do in your long-term career.
- I did not find IB fun at all. It had its moments, but 95% of the time I did some really boring shit. Do I want to spend 2 years in my 20s working 16-hour days and doing stuff that is boring as hell? After all, 2 years is a pretty long time, especially considering that it is 2 years in your 20s, which are supposed to be the best years of your life.
PE:
+ Get to start out in an investing role directly, which is much more interesting and intellectually stimulating than the braindead work you often do in IB.
+ You get better at the actual job. Some people seem to think that 2 years in IB makes you a better PE associate than 2 years in PE. I don't buy it.
+ In my experience, PE is more flexible with hours. You might work the same hours at banking, but you can control them better. This allows you to actually have some kind of life outside of work.
- If it is not a very large PE firm, there often is no structured training program. As such, it is your responsibility to ensure that you learn what you need to learn. Very different from IB, where you pretty much learn automatically over time.
- You narrow down your path early on in your career. While it might still be possible to go from UMM to MF PE, it is probably more difficult. The same likely goes for corp dev and similar. Happy to receive more input on this point from others.
I would recommend PE if those famous partners and founders are offering to take you under their wing and be a REAL mentor to you. That is priceless compared to monkey work at banks
Non vel corporis non vel facilis soluta. Et dolore iusto necessitatibus enim sed libero qui. Neque rerum fugit excepturi quis. Voluptates repellat sint error.
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...