Edit
……………………………………………..
……………………………………………..
……………………………………………..
……………………………………………..
……………………………………………..
……………………………………………..
Trending Content - Private Equity Forum
Career Resources
I was in one of the top BB groups as an analyst, so know about many of the different firms processes from my own experience and fellow analysts.
There are a few ways to think about the difficulty of an interview process:
1. Convincing headhunters to put you in front of the best PE funds
2. The difficulty of the technical interviews, model tests, and case studies themselves
3. The chances of getting an offer even if you can do well in the interviews, which basically takes into account the other candidates you're up against
Hardest: Apollo, TPG, H&F, Blackstone
You have to fit certain criteria (School, Bank, Group, GPA, SAT / ACT), represent yourself well, and have a strong understanding for their strategy relative to the other megafunds for the headhunters to put you in front of them. Of the megafunds, these four in particular seem to be the most picky as far as the schools and banks they hire from. They're also known for very technical interviews with many rounds. Also have to consider that they are simultaneously interviewing tons of other pedigreed candidates for only a couple of offers to go out. During my year for on-cycle, both Apollo and TPG were known for bringing in an immense amount of candidates and holding them in waiting rooms.
Hard to blame these firms for doing this, as they need to sort out candidates who are all overqualified, and the only way to weed people out is through very intense interviews.
Very hard: Centerbridge, Oaktree, Veritas, KPS, Other MFs
The distressed PE firms are known to have super technical rounds, given the nature of their work. Also can be hard to prepare for these distressed interviews because it's not apart of the traditional PE prep materials most people use. Veritas was another place which was known to have tons of interview rounds a very technical process.
Generally, the prestige of the firm tends to be in line with the difficulty of their process. Although, some firms seemed to have surprisingly straightforward processes from conversations with fellow analysts. On-cycle can be a bit random and there's rarely a one size fits all. I'd focus on knowing your technicals cold, having a deep understanding of the firm's investing style and recent deals, and recognizing that a MF offer is far from guaranteed.
Not sure about TB or SL, but the other firms you noted are going to have very tough interviews and a limited number of seats. There are tons of great PE firms out there outside of the Apollo, KKR, TPG, Carlyle funds that you always hear about in the news. I'd encourage you not to become too attached to those roles, as I saw many of my fellow analysts strike out and become bitter because of this mindset.
Good luck and try to have some fun in your last semester while you're at it.
…
…..
To answer your questions
1. While I could name funds that give you the "best chance" the truth is that its a long shot to land a MF seat, even for your average GS / Wharton candidate. Every year tons of threads pop up with candidates obsessed with getting a MF offer. The hard truth is that even from GS TMT/FIG or Evercore, the median exit is not a megafund. I'd focus more on what type of investing you want to do, and choose which fund to interview based on those criteria.
2. On-cycle usually lasts for a few days, up to a week. You can interview with several firms during this period, but would think hard about whether you are prepared enough to participate. Be careful about showing up to 5 different interviews totally unprepared and burning bridges with the headhunters.
3. Almost all of the megafunds will fill their classes during on-cycle. Every year there is a sprinkling of vacant positions that get filled in off-cycle for various megafunds, but those are brutal processes where the odds are even more heavily against you than the on-cycle process. Consider that for off-cycle, a MF will take weeks in a drawn-out process, interviewing anywhere from 30-50 analysts to fill a single associate position. Although, every year a couple of MFs choose to sit out of on-cycle and run an independent process, like recently when Silver Lake announced it was too early for them.
TLDR is its a hard pill to swallow, but you will most likely end up in MM PE. It's where almost everyone lands. Not because of your lack of ability but because there are only 100 to 150 megafund positions and thousands of qualified analysts who are recruiting.
I don't recommend this, but one aspect to consider is sector preferences when recruiting.
The most popular sectors for analysts when recruiting are technology and consumer. Tech because its exciting and consumer because they are businesses you know and interact with.
The least desired sectors among analysts are FIG and Healthcare. You typically only see FIG analysts going to do FIG PE, and the same for healthcare. Whereas tech and consumer have analysts from all sectors recruiting for those spots.
So there's a compelling argument that if you are deadset on a brand name megafund, your best chances are through the least desired groups like FIG of HC.
But seriously, would echo the message from those above. MF seats are rare and your chances are low to zero depending on your bank and school. Was at one of the top groups at a BB that college kids salivate over on this site, and my class only had 10-20% placement into megafunds. Do you know why you want to do MF PE? Or is it just the next most prestigious path that you hear everyone else talking about? There was a great thread recently where someone perfectly describes the grind to get to a MF:
Thinks its helpful to step back and consider if you truly are passionate about investing, versus if you just want to impress your friends by saying you work at BX / KKR / TPG / Carlyle
Some of this info isn’t quite correct. For example, multiple rounds. Off cycle yes but on cycle there really is just one “round” plus a convo ahead of time which often is not super technical. But varies based on firm.
Also, APO I find is not super picky on school mainly just group and technical ability. Whereas HF are massive prestige whores (not meant in a derogatory way). But generally agree at a high level
What backgrounds are the top HFs looking for? Can you get there from UMM PE or is it strictly MF programs
Before you decide you want to pursue megafund private equity, first see where the analysts in the years above you exit to. Even among the groups that consistently place the best on the street, MF PE is going to be a longshot.
If your group doesn't consistently place analysts into MF PE, focus on some of the UMM or MM firms that they do exit to, and start to think about which of those firms you would be most interested in. PE firms aren't likely to take huge risks on hiring, and its easy for them to hire from groups where they have historically recruited from.
The firms you will have the best chance at converting into an offer are where you will have connections via your school, bank, group, etc. The whole on cycle process wraps up quickly so its very important where you decide to spend your time.
Apollo is fucking impossible.
Elliott Private Equity has a notoriously difficult interview process. 10+ rounds as they are only looking for the sharpest
Congrats on Elliot PE lol
Can you elaborate on this or are you shit posting?
I got an offer from here and ended up taking a MF offer instead but recruited at ~5 other UMM / MFs given it was offcycle. It was was probably the hardest or second hardest process out of those I went through.
They asked less standard technicals and more unique questions - i.e., one interview was spent only on applying a niche accounting rule (which I wasn't expected to know, but they wanted to see how I'd think through valuing different businesses under the framework) and another was centered around how I philosophically thought about businesses (hard to explain without doxxing myself, just a very unique type interview)
Based on their investment track record, they should maybe subject their deal partners to those same interview questions.
1. Show up prepared for headhunter meetings. Treat them as seriously as an interview. Its cliche but they are truly the gatekeepers to this whole process.
2. The firms with the most difficult or technical interview processes are going to be the expected household names (KKR / TPG / Apollo), as well as many of the financial engineering-focused firms who typically play in distressed or special sits. Examples would be Oaktree, Silver Point, Centerbridge. Firms that hire consultants and focus heavily on operations will usually be more case-driven for interviews, like a BainCap, Berkshire, or New Mountain.
3. Several existing threads on this site which will explain in more detail but LBO modeling, paper LBOs, technical prep, knowing your deals, the PE firm's investing style, and a view on a few of their portcos are typically areas of focus during interviews.
You can expect PE interviews to be significantly more difficult than banking interviews, because of the wider breadth and technical rigor of the processes. However, they are manageable if you remain focused in your preparation. I think many people show up to interviews having done the minimum preparation needed to perform okay, but its those who went the extra mile that tend to stand out. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between those two buckets after a few interviews with a candidate.
Following
Out of the group you mentioned, Apollo had the hardest.. they are known as a sweatshop and you need to be prepared for that. They also have the best catered lunches out of all the companies on your list if that's part of your consideration.
Following
Completely anecdotal but from my analyst class that did on cycle this year consistently heard the hardest processes were: TPG, Apollo, Advent
……
TPG and Apollo notorious for difficult interview processes
Doesn’t come as a surprise
Advent is pretty standard. Quite commercial / consultancy focused though so maybe a bit harder for bankers
does anyone have advice for approaching on cycle without a traditional banking background. I did my junior year summer at a multi-strat hedge fund's HY credit team but didn't get a return. Post-Grad I'm going to be joining another HY credit fund but I am interested in on-cycle recruiting. Is it even worth my time to try? Do I even have a shot at getting an interview?
HHs are primarily focused on BB / EB candidates. You’re going to have to give a very compelling case for why they should let you interview if you’re looking to recruit for MFs
If you go to a target, I think it’s doable provided you represent well in the initial HH meetings
How hard is the Thoma process? I have heard its not that bad and much more fit focused
Centerbridge
TPG and Apollo
What makes TPG and Apollo processes so difficult? Keep seeing them mentioned here
Both will be very technical and require an understanding of valuation and business quality outside of what you see in the standard interview preparation guides
The sheer number of people they interview during their process creates an added level of difficulty
Even if you do the adequate prep, answer everything correctly during interviews, and know why you want their firm specifically, you are still likely to get dinged
Can’t speak to Apollo but for TPG it’s sheer numbers. For whatever reason, they choose to interview what I think is an excessive number of candidates. Think over 100+ interviews to fill one seat. And they play all the games too with the waiting, makes me wonder why they think it’s a good use of their IPs’ time haha. At a different MF whose process was thankfully very transparent.
Because of the difficulty of the associate experience at any of the MFs, interviews will be very difficult.
The level of rigor and output demanded from MF associates is going to be greater than even the toughest of IB experiences. Firms understand this and therefore need a lot of certainty regarding the candidates they bring on.
For LMM / MM firms, where there’s a path to promotion and usually a less demanding overall experience, firms will focus more heavily on fit in interviews.
UMM will fall somewhere in between these two on the spectrum.
PE firms are controlling for different qualities in their interview process. Apollo, TPG, H&F, and KKR want pedigreed, execution machines who can bear immense stress and extreme workloads.
Smaller funds with a culture focused on retaining associates will be more focused on fit because those are the future mid levels and seniors of the firm in their eyes.
First Alaskan Capital Partners
Apollo, Silver Lake, KKR, Warburg
Second this.
Apollo: more than once was asked pretty bonkers brain teasers, game theory and math questions.
WP: very intensive interviews. Random verbal case studies across various industries that there’s no way you would be prepared for but they say “ask me for whatever you need” and you need to talk through it live, including rough returns attribution.
Just look on 10xmultiple and judge for yourself. Apollo and TPG look brutal.
Anecdotally have heard that Center Bridge has a really tough process too
Dolor enim ad atque autem ea. Cumque est nihil aperiam doloribus error. Dolorum culpa corrupti consequuntur laboriosam esse. In placeat et fuga sequi.
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...
Illo voluptatem velit dolores suscipit quae. Dolorem id unde ut et et at similique.
Aut quasi aspernatur nostrum perferendis et laboriosam. Omnis omnis sapiente qui distinctio. Quis modi delectus voluptate architecto temporibus voluptatem quos. Maxime error assumenda dolore voluptates beatae cum eos in. Animi necessitatibus voluptate vero et ipsa.