FoF Primaries Final Round Case Study

Hi everyone, I have a final superday with a large FoF for their primaries position for an associate role. The final in-person case study involves looking at the materials of two funds and choosing which one is the better investment opportunity.

Does anyone have any tips to best prepare for something like this? Appreciate any help!

15 Comments
 

How'd it go? Any advice on the types of Q&A you got? I'm approaching a similar situation myself (direct lending to FoF Primaries) and my superday is next week. Shoot me a PM! 

 

Have not done a primaries case study before but worked at an FoF. High level areas to look at when comparing funds (assuming they follow similar strategies and geo).

  1. Historical track record (gross and net returns; volatility of returns across funds and within funds; ability to exit and DPI)
  2. Fees
  3. Team size, structure and, incentives
  4. Value creation approach
  5. Fund size increase vs previous; capital efficiency (do they deploy their funds fully)
 

Thanks that's super helpful. In terms of the following:

  1. Assuming we'd prefer to see lower volatility in returns within/across funds? i.e. returns are driven by consistent high exit investments rather solely aggregated on 1 or 2 investments
  2. How much the fund charges I'm assuming? Which then affects returns to the FoF
  3. Makes sense
  4. How would one usually go about diligencing this?
  5. Is it necessarily a good sign if fund size is increasing between each raise? What would be healthy in terms of evaluating fund size changes?
 
  1. Don’t want to see a lot of losers and big winners bailing out the portfolio (better to have 10 2.5x returners than 5 zeros and 5 5x returners). A lot of what we do is also integrated (e.g., concentrated portfolios have higher risk if one deal goes wrong but you need a larger team for more deals).
  2. Yes, some people don’t charge 2 and 20 but also super carry (25% carry e.g.)

    4. The easiest is to just try and assess if they have a value creation approach (i.e. operating partners) versus just buying companies and slapping leverage on them and wait for it to make money. There’s not a lot of science to this

    5. You want to see some fund size increase but not too much (question is if they are changing the strategy to keep growing and accumulating AuM; e.g. do they need to do bigger deals which they haven’t done so not consistent in terms of strategy)

 

Pro tip for someone who's done this and got the job (then moved to direct PE many years later): you will wow them if you know a few things: 

  • Recent vintages will show a lower multiple because the deals haven't had time to accrue value. In general, the multiple of a recent vintage will be significantly lower than that for an older one. The way you then figure out whether it's a good vintage or not is spend time with the deal teams and look at the underlying companies' performance
  • Check any team changes. Are they showing promotions internally or do they have lots of turnover right before partner? Does a (founding/managing) partner hold a lot of the economics? Are they able to develop talent? Have they lost any important partners and then the attribution of performance is more questionable?
 

Thank you! Appreciate your insights here. In terms of evaluating fund performance, would you tend to give more weighting towards older vintages for evaluating performance given more recent ones will have lower returns? 

 

It's quite simple: I started in the PE team of a large European pension fund, where I worked for ~3 years. Went for an M7 MBA in the US, recruited into the PE / CDD team of an MBB and then recruited into a MM tech firm (at the time; now joining the big boys leagues). It helped being in Europe where being older is not held against you, also the genitalia was the right sort 

 
Most Helpful

A very nuanced response is needed. Most likely, the recent deal activity reflects the likeliest investment environment, the current team, strategy, etc. It will be quite common that for very well-performing funds, the vintages increase in size significantly though. So Fund I is $200m, Fund II raised 4 years later is $400m, Fund III is $700m and now they're trying to raise Fund IV for $1.2bn. 

Are the deals done in Fund II really representative of what's going to happen with a fund 3x bigger? On the one hand, yes, if the team is consistently the same (look esp. for partners / true deal leads) and they are following a similar strategy ("we've always done tech but scaled the types of companies we look for"). 

But on the other hand, it's an awfully big difference between sourcing deals marketed by a one-man shop in Chattanooga, vs. Jeffries. Skillsets can be similar but also subtly different - you gotta win in real auctions now, and compete much harder. 

So: look at history and see what you can extrapolate. Should be an evolution that's natural (usually not crazy fund size increase / same-ish team / similar sector coverage / "we began doubling down on the sector we saw our best returns in") vs. forced one way or another. 

But you will need to take a view on the performance of the recent vintages, and here is where:

  • Having a vintage comparison is helpful (hence why they give you 2-3 funds to look at) because it tells you how they're doing vs. the cohort. No way about it: 95%+ of funds vintage 2021 will be crappier than the prev one
  • Spending time with the deal teams to understand latest vintage potential is critical. They'll tell you whether Company A is hitting its bookings target or kind of soggy, whether they've had any surprises vs. initial case, whether they underwrote some crazy stuff in there ("ah, yeah, so we underwrote doing $3m of EBITDA of M&A at 6x but the market now trades at 10x because of all these other rollups...whoops"). 
 

Voluptas a soluta debitis. Ullam rerum accusamus quisquam voluptatum et eum et. Reiciendis sunt quis omnis iusto eos.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.6%
  • Blackstone Group 99.2%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.9%
  • Warburg Pincus 98.5%
  • Bain Capital 98.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Private Equity

  • Blackstone Group 99.6%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 99.2%
  • The Riverside Company 98.9%
  • Ardian 98.5%
  • Starwood Capital Group 98.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Private Equity

  • Bain Capital 99.6%
  • The Riverside Company 99.2%
  • Blackstone Group 98.9%
  • Starwood Capital Group 98.5%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Private Equity

  • Principal (9) $653
  • Director/MD (24) $547
  • Vice President (98) $365
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (104) $281
  • 2nd Year Associate (235) $272
  • 1st Year Associate (411) $229
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (33) $157
  • 2nd Year Analyst (97) $134
  • 1st Year Analyst (272) $124
  • Intern/Summer Associate (38) $81
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (355) $62
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
9
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
10
Mimbs's picture
Mimbs
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”