IB -> MBB -> PE
Incoming SA at a good shop and thinking about the different potential paths at the beginning of my career. I'd ultimately like to work in PE longterm (have done internships at UMMs and found it interesting), but I've noticed that amongst the associate classes maybe only 1 in 5 get the promo to VP. If my goal is to build a differentiated skillset where I come in as an associate with 2 yrs of IB and then 2 yrs of MBB would this actually make me a materially stronger associate than my peers that have done only 2/3 yrs in one discipline. Idc about essentially being an analyst for 4 years, my goal is to maximize my odds of having a long career in PE. Is this a waste of time lmao or does this idea have any merit. Thanks!
Edit: Would also see working at an MBB as a strong alternative to getting the traditional MBA that many PE associates get after their 2 years (get paid instead of having to pay, learn a lot more than what you would during an MBA, strong network, and similar "quality" signaling)
No -- promotion is based on performance on the job + luck (fund performance, headcount needs, etc)
Doing 2 extra analyst years will not help you with this.
If you want to do MBB, just do it out of undergrad and then recruit straight to PE (this transition is harder than IB, but doable if you are motivated)
Thanks for your response, I understand/agree that having that background alone wouldn’t determine whether someone gets promoted. I think my real question is this: does combining the strong execution and finance foundation from IB (which you don’t typically get at MBB) with the analytical and business strategy foundation from MBB (which you don’t typically get in IB, from what I understand) make someone meaningfully more well-rounded and ultimately a stronger associate?
Or in practice, is there actually more overlap between the two roles than it seems, making two analyst stints somewhat redundant? Alternatively, does it not matter much because any gaps are filled quickly once you’re on the job?
No, this is silly. To answer your question, yes I think most of the gaps get filled on the job. An extra two years won’t meaningfully add to your skillset and will just make your resume look confusing and require you to explain a lot more in interviews
The biggest things you learn as an analyst are basic professional skills (excel, ppt, emails, etc), as well as modeling in IB.
If you are really concerned about skill development, spend three years as an analyst at the same place before moving to PE.
In general you’d be better off just learning in PE and being OK with a longer time from Asc to VP.
That’s very helpful, thank you!
I actually think this combo is pretty interesting. The challenge is moreso actually landing a good MBB seat after IB since lateral hiring has historically been rare, except in bull market times.
If you’re willing to put in the 4 years, I think this profile would be quite valuable. The IB experience gets you up the PE associate learning curve quickly (where most consultants struggle), while the softer skills and strategy work from consulting benefits you more in mid-career PE (where bankers had less exposure).
You’ll also inherently be a more mature and polished candidate versus a bunch of 22 year olds interviewing right after college.
Omnis facere ut minima similique et quibusdam voluptas. Nobis natus sed sapiente debitis aut veritatis. Possimus quo ullam laudantium minus ad.
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...