IB/PE Training for LO

Hi all,

I am a rising senior fortunate enough to be deciding between going to an IB that is considered to be a strong group here on WSO from an exits/technical learning perspective, and an offer to a well-respected long only fund which I worked at previously and at which I really enjoyed my experience.

I was wondering for those who now work in publics and who did so after a standard 2 year IB/PE track, how much would you say the “training” in IB/PE helped you in your job? Are you more “technical” than your peers who didn’t go through this track, and relatedly, a better investor?

I am primarily focused on whether jumping straight into publics would make me less competent from a technical perspective, and relatedly whether the “technicals” learned in IB/PE is even particularly transferrable/relevant on the job in publics. I will not be getting formal technical “training” at the long-only, while in IB there will be 1.5 months of general and group-specific training to begin with. Basically, I'm worried on how much missing the supposed "training" you gain at IB/PE will make a difference.

As a side note, I am not particularly interested in IB/PE longer term, but would be willing to do the 2 years depending on the training point above (if relevant).

Thank you!

3 Comments
 

Based on the most helpful WSO content, here's what you need to know about the training differences between IB/PE and a long-only fund:

Training in IB/PE:

  • Technical Skills: Investment Banking (IB) and Private Equity (PE) training programs are known for their rigorous technical training. This includes:

    • Financial Modeling: Building complex financial models, including DCF, LBO, and M&A models.
    • Valuation Techniques: Learning various valuation methods such as comparable company analysis, precedent transactions, and discounted cash flow analysis.
    • Excel Proficiency: Advanced Excel skills are honed, which are crucial for financial analysis.
    • Industry-Specific Knowledge: Depending on the group, you may receive training specific to certain industries or types of transactions.
  • Structured Training Programs: Typically, IB programs offer 1.5 months of general and group-specific training at the beginning. This structured approach ensures a solid foundation in technical skills.

  • Exit Opportunities: The technical skills and experience gained in IB/PE are highly valued and can open doors to various career paths, including hedge funds, corporate finance, and more.

Long-Only Fund:

  • Experience-Based Learning: At a long-only fund, the learning is more experience-based rather than structured. You may not receive formal technical training, but you will gain practical investment experience.
  • Focus on Public Markets: The skills learned are more focused on public market investing, which may include fundamental analysis, portfolio management, and understanding market trends.
  • Enjoyment and Fit: If you enjoyed your previous experience at the long-only fund, this could be a significant factor in your decision. Enjoying your work can lead to better performance and job satisfaction.

Considerations:

  • Technical Competence: If you are concerned about technical competence, the structured training in IB/PE can provide a strong technical foundation that may be beneficial in the long term.
  • Relevance of Skills: While the technical skills from IB/PE are valuable, consider whether they are directly relevant to your long-term career goals in public markets. Some skills may be transferable, but others may not be as applicable.
  • Career Goals: Since you are not particularly interested in IB/PE long-term, weigh the importance of the technical training against your enjoyment and interest in public markets.

Conclusion:

If technical training and a strong foundation in financial modeling and valuation are important to you, the IB/PE route may be beneficial. However, if you are more focused on public markets and enjoyed your experience at the long-only fund, it may be worth considering that path, even if it means less formal technical training.

For further insights, you might want to explore more threads on WSO related to career transitions and training experiences in both fields.

Sources: Public Finance IB to PE?, Public Finance IB -> Corporate IB, IB Training v. PE Training, https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/investment-banking/public-finance-into-investment-banking?customgpt=1, People in IB: What is your socioeconomic upbringing and how did you initially gain interest in IB?

I'm an AI bot trained on the most helpful WSO content across 17+ years.
 
Most Helpful

Congrats! Having experienced all three, I would say the benefit is only marginal as 70%+ of your work in IB will be more process/deal quarterbacking (and turning comments) which are helpful for learning how to be a diligent employee but not at all for being an investor.  I would say PE is a better training ground as the modeling/diligence is much more intensive and your bosses are real investors so have more to teach in that department. You also get to see the operating side (board meetings especially).

However time and time again, a lot of ex-PE folks struggle to acclimate to the public markets. Only a few of the frameworks translate directly, and the vast majority are learned on the job. The reasons to go this route are 1) more pay (though not on a per-hour basis) 2) presumably live in NYC while young 3) close bonds with your analyst class who you can grow careers with 4) prevent you from ever having the "what if" syndrome that I felt like easily fall into 6) learn the deal/M&A skillset which translates well to corp dev/finance roles. However if you do go this route you risk 1) health issues from working so hard 2) not doing what it sounds like you really want to do 3) having to re-recruit in an industry where seats are limited.

I personally find the LO route to be much better that IB/PE for satisfying intellectual curiosity with incredible autonomy and much better WLB. Cultures are also much less toxic and pay is fantastic over the long run. No regrets making this switch.

 

Hic labore ad eum similique ducimus velit. Et sit tenetur dolor.

Error et ut maiores voluptatem. Ut nostrum non dicta inventore laudantium sunt.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.6%
  • Blackstone Group 99.3%
  • 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) 99.3%
  • 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 99.3%
  • 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
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
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...”