I wanted to see if any other monkeys had any insight into how to go about communicating an interest in a strategy to HH for the on-cycle recruiting process for PE. Elsewhere on this forum, people have mentioned it's really important to be clear about what you want in the on-cycle PE process. How important is it to be specific about strategy within private equity (and even within specifically buyout strategies) when talking to the HHs? I'm interested primarily in the UMM/MF space, but within that there's definitely some variation within how the shops in that space pursue assets. For example, one could say they are interested in a more value-oriented approach that doesn't shy away from hairier, stressed/distressed situations and another strategy may be focused on buying industry leaders and focusing on a growth thesis.
Is this something that an analyst should have a great grasp on and communicate to a headhunter? Doing so would seem to limit the types of opportunities that a HH would want to send your way since if you were to indicate the former, that would perhaps preclude you from interviews at funds such as H&F, KKR, or Bain (just spitballing - not trying to say this is what those firms definitively do) that are more willing to pay up for what they view is a good business. To take one step back, it seems a bit premature to make such a judgement that early on in a banking stint anyway, so do headhunters even take that kind of statement seriously at all? Really appreciate any insight into this. Any advice on how to best communicate interests generally is also helpful.
Yes. The more articulate about the differences in fund strategies (and the more articulate you can be about describing WHY you want to work at a particular fund given their strategy), the better. HHs will ask you point blank what funds you are most interested in. There is a great opportunity to illustrate and prove to them that you've done your homework on various funds, understand their nuances and that KKR operates differently from Warburg (just an example), and get them to view you favorably. HHs force rank candidates for each fund; while the ranking is similar, each fund receives a unique list with differentiation in rank often being whether you'd be a good fit/understand the fund's strategy) (the score/ranking consists of a host of factors; this is one). All that said this is a fast process and it's really only enough to get you the interview at these funds. Funds will also ask HHs directly, "How likely is Candidate X to accept our offer?" and you give the HHs more confidence to say "well Candidate X was very vocal about strongly preferring your fund strategy vs. Fund Ys, so I think he'd accept." This last point is more applicable to off-cycle given the speed of on-cycle, but it still applies.