Is MM PE a smarter move than MF
It seems like ever making partner , or really even beyond associate for most people, is nearly impossible at a MF, so would it not just be smarter to take a smaller mm and have the chance to make partner? Plus, isn’t the economics and valuation aactually better on mm deals?
Depends what you want. I've gone into this in length before, but the pros and cons of both, IMO:
MF:
Pros: Most optionality post associate stint, best bschool placement, best brand names, better comp
Cons: Rarely upward mobility, generally more structured program (less responsibility, more like a banking analyst role), less portfolio company exposure, larger deal teams, worse work/life balance
MM:
Pros: More responsibility, smaller deal teams, more exposure to portfolio companies and management teams, generally better work/life balance (though there are exceptions)
Cons: Less brand name when it comes to bschool placement, less optionality when it comes to laterals/etc., lower comp usually
Probably are more that I'm forgetting right now.
This is pretty spot on. The one caveat I would add is that once you get onto a partner track, the attractiveness of the opportunity is very nuanced and case by case.
Once you're past the first third of your career, you really need to be thinking 2, 3, 4 moves ahead on the chessboard. Where is the firm growing, what does your team structure look like today and what will is evolve into as time passes on, is there a niche you can grow into owning over the near to medium term, how old is your group head and his lieutenants, if he's not that old is he THE guy who will soon step into a much bigger role within the firm thereby opening up room for others, is one of the young partners a rising star and will soon splinter off to lead an adjacent strategy and so you want to align with him/her to position yourself as their #2 when that happens, etc.
Accordingly I could paint scenarios where a seat at a MF is an epic opportunity (joining the recently launched and super active BX growth strategy for example), or incredibly uninspiring (e.g., becoming VP #4 under 5 principals, 4 partners, and 2 young co-heads doing rusty industrial LBOs at Carlyle). In a similar vein there are MM or LMM seats that are incredible long-term opportunities and others that are thoroughly pedestrian.
It's all very nuanced and case by case. Early in your career there's lots of "you can't go wrong either way" scenarios, later on the details and nuances matter much more. So the hard and fast is this very broad catageory a better seat or is this other very broad category a better one is not the best framework IMO.