Is PE making us... stupider?!
Clickbait title intentional (sorry). I worked in consulting before PE and am of the camp that found it intellectually stimulating and engaging. I mention that because it provides a different foil against which I can compare PE (as opposed to banking, like most in the forum).
In contrast, I find this job to be focused on procedural items - even the modeling - that I feel like my ability to think critically is atrophying. In my mind, most of these deals are about ticking a nearly endless list of boxes or running through myriad scenarios, and not so much about deep critical thought.
Does this resonate with you, or do you see it differently? If you respond, please indicate the extent to which you think your fund's strategy informs your answer.
Consulting bills by the hour so there is a bias towards endless discussions/slides of ideas that will never get implemented. It's always a bit of a culture shock when a consultant switches to a job that prioritizes results.
Success fees certainly haven't helped IB either. Sounds too familiar lol
mbb does not bill by the hour lol it's a flat fee for X weeks of work with (ideally) a well-defined scope
if there's endless discussion of ideas without a resolution it's usually bc the client has no idea what they want. there's going to be a final recommendation regardless at the end of the project - at that point, it's up to them where they want to go with it
prioritize results, but who cares if that result is good or bad right? you get 5+ years before anyone realizes your incompetency lol
With regards to the '5+ years' comment
I believe the incompetence from consultants is actually immediately clear to most junior folks. However, this almost unspoken (unless to other junior professionals) because consultants are hired for a different purpose.
As many of you are aware, the consultants are brought in to validate an existing idea. In almost every instance I have worked with McKinsey (the experience may differ with another firm), the analysis was vastly incorrect (whether it's opportunity sizing or operational improvement) but the mistakes overshadowed by a loud and glossy presentation. Even while working with them on operational initiatives they had proved themselves to be utterly useless, unless the task involves doing a lot of obnoxious talking during board presentations.
I have had a very distasteful experience when working with consultants (from a work quality and personality standpoint). They present themselves as extremely confident but they have provided almost no value for the ~$100K weeks they charge. However this is just a part of working in private equity and you will need to work with consultants very often, whether on new deals or portcos. Just want to be set expectations for junior folks in PE that will scratch their heads thinking 'How can someone be this incompetent' during their first encounter with an MBB firm on the buyside.
I understand this will ruffle some feathers. I welcome any and all feedback if anyone has a different view, and otherwise welcome the monkey shit from the shy wallflowers in the room. Curious to hear your thoughts.
A part of that compensation can be deferred as a % of the private equity firm's ultimate returns at exit.
Not that it guarantees any difference. Sometimes, consultants just suck.
OOOooof, sucked punched OP right in the gut there
I get where you're coming from. I do enjoy the job generally, but PE is still very process-driven. Less about thinking creatively or solving new problems, more about checking the boxes and repeating the same sorts of analyses over and over. I don't think that my fund's strategy informs this answer very much, as my peers who work at different funds tend to feel similarly.
Thanks, I think you've better articulated what I was referring to. I am feeling that without problem solving or creative solutioning, I am losing my ability to generally be sharp. At the same time, I realize I am becoming quite quick with the process-driven pieces. My fear is that, if I am not interested in a long-term career in PE, the atrophy of general "sharpness" will be a detriment long term. Do you have any thoughts? Any general reaction would be appreciated.
I don't think it is the issue of atrophying in an absolute sense. Rather, your peers working on interesting problems are continuing to grow which complicates things on a relative basis... and you'll probably leave this industry at some point regardless
Success fees certainly haven't helped IB either
You’re taking a very narrow view of private equity investing, try to think outside of your initial associate responsibilities. The underwriting is important but only ~3 months of a 5 year investment. Once you’ve assessed the opportunity and gone through the process bs required to actually make the investment, strategic planning becomes the focus of the job. Depending on the management team, you may need to really stay on top of the company so the your investment doesn’t fall into a game of “catch-up”.
Half my time this past year was dedicated to portfolio company management - liquidity planning through C19 uncertainty, analyzing new service verticals and geographies we should get in, buy vs build and assessing management’s ability to execute, executive recruiting, etc. That’s where you can really separate yourself. Any IB monkey can run an lbo model.
Huge props for using the word myriad correctly.
Huge props for using the word myriad correctly.
I feel similarly. I worked at a more long-term private investment shop before switching to traditional LBO PE and found that to be extremely fascinating (spent a ton of time thinking about where to invest and how to win). This game (trad. PE) is very process-oriented and I'm left truly wondering if I'm becoming a better investor. I've been mitigating that by forcing myself into more high level conversations and spending time thinking about every single deal I'm exposed to, to the ~sometimes~ detriment of my immediate work product. I'm not sure if this is the best long-term strategy, but I'm hoping I'll build both the process skillset I need as well as the ability to think like an investor. This is definitely requiring more hours than it should; however.
My experience in LMM PE has been pretty different than what you are describing which seems to be a hallmark of UMM / MF buyout. I think the primary difference is that in LMM and in VC / growth equity, returns are driven by growth as opposed to financial engineering. This drives a strategy that is a lot less process oriented and a lot more market evolution / thesis oriented.
My fund is a sector-focused fund with pretty concentrated, often proprietary deals. Usually, we do thesis development in advance of deal sourcing and so there is a lot of problem solving, market thinking and thesis development work. We also have a number of former consultants on the team in both junior and senior positions so it helps that there’s diversity of thought.
The job will inherently have more process, scenarios and disciplined diligence than consulting will because it’s not a thought exercise for a client but rather a tangible investment decision that you have to own. However you may find more what you’re looking for in the investing world but outside of UMM buyout.
This sounds like something I'm more interested in than UMM/MF PE. What do your hours/comp look like?
Sorry don’t use this app too much so mistakenly didn’t reply to your comment but rather posted my answer below in reply to the OP
Hours prob 40-60 on lighter weeks and then 60-80 on live deals (even more variable during COVID with some weeks lower some weeks higher). Smaller firms means more live deals, but on the flip side we don’t chase as many broad auctions so live deals to closed deals conversion is high and maybe it’s not much more live deal time than other firms. I’ve probably had 30-40% of my overall time on live deal sprints and closed 5 platforms and 5-7 add-ons over 3 years.
Comp started at ~$225K first year and then increased by ~$30K per year. Now senior associate and am at about ~$350K with carry. Honestly more money than I can spend and the time to actually do stuff with it.
Other big pro is culture and work dynamic. Genuinely like the people I work with which you can’t say about most people in this industry. Plus there is a track record of the partnership promoting people who execute and spreading carry dollars to strong performers, which is a critical but underappreciated factor to look for in picking a long-term seat.
This is a solid gig - is this in NYC? That comp level is pretty great for LMM.
No it’s in a tier 2 city (Boston / Chicago type city)
In vanilla LBO, the bigger the fund the more process focused you will be unless you're very senior.
Like another poster above pointed out, LMM gives you a lot more full circle responsibility because you simply can't afford to have as many people tackling a deal. This means you get a lot more exposure to work that requires deep critical thinking VS process/execution.
Yes, I find that this job is a lot more process-oriented than I believed it would be going in. In fact, I believe the process-oriented tasks overshadow any 'critical thinking' aspect. I came from banking and would say that it's slightly more engaging but probably not as open-ended as consulting work would be. I believe the ideal role would blend the critical thinking aspect with hands-on experience - to avoid pushing lofty ideas while maintaining a sense of purpose in your work
OP here. I agree with you. I think you put it well. What roles do you think offer what you are describing?
Quis deserunt alias voluptas ea nulla necessitatibus. Sint atque perferendis sit quam quis. Quia quo quae odio quam sed. Ullam natus et enim vel hic vero.
Occaecati nulla quia qui quae. Facilis numquam autem corporis eos incidunt.
Perferendis quia quia suscipit odit ut similique. Est rerum consequatur animi quod rerum veritatis. Impedit qui sunt et doloribus. Rerum voluptas quia non iste. Officia cupiditate vero sed odio adipisci reiciendis qui.
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...
Non illo quas culpa itaque aut ullam blanditiis. Deserunt maiores rem vero illo fugiat et eos. Nostrum assumenda ut dolorum beatae. Libero et quos corporis nobis quo. Nisi perspiciatis aliquam nam sapiente nisi ut.
Amet libero sapiente sit. Voluptas aut nostrum non qui fugit. Laborum cupiditate delectus cumque inventore magnam veritatis minus quo. Architecto repudiandae dolorem delectus possimus sed molestias doloremque.
Dolorem et ratione et praesentium. Perferendis quo porro quo provident aut. Accusantium dolorem consequatur quia odio neque. Iusto numquam rerum excepturi modi rerum fugiat aliquam. Rerum dolore ut adipisci excepturi maxime nemo ut. Quia sunt voluptatum cupiditate dolorum reiciendis occaecati sapiente error. Laudantium repellat quis ipsa quis cum qui eum.