Is this normal for smaller PE or is something actually wrong here?

Few months into the year and I already dread going in. Not the normal deal stress, more like this slow background weight where you start questioning if you're overreacting or if something is actually broken.

On paper it looks fine. Mid-level investment role at a founder-led Nordic PE platform, roughly $1.4bn AUM, "impact" strategy, decent market visibility. First fund raised during COVID, respectable size, but if one is being honest most of it came from the founder's personal capital and immediate network. He is extremely wealthy so the close was not exactly a real test of institutional demand. Looked like a strong result externally. Internally it never felt that way.

Since then things have not gone the way the fundraising deck suggested. Two follow-on raises, both struggled. The second buyout vehicle is sitting at roughly a third of target. That is not a rounding error. And still, nothing changes structurally. Same people, same seats.

The culture though. That is what has really shifted. Constant friction between geographies and partner factions, lots of positioning, decisions getting made in conversations you were not part of. Meanwhile deal flow is suffering and the people actually executing are stretched thin. Nobody talks about that part.

And then there is IR.

The Head of IR has become probably the most powerful person in the firm after the founder. Not formally, but in practice. She controls the external messaging, she shapes how results get presented internally, she decides who gets credit and who does not. If you are a partner trying to build your position, her view of you matters more than your deal track record. That is not an exaggeration.

What is remarkable is that her influence keeps growing regardless of outcomes. Fundraising targets missed, teams under pressure, investor questions getting harder — the role does not shrink. It expands. She has effectively also gained the ability to influence which deals move forward and which do not. I have seen situations where transactions were deprioritized not because of investment merit but because they did not fit the narrative she wanted to present to LPs. Think about that for a moment. Your Head of IR is shaping the investment pipeline. At a PE fund.

And there is another layer that is difficult to address openly. The Head of IR and one of the senior partners responsible for a key geography have a relationship that goes clearly beyond professional collaboration. Joint travel, expensive dinners, hotel stays, all expensed to the fund. The kind of arrangement that in any properly governed organization would need to be disclosed at minimum. It has not been. LPs are not aware. Nobody raises it internally. You learn quickly not to ask questions.

The proximity to the founder is also unusually close and stable. It survives missed targets, headwinds, internal tensions. Most roles in a professional organization are in some way exposed to performance. This one appears not to be.

For a firm at this AUM level the IR and platform function is something like five people. Then you have the whole impact team on top of that, because impact fund obviously, and that is before you count the various advisors and consultants floating around. Add it up and the people not doing deals comfortably outnumber the ones who are. One has to wonder at what point that becomes the product.

People keep leaving by the way. Not dramatically, just quietly. Mostly mid-level and junior investment staff. The bench is getting thinner every quarter and nobody seems concerned.

Carry situation is also worth mentioning. At my level you are required to purchase carry and make a fund commitment for tax structuring reasons. So you write meaningful personal cheques while sitting below market on cash compensation, with no liquidity events anywhere on the horizon. Pure cash basis I am worse off than before I joined. And you are supposed to be motivated by the long-term alignment.

I don't know. Step back and the picture is not encouraging. Partner infighting, a narrative-driven power structure, fundraising that keeps missing without any accountability, platform bloat, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and the investment team getting smaller while everyone else grows.

It does not feel like a healthy institution. It feels like something slowly drifting.

So I am genuinely torn. On one hand the chaos means I am getting deal responsibility and exposure that I would probably not get at this stage at a larger fund. On the other hand I am not sure that experience counts for much if the platform itself is deteriorating.

Is there a rational argument for staying short-term and leveraging the exposure? Or is that just how you talk yourself into staying somewhere that is fundamentally misaligned?

And honestly, is this actually normal in smaller PE once you look past the branding? Or is this what it looks like from inside when something is slowly falling apart?