KKR's Real estate PE is divided into "asset management" & "investment" subdivisions. Do both of these sub-divisions do 100% "traditional PE" work? Am I right to guess that only the "investment team" does PE work, while the "asset management team" is actually a non-PE form of alternative investment work? What is the difference between these teams?
| +33 | How to Model SaaS Projections for Interviews | 48 | 7h | |
| +23 | European Megafunds (based on PEI 2023) | 17 | 1d | |
| +21 | Partners Group Long Term | 7 | 3h | |
| +18 | Partners Group Comp + Offices | 8 | 6d | |
| +18 | Advent NYC Culture/WLB - 2024 update | 5 | 15h | |
| +17 | How is your life in PE? | 10 | 21h | |
| +17 | Moving from PE Fund accounting to top 3 rating agency | 5 | 1d | |
| +16 | Is on-cycle more or less competitive than regular IB recruiting? | 5 | 11h | |
| +16 | MBB first year exploring PE options | 3 | 2d | |
| +13 | How to Diligence a Newer Firm? | 2 | 23h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Can't directly speak for how KKR operates, but it's more or less consistent with how most REPE or RE arms of PE MFs operate. You're most of the way there - investment and acquisitions sides of the spectrum primarily deal in what we'd call 'PE-heavy' opportunities, while asset management groups deal with current operations and leverage them where they can. AM arms aren't what I'd call 'non-PE' roles by any means, especially at a firm of this size.
It's pretty standard when comparing a generalistic sense of I&A vs AM - the I&A team hunts for potential opportunities, builds future models, and acquires financing for said project. Then it's their job to convince superiors whether or not it's a feasible idea and how to proceed. Immediately, this project will get turned over to the AM team who will then cut overhead, streamline cash flows, and do the actual work of turning the investment profitable.
They're both 'front office roles', but maybe acquisitions would be FO-1 while AM falls into FO-2. I&A is more lucrative, as they're buy-side opportunists who feel the need to seek out and find as many good opportunities as they can, while AM sits in a more managerial role. However, in no way do folks in AM lack the technical knowledge and understanding of how a private equity group works.
Hope this helps.
Thanks a lot.
Does this mean the I&A staff might tend to get more bonuses/carry than AM?
Yep. It's not a direct 'sales' business, but comp is oriented more towards performance rather than a standardized rate. Like any sales-oriented gig, the investments team could make less than the AM team on a down year without a significant deal pool. Generally speaking, however, this doesn't really happen - especially at funds the size of the one you mentioned (and the one I work for... speaking from experience).
Anyone got any intel on London comp?
London is a notch below the US major cities.
Even for US MFs?
Harum delectus et consequatur similique harum magni. Dolor ex qui voluptates reprehenderit.
Omnis consequatur omnis impedit non voluptatem amet beatae. Sed omnis architecto voluptatibus in et mollitia asperiores. Debitis ipsa et voluptatem accusantium est. Id ut perferendis aperiam et temporibus corrupti.
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...