MF Private Credit vs. Traditional IB

There’re a bunch of threads on this exact topic already, and the general consensus (and my personal view) is that it depends on how much you care about doing MF PE down the line. You’ll be better set up to do MF PE coming from a top traditional IB role than a MF PC junior role. But what WSO doesn’t seem to understand is that your chances of going to MF PE might be like 15% from top IB vs 5% from MF PC. Those numbers are made up, but it’s not like an IB role is going to guarantee you go to MF PE by any means, like people on this site sometimes imply it will. The odds are still very low. MF PC is basically the job that everyone else wants. The hours are typically fewer than PE, the pay can be extremely high, and there can be a lot more diversity than a strict MF PE LBO mandate in the type of deals if you’re at a fund that invests across the whole credit/mezzanine sphere. But again, if you want MF PE, top IB is the way to go.

Everything above is really more for the difference between full time juniors. Considering only an internship, I would recommend taking the MF PC internship because there is a high chance that you could land a very good IB full-time offer if you decide you don’t like MF PC. The opposite is not true. MF PC summer spots are far less abundant than IB spots are and they signal to banks that you’re probably an impressive candidate. Now, it could mean that you end up at a slightly “worse” bank than your original summer IB offer, at least by WSO ranking standards. So I would consider the caliber of IB you have your offer from. But the difference in caliber probably won’t be significant unless you put no effort into full time recruiting. If you go on LinkedIn and search for people who summered at Bain Capital Credit, BX Credit, etc. and didn’t come back full time, none of them went to crap banks full time. They all went to top programs, as far as I can see. Anyways, just some thoughts from someone in the industry.