MF, UMM, MM, LMM, Microcap Definitions By Latest Fund Size
MF - $20bn+ latest flagship fundraise, prominent legacy, historical prominence, selectivity
Upstart MF/High Tier UMM - $15bn+ latest flagship fundraise, often "upstart" tech investors (TB/Vista, etc)
UMM - $10bn+ latest flagship fundraise
MM - $2-10bn latest flagship fundraise
LMM - Sub $2bn latest flagship fundraise
Microcap - Self funded, raising capital on a as needed basis, etc
FYI TB latest fund was 24B
upstart new money tech investors
Makes sense for the most part, but the UMM/MF thresholds seem a bit high - by the above definition, we would classify the likes of TPG ($12bn latest fund), Bain Capital ($11.8bn fund), and Apax ($12bn fund) as UMM?
$2-10bn for MM is also a very wide range. Agree on $2bn as a lower bound for MM, but would say $8bn+ makes a fund a definitive UMM+.
TPG is ~$16bn including healthcare sidecar fund, and simultaneously raising HSD billions across Rise and GE funds. Wouldn’t lump them in with Bain and Apax here
Believe this thread is focused on only the flagship buyout fund sizes, so wouldn't loop in the growth equity / climate / infra / etc. funds here.
"TPG's ninth flagship, TPG Partners IX, closed on $12 billion last December, falling short of its $15 billion target, according to PEI data."
https://www.privateequityinternational.com/side-letter-tpgs-semi-liquid….
Also need to consider geographies - for example Blackstone is global, TPG is US and Europe, Bain US only (with separate Europe and Asia pools)
TPG is a MF due to historical prestige/legacy, Bain and Apax are indeed UMMs that some people think are new entrants into the MF club just because of bloated ZIRPy fund sizes in the past few years
I'm on the LP side and anything south of $1b is LMM, north of a $1b is MM, anything north of $5b is UMM and everything else is a MF. Plenty of LMM funds are micro cap as they'll do small deals and put further $ in over time (this is Shore's model to a large extent).
Bucketing like this can only be logically done if one has a goal they intend to use the buckets for.
For example, if it is to rank attractiveness of job offers, ceteris paribus (i.e., effectively which firms are the best overall resume boosters), then your ranking would be different than if it is “best role to take if you are solving for something that could be partner track with opportunity to maximize comp doing primarily late stage tech buyouts” (former might be kkr/bx/h&f (even though hf much different firm than other 2) whereas latter vista/tb/Bain). On the other hand you may be seeking to categorize firms into buckets of, like, similar firms / firm archetypes, which would be a whole new taxonomy of something like large diversified investment firm (kkr/bx/apo etc); large buyout firm (hf/cdr/gtcr/lgp/veritas etc); MM buyout firm ($5b fund); LMM buyout (first institutional ownership).
I think the ranking presented in the OP is meant to more closely approximate the “resume booster” concept, and in that sense is probably directionally correct (e.g. ceteris paribus, I would prob favor someone with kkr experience over gtcr experience), but not sure that the ceteris is ever paribus enough to make this sort of taxonomy all that useful, other than that it gives WowCaliberTalent a boner.
Bump
I'd argue lmm starts at $1b and under not $2b
Enim illo velit quo repellat et earum delectus. Sit nemo quasi reprehenderit voluptates.
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...