Nobody wants to hire a PE Associate post-MBA?
I am going to H/S/W next year from a name brand PE fund and I started having some introductory conversations with people from different industries on post-MBA careers outside of PE.
- L/S SM HF: "We prefer not to hire MBAs because you are too expensive when we could hire someone from PE" (exceptions being Lone Pine / Viking)
- Startup BizOps: "I can find someone who has already worked in BizOps / startups and knows how to scale a startup already"
- Venture / Venture Growth: "I can find someone who has already worked in venture / venture growth and has worked with and evaluated these kinds of companies already"
Where else does that leave us? This is a ridiculous "the sky is falling" post, I'm aware, but you can read between the lines of the sensationalism I'm peddling to see the kernel of truth which is that PE Associates are no longer "golden path" where you can find a job anywhere because the skillset has become a less strong value proposition. These aren't the days where a KKR Industrials Associate could just waltz into venture growth because the asset class was so nascent that they just needed butts in seats of people who understood business drivers.
Where does this leave us other than going back to PE? And even then, I heard anecdotally that OCR PE recruiting has highly favored female and URM candidates since 2020 (which I think is great, but if you are just playing the numbers game odds are high that PE Associates reading this are white, Asian, or Indian males). What is the future of the everyman PE Associate who wants to change careers?
*Hardos who want to slave away to MD need not respond to this thread, you have plenty of threads already.
Deleted
this, buy side all have undergrad investment pipelines now so why do 2 years in IB?
Well, based on our titles we’re both biased. I left a larger comment above but would start with the fact that most people can’t decide where they want to spend their careers as a college junior. IB buys you time, gives you reps to figure that out whether it’s across industries, company maturities, or products, gives you a great brand on your resume, and pays you handsomely in the meantime.
If you know that early you want to do a specific buy side role, of course, take advantage. But the majority dont have the foresight that you did when you were recruiting in undergrad. I’ll add that “every” buy side firm is hyperbole.
Think you’re understating the value of IB/MBB before going to an “exit” career. Many people go to IB first to get exposure so that they can find what they want to do. On cycle recruiting starting first 6 months on the desk is called insane and undergrad recruiting to PE analyst is a more extreme manifestation of that.
The number of PE analyst seats is still very low and it’s really only viable at select UMM/MFs (in most cases, why would you be a MM PE analyst when you can go to a BB/EB and recruit for MFs?).
IB experience is also very foundational for PE and corp dev, where your job is quite literally to buy (and sell) companies, and will give you direct experience to determine if you even want to do that in your next seat.
Instead of investing heavily in HR and training programs, most PE firms would prefer to outsource that to the investment banks for free.
I came into IB not knowing if I wanted to do growth or buyout. Now that I’ve worked with public corporations and financial sponsors over 1.5 years, I’ve learned that there’s no way in hell I want to work in buyout and I’d much rather work with founders, pre-IPO companies, etc.
Also, what if you become a PE analyst and hate it? Are you getting the valuable modeling or operational experience that you need to move out of the industry? I would argue you have more optionality as in IB analyst.
I’m not denying that this is becoming more popular, of course it makes sense to explore analyst programs if you are certain you want to work in a particular buy side role. but I don’t think it will ever be the norm. In most cases I still believe that IB -> PE/HF/etc. is better for both candidates and buy side firms.
My friend went to INSEAD with a Bain background and still got a VC job. It's definitely doable. My school (lower ranked than yours) still sends a few people to good VC funds each year. Don't sweat, just do more networking.
It seems like the responses you are getting are:
a) hypothetical ideal candidates - it will depend at the time that they are hiring if those people can find their perfect candidate.
b) giving you an early heads up that if you prefer one of those paths that you can use the opportunity while at B school to network and take steps to strengthen your experience for growth or VC (except the HF feedback, which sounded like it was just $ but even then some WSB activities I am sure could prove your trading prowess)
People do land jobs in any and all of those industries you just cited. No one is waltzing into any of those jobs, even at HSW. But remember... all you need is 1. I've almost never seen it not work out at the end of the day - especially in this job market.
Just curious, do URM candidates from H/S stand a decent chance of landing a PE/VC role at the larger, well-established funds without prior IB/PE/Consulting experience?
No
Second the no. There are bucketfuls of H/S URM candidates with that experience, and it's literally required for that job because they don't have time to teach you to model.
This is a little ridiculous. URMs now face quickly shrinking funnels for 1) undergrad, 2) IB, 3) buyside, 4) MBA, and 5) post MBA?
when does it stop? when does meritocracy return to the job market?
Nothing is as easy as it used to be, but coming from HWS you'll have shots at all of them. What I would takeaway is that you need to figure out what you want to do and similar to what you did to get into HSW (and likely into banking and PE) tell a good story as to why PE --> BizOps or VC or HF makes sense. You're already going to get a lot of credit from HSW and PE for being bright and able to work hard, from there is just becomes a fairly simple narrative of "I loved PE because it's interesting, I liked working with managment, etc, but what I realized through my work in PE, talking to folks, and now my time at HSW is that I really enjoy the challenge of *insert HF/VC/Tech*. I'm interning with a local startup here in the city and I love the challenge that a Biz Ops and strategy role presents or maybe it's I was an engineering major in college and have a number of small coding projects that I've always loved, marrying my interest in tech with investing, especially in the early stage in product driven companies is a great fit and so on.
I will say that if you've only done banking/PE, I would do your best to be humble and eager in whatever role you get into. There will be some similarities in whatever you do, but the mistake I've seen folks make is thinking that just because they did 2 years at Apollo, that they basically know everything about VC investing because it's less technical. You'd be surprised how much ego or lack thereof, can be impactful when talking to folks about these roles. Figure out what you want to do, craft a narrative, and you'll find it pretty easy to walk into whatever you want to do.
Suspect there may have been a bit of this (not in the sense of OP coming off entitled but in the sense that some of the people OP networked with may have wanted to see more "head over heels" kind of signalling).
OP, I would just say that some of these people / networking contact points may be hoping to see you persuade them than hand it over to you on a silver platter due to your past accolades. I would just say market yourself and if they still do not budge then move on.
Personally feel that MBAs still have some value but suspect that in 10-15 years we may have a different conversation on our hands. At that point, with more and more companies likely to be hiring through college pathways (no data to back this, merely going by what I have seen and heard) the American emphasis on MBA may start to go down gradually. Suspect people will still go for MBAs but then shoot closer to home i.e., go for post MBA opps which are closer to their pre-MBA experiences instead of pivoting at a sharper angle.
In Europe, MBAs don't carry that sort of clout anyway, especially within IB. I think maybe 5 banks (BB, EB etc.) recruit post MBA associates who do not have pre-MBA IB experience. Instead, A2A is more common here and the delta in the demand for Associates is filled by Big4 laterals or people moving from Europe to LDN. Even post-MBA Associates in LDN (i.e., the 4-5 banks that hire the handful associates) have some sort of ER, IB, Big4 TAS experience in a different geography. Not common in EUR to go from being an Account Strat for Ogilvy to Associate at BB after an MBA.
In Asia a lot of people get their MBAs soon after graduating and their career properly really kicks off after the MBA. The pre-MBA experience is often not much and not very creditworthy at times.
This isn't to say you need to be worried. Personally feel that you should have access to most opportunities in Start-ups, VCs etc. but not so much due to the MBA. More so because you could have networked your way into these things straight from PE (something of a hussle but why not). You will be fine - hope it goes well!
Sunt veniam nesciunt quis adipisci. Ipsam quos quia assumenda voluptatem ipsam aliquid minus animi. Dolor eveniet rerum illo cupiditate. Velit repudiandae doloribus voluptatum. Voluptatibus suscipit cum quod tempora. Dolorem distinctio sequi nesciunt alias suscipit repellat similique.
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...