For those of you done with recruiting for PE associate gigs, is your position a 2-3 year program (most commonly for larger funds) or partner track (i.e. you can stay as long as you want)?
I'm going to a large fund (upper MM) and I will be there for 2-3 years. There's always a chance that I may be able to stay given high performance, but will likely have to move onto a B-school or other funds.
Anyone?
Your situation is very common. Most shops that I'm aware of have a defined 2-3 year pre-MBA program where the majority of people are expected to leave afterwards except in special circumstances.
There are a decent number of MM funds (20% maybe?) that have a partner track, and the headhunter is typically open about this from the get-go. This type of track has its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand it is pretty cool that you can stay and work your way up through the ranks like people at normal (read: non-finance) jobs and can be pretty lucrative if you do so without having both the cash and opportunity cost of B school. On the other hand, if you do end up leaving your partner-track firm for whatever reason, not having that MBA can be limiting when you are competing for other PE jobs against people with a senior associate / VP background and an MBA. It is kind of counterintuitive, but a 2-3 year and out track may actually be the safer route while the partner track has more financial upside.
Off of the top of my head, I believe that ABRY (Boston), Comvest (Miami), KPS (NY) and dozens of other smaller shops have a partner-track structure. Many HFs are that way as well. All of the big boys in PE have a 2-3 year and out structure.
Isn't it really difficult to jump on to another partner track at a PE firm if you leave the firm anyway? Also, what about if you get part-time MBA at Booth or something while on the partner track? I suppose it will at least open up management level jobs at corp dev groups at F500s. Just my few thoughts.
The common theme among partner track PE seems to be either 1) you joined a relatively new fund or start-up fund that were actively looking for junior people to stay on and build a career 2) smaller fund that is relatively low on senior professionals and has room to add on future principals/partners
The catch-22 is that the bigger the fund, and bigger you get (i.e. firms that are raising larger follow on funds), it is a better name brand and experience for the associates, but they are likely to be staffed up top and cannot economically justify having more future senior professionals and further cut up GP carry. I know many smaller funds in which every VP leaves sooner or later because they realize there is no career potential to move up...
Nice post and no disrespect, but every time I look at your name I chuckle.
Esse aut ea quo et cumque nemo aut. Sed maiores at nihil. Minima magnam natus vel quod dolores est aut mollitia. Illum enim deserunt recusandae et.
Maiores modi fugiat nulla voluptatem consequatur quos. Dolor voluptas voluptatem qui. Voluptas voluptatem soluta natus.
Quas recusandae quia id. Debitis consectetur est quis consequatur occaecati.
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...