I'm a senior with a solid GPA going full time at an RX EB next July that has history placing in UMM PE firms and Megafund credit shops. I'm really interested in going into MFPE and was wondering if there is anyway to even place there given that there is no history from my firm into MFPE. My group seems super supportive of analysts leaving after two years and I've heard stories of them pushing for kids, but I really want to know if there is anything I can do in advance to prep for On-Cycle. I know this may seem super hardo, but it feels a little disheartening as there are so many posts on this site saying that you have to be at a super top EB/BB to place.
Should I try to network at all? Or should I just be making sure my paper/excel LBO's are strong. Any advice is appreciated.
Somewhat curious what EB RX does not place at MF? Also, from working across from them, UMM really isn't that bad long-term unless its Lone Pine or bust for you
Realistically, every place but PJT.
Sure, EVR places a lot to Apollo and HL has placed to Apollo, but going into RX if you want to do MF PE is not the ideal path
Fair, but here also might be some selection bias a lot of RX people just want the credit exit or want hybrid PE. Additionally, You could even argue that PJT doesn't really place at MFs that consistently when you strip out the Apollo and Blackstone (PJT heritage) exits. From there it's just a lot of Centerbridge with the rest going to credit shops or hedge funds. UMM really isn't a bad result, the idea that any group is just full of MF associate exits is silly. That said, I think UMM placement is a good barometer for such small groups of less than 10 analysts. EVR recently placed Leonard Green, Veritas, Gamut, HL at Providence, Gamut, etc.,
Fair observation, though more self selection than quality of candidature
Group is really important in oncycle and networking won't help you in MF processes. Unfortunately there are just so many kids with amazing GPA, target school, great behaviorals/technicals - it's just splitting hairs at that point, especially with early oncycle when everyone has nothing to talk about. Given near equality of candidates on paper MFPE is still going to pull from the groups that they historically pull from, as they know what type of training and experience to expect with an associate hire from the same groups they usually take from.
Paper LBOs take about 10 minutes to learn, if you have some time especially in spring semester to learn case studies/more in depth excel LBOs it's not bad to get started on that. The technicals and cases are really just check the box though, anyone doing oncycle from a top group probably can get through a case study.
If your group has literally never placed in MFPE, I would embrace UMM/MF credit so you don't waste your oncycle. I agree with the above, UMM is a good spot to be and you can go to MF later on if you want. If lifestyle is a consideration I would also at least take a look at MF credit since you have time... WSO shits on credit but my friends in MF credit (ex-APO lol) seem to have the best comp/WLB ratio of any job. Not a bad spot for the long-term.
Why is group important? Is it because of the industry expertise you develop, or is it more about the track record/prestige of a group? For instance, is it better to be in GS Industrials (highly applicable to sponsors) or GS FIG (more prestigious)?
I wouldn't say it's about "prestige", more of PE groups knowing what they are getting. if 80% of your top associates have historically come from 4 or 5 groups across the street, you will gravitate to those groups. Similarly, if you've had a few bad or poorly trained associates from certain groups, you won't want to recruit there. If you've never pulled from X top group, you probably won't start recruiting from there just because WSO says it is prestigious.
Industry expertise is helpful, especially in areas where PE tends to become sector-specific (i.e. healthcare or energy) but if your group has never placed to MFPE it's not realistic to expect you will. If you're making the hypothetical choice between GS industrials/FIG you're going to have a menu of options with exits.
So basically doesn't matter between GS industrials and FIG? What if it's one of the balance sheet heavy subverticals like insurance/banks--in that case would industrials be seen more favorably or is industry expertise a secondary factor
Quam reiciendis commodi a dolor. Ratione necessitatibus eveniet voluptatem est. Tempora dolores aut iste exercitationem architecto. In voluptatem vel ducimus dolorem. Hic quia aut rerum maxime velit est repudiandae. Omnis nesciunt officiis autem voluptate numquam corporis inventore. Magni ut id nulla harum excepturi.
Ipsum a id qui nam ab sit voluptas dolor. Laudantium sint et sed facilis. Vitae repellat qui consequatur maxime reprehenderit natus. Odit quo itaque sit nihil nulla repellendus. Ea numquam id veritatis inventore. Qui neque quod rerum dolorem eligendi maiores.
Facere autem nihil qui sunt qui maiores dolore. Non qui magni distinctio. Sit sed natus rerum aut laboriosam. Est minus rerum eligendi vitae porro id.
Quis earum consectetur repudiandae quia expedita praesentium odit. Quas iste maiores minima qui ex sit id. Nihil nesciunt cumque dolores dolorem ut.
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...