Prioritizing Firms for On-Cycle
Current AN1 here, I saw a comment saying to prioritize 3-4 firms since on-cycle is so short. That being said, which of the below firms would you prioritize? I'm looking for late stage buyout (UMM), and NYC is my preferred location though open to other geographies for a great opportunity. Any insights into why you'd prioritize each (ex. not 2-and-out, culture, perks, etc) would be very helpful as well. Please feel free to correct me if any of my pros / cons are incorrect.
Berkshire Partners (Pro: culture?; Con: Boston)
Charlesbank (Pro: culture, not 2-and-out?; Con: JAMMBO)
Veritas (Pro: Pay; Con: 2-and-out, sweaty)
New Mountain Capital (Pro: Not 2-and-out; Con: Sweaty)
TPG Growth (Pro: MF; Con: MM, sweaty?)
TPG Climate (Pro: MF; Con: Infra)
KPS Capital Partners (Pro: Not 2-and-out; Con: sweaty? formal [suit and tie every day]?)
BDT & MSD (Pro: Culture; Con: Pay? Location [Chicago, NY goes off cycle I believe], merchant bank model)
Stonepeak (Pro: Prestige; Con: Sweaty)
Brookfield PE (Unsure pros/cons)
Oaktree PE (Unsure pros / cons)
GTCR (Pro: Not 2-and-out; Con: Chicago)
HIG (Pro: Not 2-and-out?; Con: Sweaty, MM)
Blackstone Energy Transition Partners (Pro: MF; Con: Sweaty?)
Leaning towards NMC, GTCR, KPS, and Veritas. Would you absolutely avoid any of those? Any that I should add?
WIll caveat this by saying I am at a UMM buyout firm that isn't 2 and out, and am a bit biased towards buyouts + firms that promote from within, as that is what I was looking for. I would figure out what your priorites are and then go from there. If helpful, my priorites for UMM's would be something like NMC, GTCR, Veritas (pretty sure they aren't 2 and out anymore; but are extremely sweaty), Genstar, and LGP.
First thing I notice is that there are a few sort of odd ones out : TPG Climate and BX Energy seems biggest odd two with it's only climate + infra related name, so would cross that out first unless you want to do climate / infra for the long-term (in which case, would make them my priority firms and call it a day). Ditto for TPG Growth (only growth name on there) and Stonepeak (add this onto your two climate name lists if you decide you want to do Infra). If you want to do corporate buyout PE, those are all the first ones I would cross out.
After that would think of three things: 1) how much do you value the opportunity to stick on after your associate stint, 2) how much of an interest do you have in non-NYC (relevant for Charlesbank + Berkshire + BDT + GTCR + the TPG names, which I think are primarily in SF) and 3) what kind of investing do you want to do. Once you answer all 3, think you then have basically effectivelly narrowed down your list to 4-5 names (which IMO is the ideal # of firms you want in your top-tier for on-cycle).
For 3) would think if you want to do more low multiples / turnaround like a KPS or HIG) or are you more interested in something like a Veritas or GTCR (bigger, thematic, platform-oriented plays). That’s really a personal preference as to whether you want to work with trying to turn good businesses into great ones vs. turning bad businesses to good ones. Just personal preference there in temrs of strategy and what kinds of companies you are interested in.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
I don't necessarily want to do infra, but included the 3 infra names as HHs have shown me them and ik they have good reputations. Have heard infra is generally sweaty and more technical, which again isn't necessarily my #1 choice.
As a side note, how much sweatier really is Veritas? It feels like every PE thread I click on, anytime someone names a firm someone comments that it's super sweaty. So how do you differentiate between the worst ones and those that just have grinds during deal sprints?
Veritas is sweaty relative to their UMM peers, that’s really the distinction. On infra, I’d think seriously before going that route; once you’re in infra it’s tough to pivot back, and even a TPG/BX infra associate is typically a weaker Senior Associate / VP candidate for laterals than someone who did corporate buyouts. It also shuts down doors in the sense of corporate portco work in other sectors for instance. If you want to do Infra, those are great platforms with great reputations, nowhere near as relevant as some of these other names if you want to be in other sectors. On the staying-on point, I wouldn’t cross that off just because you’re not top bucket right now, especially if you’re only ~6 months in, given how early it is. Funds that aren’t strict 2-and-out generally invest more in developing associates because they actually want people to stick, which often translates into a better experience and broader reps IMO.
Finally, I would really encourage you to think about what you actually want to spend your time on. If you’re more drawn to growth-ey business, that naturally pushes you toward certain buyout seats and away from deep turnaround/industrial work unless you’re genuinely excited about that toolkit. Prestige is fine, but it fades quickly if the day-to-day isn’t aligned with what interests you. You’ll learn more, perform better, and probably have a better experience that fit your interests if the strategy matches your interest, I have been told that’s usually the biggest differentiator between people who enjoy the associate stint and those who burn out.
Are you also looking for MFs or choosing UMMs by choice? Feel like HH outreach to top candidates are for MF and top UMM. Same candidates getting KKR, APO, CD&R will be getting GTCR, Veritas
All of those are solid but if you're getting all those looks might as well also consider MF
UMM's offer less of the pure 2-and-out model, cleaner promotion paths (growing platform means they need more people), more room to actually stay and build as funds scale, and way less bureaucracy than being inside a massive MF with multiple asset accumulation strategies.
Yes, a few private MFs offer similar setups, but more UMMs reliably check all the boxes. If you’re optimizing for a long-term PE career instead of treating associate as a finishing school, UMM makes a lot of sense IMO: you still get meaningful deal reps, but with a higher probability of getting real responsibility earlier, building internal equity, and riding fund growth instead of waiting behind hordes of people across 15-20 years of large associate classes.
You keep optionality on exiting down market either way, so for a lot of people it’s simply the best risk-adjusted path for staying in the game long term rather than brand-maxing for two years.
Completely agree this is what I was thinking, especially re: optionality either way.
I haven't been shown many MFs, likely because of my non-target school or mid-tier bank. But I have been shown many of the funds on this list.
Glad helpful threads like these exist in this forum in the sea of all the threads about how much BoFA / UBS suck and what GPA you need for on-cycle. Super helpful to see how someone in the industry thinks about how to prioritize funds and what funds are doing well or not. I am not sure I prioritze the same things as the associate above, but still helpful color.
Tell me why I know exactly who this is just from the networking events lmao. Best of luck!
Boston is a con now? Damn...
Adding some insights to the ones I’m highly familiar with
HIG is extremely sweaty
GTCR is extremely sweaty (and Chicago lol)
TPG Climate is mildly sweaty but overall good culture. You will get good buyout experience (disagree with some other users in this thread) as they have raised a huge amount of money in the past 2 years and are deploying. But yes there’s a new infra fund within Climate and associates can get stuck working on those deals vs. broader climate
TOG Growth in NYC was fine the past 2 years but I think has become more sweaty due to some team move arounds
They might get buyout experience but it's still going to do worse for laterals compared to someone at say GTCR given the added climate nature. It's not a traditional buyout firm, and that reflects in what lateral opportunities you have as well as what corporate opportunities you have. As I stated earlier, in terms of leaving to corporate companies you will be much better served in a traditional PE firm that gives you exposure to more sectors as opposed to just the climate related ones.
Tangentially - currently a BB lateral hire AN1/2 arriving 1Q25. What could I expect from HH outreach? Should I still expect HH emails to my inbox, or have you OGs been getting emails /been on lists since AN1 training? Not very familiar with how HH find contacts.
Do the Chicago UMMs do on cycle in NY or would you have to fly to CHI? Anyone have experience with GTCR / MDP?
MDP is in free fall: lots of internal fighting and their new fund is around half their previous one. Linden and Vistria have larger fund sizes than them now in Chicago. Eventually reputation will catch up to their fund size.
I was told Chicago funds would interview in NY with everyone else
Dolor in qui tempore. Eum autem est neque placeat eaque vel libero. Iure facere quam minus maxime qui veniam et.
Maxime perspiciatis rerum vel nobis. Harum autem illo veniam neque est nesciunt. Dolore accusamus numquam voluptatem tempore quo eum. Eaque labore eos quo. Inventore nisi occaecati sint quia doloremque et dolore. Et est repellat omnis doloremque. Ut suscipit minima eum rerum pariatur.
Ut repellat est soluta culpa amet sit. Sed nesciunt similique veritatis nisi qui sit molestiae qui. Et animi ad nam aut non et itaque. Iure odio facere nobis.
A enim commodi rerum voluptas labore iste. Non molestiae molestias recusandae aspernatur. Voluptatibus similique eius autem enim sit.
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...