About me
- Top 20 Undergrad with GPA ~3.0 in Economics
- Big 4 Consulting ~2 years (Not an M&A diligence group, classic S&O)
- MM Tech Buyouts ~3 years
- Before school, advised an software company on their $20M Series C capital raise
- Top MBA Program (Interning in Growth Equity)
Can answer questions about:
recruiting with low GPAs, recruiting Big4 consulting->PE, working in tech buyouts, MBA decision (also was waitlisted at two MBA business schools">M7 schools and was eventually accepted to both - so waitlist stuff), looking to growth equity (early stage vs. late stage) after school, or even advising growth-stage companies!
Also, new WSO Mentor if you would like more personalized help,
WSO Podcast:
Member @VincentGambini shares his very unlikely path from a Big 4 Consulting position to a lucrative private equity fund. How he positioned himself at the Big 4 in order to be more attractive to PE firms, a key piece of advice to his younger self and how he got his big break.
I had no help from headhunters. I think they are hired by the bigger firms to find "safe" candidates who match profiles - which isn't a box you are going to be able to check.
This meant that I had to run my own recruiting process, driving outreach to firms, starting with coffee chats and working my way into formal processes. Over time I got a few chances to take modeling tests, run case simulations, and do technical super day interviews - that's where I proved that I belonged in the associate program.
The barrier is definitely higher, but if you can stand out via networking and interview/case/modeling test performance I think it gives you an edge that makes you appear 'scrappy' and like a 'hustler' that can harness that genuine enthusiasm and effort in your work if you are hired.
I think successfully transitioning from coffee chats to formal interviews can be due to timing, and a lot depends on the availability of associate positions at the fund, but usually I found that in a way the coffee chats turned into a screening round for the firms.
For example, a former consultant who is in PE may accept your request for coffee, and you can absolutely begin by asking for help on breaking into the industry. However, at some point he or she will ask for an update on your recruiting process and that's when you show them that you're serious and that you have been preparing for the modeling tests and case studies that you expect are coming. Even better, if you've had any interviews at other firms you can let them know. I think there is somewhat of a snowball effect that can help your cause as well.
On preparation, I definitely was not ready for some of the more intense modeling tests. I used WSO materials to prepare and was 'good enough' to finish paper LBOs, but couldn't do too much else. Where I think consultants really shine is during the take home case studies, and finding a firm that says "Here is a CIM, bring a short deck with your thoughts to the office on Friday to present" is really your chance to showcase your business analyst skills.
I have pretty much eliminated the VC Style growth equity from my desirable career paths. They just don’t get as involved with the portfolio companies and tend to spread responsibilities for performance around a larger and more distant board of directors. I prefer the growth firms that act more like buyout shops and take sizable stakes. I think they tend to be a bit friendlier towards management than traditional buyout shops and have a more collaborative approach.
Regarding the skill sets you developed during your time in PE, do you think they are the same as those gained by your peers at other MM firms or MF firms? To add to that, what are differences in both the work itself, associate responsibilities, culture, level of competency (of group or firm) between these broader buckets of firms (e.g. lower MM, MM, upper MM, growth equity, MF, even VC)? If you've shared experiences with others at your MBA program. Skillset – I think my experience was different from associates who spent time at larger firms (particularly MF) and very different from VC. I think across the LMM, MM, and Upper MM the experiences can be similar, but certain funds will structure their associate programs only slightly differently. When firms get big enough to afford large diligence teams at consulting firms, in-house operations groups, etc. the amount of resources around the team limits the role of the associate into more focused on transaction processing. In general, I think associates in the middle market tend to interact more with portfolio companies, perform more of the commercial diligence in-house, negotiate NDAs (and other remedial admin tasks) and spend less time “getting deal reps,” but when they do, see more parts of the process. The VC experience, outside of very large VC/Growth Equity firms, in my experience is widely variable. At the least I will say that more of a sales skillet is utilized and it is far less analytical.
Also sounds like you tried hard to get off the waitlist for your two target schools. What was that process like / recommended approach for getting off waitlist generally? It can be tough but there is definitely a balance to be struck of demonstrating continued interest in the school, networking effectively, and not pushing too hard towards the admissions team. I have a waitlist “check-list” that I ran at both school where I carefully planned some targeted interaction with key people to help get on the school’s radar as someone who was ready to commit. The schools are really trying to protect their ‘yield’ so they just want to make sure that when they do accept you, you’re going to 100% attend.
How was a typical day like for you at your firm? How involved were you with portfolio companies / post deal work? The portfolio companies that I got involved with grew in number the longer I stayed with the firm. There were 2 that I inherited when I joined and 2 that were deals that I worked on. The level of involvement fluctuated with the projects or circumstances, but major initiatives like a BoD deck or refinancing could involve multiple calls or meetings with management over the course of a few weeks. Typically, when new deals ramped up a lot of that work was pushed off as long as possible, but I would say it was rare to go a full week without speaking with at least a few of the CFOs or CEOs at the port cos.
How were hours at your previous firm (regular/normal, and deal time? Accounting for when your firm had 2 vs. 5 associates)? When the firm was fully staffed it was a solid 60 hours a week pretty consistently, with at least a few hours on the weekend to prep for Monday deal team meetings. When the team was small the hours were non-stop. It got really hard to step away from the computer even for a Saturday afternoon.
Do you think PE trains one well to take on an operational role? Or is it a combination of personal strengths and other factors that determines whether a PE professional can work well on the operating side? Per your interest, had you maybe had a traditional banking background pre PE.
I think so, because I think it is a challenging role that requires not only a financial skillset, but also a consulting skillset, and sometimes a sales skillset. It also allows you to see a Board of Directors operate and make decisions, see how they evaluate CEOs, and how those CEOs divide their time across various initiatives.
I don’t think that a career in PE necessarily is the best to become a CEO, but it certainly helps build a great skillset early in a career.
Posted Twice - Removed
I was worried that with the hectic schedule that I had at work that I wouldn't be very disciplined if I didn't hire a tutor. I met with a tutor about 8 times I think (every Sunday morning) and more than anything it helped me stay on track. I would really recommend doing something similar, especially if you are worried that work will take over too much of your time. I have way too many friends who are in a perpetual state of "studying for the GMAT" and I think without physically spending the money every week on a tutor it can be hard to commit to a deadline.
There are really two dimensions to think about when comparing Big4 consulting candidates against other potential associates. The first is the banking vs. consulting dimension which I have spoken about above, but it is about playing to the firms investment strategy outside of pure financial modeling and transaction processing. This means understanding competitive dynamics, potential to add value, product differentiation, and how to manage or plan strategic initiatives after closing. The other dimension is Big4 vs. MBB firms. At Big4 you probably had more client interaction (due to clients being lower in customer organizations), you maybe were trusted with more senior work because there aren't as many MBAs stealing the show, and lastly, and I think the best pitch - is that when it came to strategic work you're not following a "playbook" as often. MBB firms do so much strategy consulting work that they have a lot more resources to leverage. At a Big4 on strategy work it is probably a new area that the firm is still developing. The ability to work well and successfully in a resource constrained environment is a big value add at a PE firm.
Its always a good plan to try and find commonalities like other former consultants or alumni of your college, etc, but that can be difficult. You can always start with associates, but to be honest they have very little effect on the recruiting process and certainly wont be able to break protocol to pull a consultant into a program with mostly bankers. Try for VPs and even partners. I think you'd be surprised how many are willing to speak with aspiring candidates.
A lot of firms claimed to be operationally focused, but I do think that a good test is whether they are actually hiring consultants. If it is all bankers I tend to think that the "operational focus" is more of a firm marketing initiative.
The only alternative I would caveat is if they run a split model - where bankers work on a transaction processing "deal team" and another team of former consultants and operating partners or industry experts run portions of the diligence and take over post-transaction. Firms like that can also be very operationally involved, but I don't think they necessarily provide a route for bankers to gain an operational skillset, because the deal team stays away from the portfolio companies.
It is really hard to predict which skillset would be more effective at getting promoted. I've heard it said that succeeding in private equity takes a perfect mix of: consulting skills, finance skills (banking), and sales skills. It is hard to say which career path will help you develop all three. If you are evaluating a specific fund, just look at the backgrounds of those who have been promoted - the backgrounds of the VPs, Directors, and Partners.
If you joined an operationally focused firm as a former banker, I am sure you could develop some operational skills over time. I do think it is harder to learn than modeling, but a lot of bankers who have worked at firms where they did more advisory-style work will probably come in with some of the "consulting" skillset already developed.