This website gave me a lot of true (and not so true) information into the industry, but more importantly, the amount of comments from people who have no idea what they are talking about made me laugh a lot. So in this context I thought I would give back to the community that provided me with such entertainment and simultaneously provide an Asia Pacific view point because I was never able to find information on this region while going through the well trodden path.
Trending Content
Career Resources
WallStreetOasis.com can you verify the original poster's background?
For context, can you give us your background? School or at least target/non-target specification, previous job, etc.
What are the barriers to breaking into Asia Pacific PE from NY with no relevant language skills? How would you go about that? Did you use NY based headhunters, or did you have to find local headhunters?
Are you from the region? Why there and not the USA?
2.5 Follow up question: what market do you operate in and how is that market different from its counterpart in the West?
How do you like your job? Are there elements that are Asia Pacific specific that you like or dislike?
What cultural differences have been most pronounced in terms of in work style, work life balance, hierarchy, quality of work, dress, leisure, etc.?
Sure I grew up in the region but did boarding school and college (Ivy) in the states. I did 2 internships at a BB (MS/GS/JPM) in NY but decided to start FT back in the region as I knew long term that was where I wanted to be. Did IB for 2 years then joined a MF
Answers to your questions:
I think at a junior level there are definitely barriers but also depends on location. e.g. HK mainly serves North Asia (China, Japan, Korea), Singapore serves South East Asia (Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam etc.) and then there's Australia which doesn't require any language except English. Australia is a bit unique in the sense some funds serve Australia out of Singapore, others out of HK or have will physically have an office in Australia. In terms of barriers into breaking into Asia Pacific from my experience I did well during my internship and had a FT offer to return and negotiated that I wanted to start in the region. The bank will chuck a little bit of a fit as obviously the NY office spent the time and resources to recruit you and now you are going to be a resource in another region but ultimately they would rather keep you in the family than see you leave to a competitor. My transition is actually the rarity here in the region. Most people that work in PE here, except maybe for those that serve China as you really do need to be highly fluent in Mandarin), did their two years of IB in the US then came over. Talking to them usually headhunters will reach out or they just proactively reached out to headhunters here in the region. As long as you can indicate why you want to work here, whether its family or you have an interest / story, it shouldn't be too difficult especially for Singapore and Australia where the main language is English.
My family is from the region. If you look at where growth is coming from for PE firms and where growth in general is coming from for the world economy its quite clear it is the Asia Pacific. Just look at KKR's fastest growing platform - it is its Asia Fund, hence they made Joseph Bae Co-CEO.
IB is IB and PE is PE wherever in the world - the only difference is likely the deal dynamics and structure due to the stage the markets are at. For example I have worked on an Australian deal and it is basically exactly the same as working in the US at is a developed market with the majority of businesses all being corporatized, and if sold, usually it is a majority stake being sold in an auction process by an investment bank. Similarly I have worked in Asia where markets are less developed, still majority family owned who actually care about their partners and not the highest price and will often times will not sell the majority (Note: if they do then usually its a big red flag). Asia is just going through what the US went through with the Rockafellers etc.
The only downside about Asia (for PE anyway) in this juncture is that it is probably harder to do well in the region as valuation expectations are much higher as businesses are still majority owned by families so every dollar you pay for a business is literally going to their pockets, unlike in developed markets. Additionally, every major PE firm knows that eventually the Asia Pacific will become corporatized and due to population sizes and growth they have to build a track record here.
As mentioned above, IB is IB and PE is PE wherever in the world. Yes the markets maybe different but the type of work is the same. Moreover everyone in the major funds were basically educated in the US or UK, did their IB stints or even started their PE careers in those regions then moved to the Asia Pacific. So in terms of culture I would say the only difference between Asia Pacific and the US is probably just size of office. In this region you will know everyone and talk to everyone in your teams. NY office during my IB time was just a giant amalgamation of people of which you only knew a portion of. In terms of life style for PE, I would say my US counter parts actually work longer hours than me yet we all get paid the same (at the associate level anyway). In IB if you are at a top BB (MS/GS/JPM) you are getting fucked no matter where you are so hours will be exactly the same.
In relation to your 1st /2nd question: In APAC, some banks run a generalist model while others have the traditional coverage / product teams. I would say as long as you are in a generalist model or coverage team in a top bank then you will get a look. If you are not in a top bank then you have to be more specific on the coverage team, each market has its nuance you will have to do some research / ask around e.g. Credit Suisse in SEA is considered the best and UBS in Australia. But never underestimate the power of prestige GS is still GS even though quite frankly in some markets they are no longer really top 3. You do not want to be in a product group here in Asia such as ECM or DCM as even during an IPO process or bond issue the coverage team in a will do most of the work and whatever little modelling there is while the ECM / DCM teams are really just preparing generic or niche ECM / DCM materials (believe this quite similar around the world except for maybe MS M&A in NY). In some banks the ECM / DCM team is just VP upwards and they staff juniors out of the coverage team e.g. UBS. LevFin at certain banks is ok as they handle all the debt modelling rather than ask the coverage team to do it e.g. GS. Just thinking now I don't think I know anyone who did pure ECM or DCM that is in PE right now - could be wrong.
In relation to your 3rd question: Yes depending on market conditions and quite frankly luck - a lot of bankers here in Asia Pacific lack the M&A deal experience relative to more developed markets due to the fact of where the market is at this point in time in Asia (businesses generally don't need M&A grow yet unlike in more developed markets hence they just raise money whether through equity or debt to pursue organic growth. Additionally a lot of business are family owned and therefore look to IPO to maximise cashing out). However this does not necessarily mean you can't get M&A experience it just means a smaller % of bankers relative to the same % in more developed markets get that M&A experience e.g. my experience in 2 years was 1 IPO, 7 M&A. But quite frankly a lot of it is due to luck / timing - yes there are some things you can control e.g. be good at your job so people want to staff you, play politics right to follow the right MD / VP who are bringing 80% of the deals in your team but most factors are out of your control e.g. the coverage team I was in prior to me joining had a dip in market activity and therefore there wasn't much deal flow but fortuitously in the 2 years I was there the market just boomed. Similarly because the market dipped and there wasn't much deal flow the main associate in my team organised a rotation to NY the year before I joined and left half way through my first year. Consequently I was required to step up in terms of the type of work I was doing much faster than other analysts which while hard in terms of hours was very good from a learning perspective but I would classify this as pure luck. Similarly the majority of my M&A deals were buyside, of which, many were in auctions and yet I won every single one - While yes your MD should be smart enough that if he is backing a buyside horse that he should have clear reason why this buyer rather than others will win because it is much easier and less risky to just provide financing trees to all potential buyers rather than conflict yourself out through M&A but I still consider this out of my control and thus luck.
However as mentioned above, when PE shops hire they look at analysts globally so their talent pool is not strictly tied to Asia Pacific. There are many associates here who started their career in NY or London and moved back, just thinking out loud this is probably why they look to these markets for hiring as in general terms their M&A experience should be more developed after a set number of years.
If you are in ECM I would suggest you try to internally rotate as soon as possible to a coverage team. If you are in DCM I would suggest you try to rotate into LevFin or do LevFin work (some banks have the same team doing both) or a coverage team.
In response to Question 4: Yes, there a lot of smaller funds in HK, I would say in general terms it is easier but not to the extent you would expect, unless they are a really bad fund in which case you shouldn't want to join them in the first place. The reason for this is as mentioned there isn't a standard recruiting timetable in Asia Pacific, hence if no MF funds are hiring and only these $500mm - $1bn funds are hiring, guess what your competition is still going to the be entire street including those who may end up going to MF. This is because people just interview for practice knowing they wouldn't accept the offer (I know this because many of my friends, including myself, did this). What this does is that it causes the people interviewing to have a quality benchmark that is probably higher than what you would see for a similar fund in the US for example. But in general terms I would say it is easier as competition is still less than for MF roles.
In general 3 people - 1 of each of the levels you mentioned. In general this means that associates in Asia Pacific probably get more responsibility than say in the US where they usually run fuller teams. Has its pros and cons, e.g. as a 3rd year associate in Asia you will probably still have to model while in the US you will likely have a first year associate under you and vice versa i.e. 1st year associates in Asia get much more exposure than the 1st years in the US
I think the easiest way to to answer this question is for MFs the minimum equity check size for the fund itself has to be ~US$150m. Depending on the deal structure, multiple etc that widely vary the TEV and EBITDA
This really depends how your businesses are doing. If everything is going well then its really just attending board meetings and updating investor update packs which should be like 20% of your time. Thus far I have been lucky so that has been my ratio but I have friends in other funds where that ratio drastically increases. But some people really like the portfolio stuff but TBH my point of view is that it is really BS when PE professionals say that their fund or they themselves get really operationally involved. I agree you get more operational exposure through understanding the strategy, board representation and having operational guys come in to give advice on cost savings or process improvement but as a PE professional this is all still at a very high level. Unless you are actually working in the company or executing the strategy how involved can you really get, and if your fund is making any PE professional with no background or experience go in as say a head of strategy then I would really question the value add of that fund. But this is all relative as my fund obviously deals with companies that are much larger scale and therefore should be able to afford people who know what they are doing.
MD - sources deals and only gets involved in very key aspects. Don't expect any help on executing form an MD. VP the guy in charge of executing, but at this stage probably has a family to get home to so will help where he can during relatively normal working hours. Likely give you a framekwork on what the key diligence items etc will be and how to go about it. Associate does everything that is required to execute the deal which includes the DD, liasing with advisers etc.
Yes you do, you can travel as much or as little as you want. If you tell your VP hey I am too busy I don't think its worth my time to travel to Shanghai for that management meeting he will likely be ok with it. Alternatively if you love travelling you can go travelling every other week if you really wanted to. I will travel at least 3 times for boarding meetings in a month plus add a couple more for management meetings. If you are deep in DD for a business not in your home location expect to travel more but again doesn't mean you necessarily have to. E.g. one associates in my team absolutely hates travelling so they basically only travel for board meetings and some how even when they are deep in DD for a company not in his home location they can manage just through using phone and email.
I am generally a curious person so the thing I like the most is I think PE is just a good platform to learn, meet highly successful people and see new industries, businesses etc. This might be more so in Asia Pacific where PE teams are not structure by industry verticals. I have been invited to events / activities which ultaimtely come from the fact I am working in PE and sometimes I sit back and think wow this is actually pretty cool and something I probably wouldn't have been able to do if not for my time in PE. e.g. Being invited to the VVIP of UFC when they were looking for an external investor a couple years back. Plus I think if you are not really sure what you want to do, PE is the best job to be in because 1. you are highly recruitable post your experience whether it be another job or to go to business school 2. On a relative basis you should be getting paid decently during this time of uncertainty and 3. For the first 3-4 years at least, you will be learning a lot and building a network that should help you form a conclusion on what you want to do long term.