Q&A: UMM PE VP

I didn't (and still don't) have a good reason to pursue business school other than 1.) taking a 2 year vacation and 2.) checking off the next box on my list. Clearly not great reasons to do so, and maybe that was part of the reason my application didn't stand out (more on that in another answer). It also really forced me to decide much sooner what i wanted to do - pursue something more entrepreneurial, go work in the public markets, stay in PE etc. Decided to do the latter after a lot of thinking. I'm a few years post that point, and i can safely say that it has made no difference in my career trajectory vs colleagues who ended up going to school. If anything, it's actually been a big advantage. i have two more years of real life work experience, a couple more deals on my resume, and a lot more track record. It also has led to me having a lot more industry relationships and management touchpoints - which, when you are sector focused, compounds over time as you build your credibility within the industry.

Not going definitely precluded me interviewing with some shops (think places like Berkshire, who treat the MBA as an immovable requirement), but by and large, the majority of firms today don't care about business school, which is a pretty big difference vs five or ten years ago.

All that, if i had to do it over again, i would still apply only because it sounds like a fun time. I'm jealous i didn't get to go on trips every two weeks / goof off. But it has made no difference in my professional career. based on your background, if you want to stay in PE, there is very little professional reason to go in my view (still plenty of other reasons)

Good question. Few items stick out in my head:

a. Step up to do simple things that are more in the first year VP camp. think coming up with DD plans, shelling out IC materials, leading DD calls with mgmt teams / bankers etc. Those are things that make my job easier, and whenever i have associates do things like that, or even do small parts of them, it's a huge plus

b. be proactive - do all of those simple things before i ask for them, as much as is reasonable / possible. it's so helpful when an associate already knows what we should be doing as we kick into gear for a dd process, get ready for an IC committee, etc. Waiting to be told what to do on everything is a sign of a still developing associate

c. don't make simple and/or repeated mistakes on technical stuff. it's so helpful working with associates who are meticulous about their work (models, one off analyses, ppt slides etc) and don't make careless mistakes, which happens more often than you think. it's not a big deal, everyone makes mistakes (vps principals partners no exception) but i think if its a repeated pattern over a year plus, not a great sign

d. speak up more. pick your spots for sure, but don't be afraid to make points in internal case discussions with the team, in management presentations, etc. Knowing how to find that balance is hard but you should develop your voice over time to the point where you become a go to opinion on every single deal, even if you are not the final voice. you want to be at the point where the principal/vp actively wants your opinion on every major commercial underwrite / strategy item 

VP to principal is hard but not impossible, mostly based on how good you are at ensuring good dd is done, running a tight process, staying on top of portco management, presenting well to ICs / internal discussions / mgmt teams to some degree. by no means a foregone conclusion, but in my opinion the easier promotion on a relative basis. 

principal to partner is really hard. it's predicated much more on your ability to bring in and execute new business (whether that's new deals, new verticals, new geographies, etc.). it's a difficult skillset to build and it takes time, and sometimes it is out of your control if the firm decides to deprioritize that industry or they hire someone above you.

i'd say for those who want it, VP to principal probably happens 50-60% of the time. principal to partner is much harder, maybe sub-20% of the time. It involves giving meaningful authority and carry to an individual and head guys don't do that lightly 

I doubt it was my stats, i graduated summa from an HYP and had a 770 gmat. work experience sort of speaks for itself between GS and MF PE. probably some combo of typical PE resume + white / asian male. there was no good reason for them to reject me on paper, but also no good reason for them to accept me - my essays were good, but it was clear there's no passion for b school and no real reason for me to attend. business school admissions for people that look like me (literally and figuratively) have been a crapshoot recently (multiple male friends at my MF and other MFs also didn't get into H/S), just the way the world works. can't complain too much honestly, if that's the worst thing that happens to me in my professional career i'll have been incredibly lucky  

1. Yep. always envisioned leaving MF PE after two years (though i had originally anticipated having a 2 year bschool break in between). those organizations are so incredibly saturated, that there's very little scope for incremental responsibility / promotion / pay beyond the set path. you don't become a real decision maker (or have influence over real decision makers) for many, many years. It's not like i'm making calls on what to invest in at my firm, to be clear, but the path is much more near-term and i've been able to carve out a specific niche for myself which i did not see a near-term equivalent to at my old fund. 

2. Depends on what you classify as worth. from a learning / content / access to deals perspective, not in the slightest. anyone who says x MF is better / smarter than their smaller counterparts (whether UMM / MM) is just wrong. There are so many true MMs / UMMs that are incredibly good and filled with some of the brightest people in the industry: clearlake, GTCR, berkshire, thoma (though i guess they're not really a MM anymore)...you get the idea. It was worth it to me because i get some silly sense of self worth out of having x MF on my resume. Is that worth it? Not really, but i'm happy i did it and i had a good experience and learned a lot. I would absolutely not recommend using MF PE as the measure of success. it in no way is purely an indication of your abilities (skill is a necessary but not sufficient condition, so much luck involved) and not working at one has basically zero impact on your ability to succeed in the industry.

3. I can only give you my view, which is no. A few of the partners / principals at my old shop didn't have MBAs and the same dynamic exists here. haven't seen it impede their career in any way, and i think as more and more of the PE world shifts to b school as optional or unnecessary, that will continue to be the case. there is certainly the argument that it helps your network, which is of course undeniable, but i think it does so in connecting you to people outside of the PE/HF world. between college, GS, and my old fund, i doubt there's many people with somewhat similar backgrounds that i don't either know directly or am one degree separated from, so i don't think there's a huge gap in terms of finance network. But look, that's a very limited / biased view, i'm probably too young to make any sort of definitive claim on that front. 

4. to be honest, my hours weren't any better or worse than a lot of my friends who worked at similarly intense / good MM and UMM shops (spoiler: i did not work at apollo). i don't think there is any difference in lifestyle and learning experience between someone who works at carlyle/bx/tpg and someone who works at cd&r/cinven/thoma etc. all great shops, all have intense associate programs, all will give you the pedigree / tools to succeed. way more important who your mentors and teachers are, what kind of deals you work on, how much you absorb.