Hi,
I left my previous fund about a year ago and have since joined a new firm. I originally left because I wasn’t being promoted to VP. It was mainly a matter of timing and budget constraints: a colleague, who was 2 years more experienced, had been promoted the year before to VP (where I was promoted to Senior Associate), which effectively meant there wasn’t room for another VP at the time my VP promotion came up. I was told I could stay for a few more months (probably up to a year), but ultimately I would need to leave. I really liked my time there and am interested in going back there (obviously I am a good leaver) for WLB and comp reasons.
I therefore recruited and eventually joined a new firm. Now, about a year later, my old fund has launched a new team with a new strategy that didn’t previously exist in my location (think of midcap vs largecap team). The team is completely independent from my old team and is currently hiring at the junior level, specifically Senior Associate. Interestingly, the new team is now interested in speaking with me about potentially coming back (I asked the partner if they‘re interested in speaking with me; so I made the reachout).
I’ll soon have a conversation with the Partner leading the team. However, I’ve already been told that their preference would be to hire people at Senior Associate level rather than VP. They‘re currently recruiting via headhunter in parallel to fill the position. My competitors are therefore senior associates.
This is where I’m trying to figure out how best to position myself. This fund historically hires very few external candidates above Analyst level. They strongly prefer people who join as Analysts and progress through the ranks internally (I joined there as a junior as well). At the same time, I don’t really want to go back as a Senior Associate without having some clarity on the path to VP.
One idea I was considering is proposing something along the lines of: “I’m happy to come back as a Senior Associate, but would it be possible to agree upfront that I would be promoted to VP after one year, assuming performance is in line with expectations?” A new Senior Associate joining the team would presumably also have only 1–2 years to make VP before they would face the same question about progression. I also have the advantage that they already know me, I know the organization and culture, and I presumably have basically no ramp-up period than an external Senior Associate. I know the processes, the portfolio, the IT, everything.
So I’m wondering how you would approach this conversation.Would you:
1. Push fairly directly for a VP title from day one?
2. Accept Senior Associate but negotiate/seek a clear commitment to VP after ~12 months? (Can you put this in a contract?)
3. Avoid discussing a promotion timeline explicitly and instead focus on getting the role first?
4. Take a different approach altogether?
I’m particularly interested in how others would frame this with the Partner so that it doesn’t come across as overly title-focused, but still protects me from simply ending up in the same situation again 12 months down the line.
Based on the most helpful WSO content, here’s how you can approach this situation strategically:
1. Push for VP Title from Day One
2. Negotiate a Clear Path to VP
3. Focus on Securing the Role First
4. Alternative Approach
Key Considerations:
By balancing confidence with flexibility, you can position yourself as a strong candidate while protecting your long-term career progression.
Sources: No VP Promote from Sr. Associate - Seeking Advice, Negotiation for Guaranteed Promotion?, Using offers to get promoted, Am I being greedy? LMM to MBA
Probably #2. Unfortunately nothing is ever guaranteed (no firm will put it in writing) but assuming you trust the firm/people and they you a verbal handshake that’s probably the most fair / likely outcome
I’d only do it as VP. Quite a compromised position going SA old firm -> VP new firm -> SA old firm. If they screw you then what? Nowhere to go. They know that. If you want to go down this route you need a commitment they don’t hire a VP above you. Which they’ll never give and can be perceived as pretty major overstepping, particularly as you asked to come back, they didn’t ask you.
I get it’s tempting to get back with your ex but you should probably just move on if they don’t give it to you
I did not join a new fund. I went to a corp development role, with a very generic title (not VP). So I am not doing an obvious step back on title if I would start as a senior associate again.
Sounds like you don’t like your current job (from your reply above seems like it’s corp dev and not PE).
If you don’t like the current gig and want to get back to PE then you need to be flexible on initial title but make it clear you need a path to VP in no more than 2 years. Given your history with the firm this shouldn’t be unreasonable.
If you’re ok in your current job / like it, maybe consider pushing more aggressively for VP title. Though since you went to CD vs PE again it hurts your case a bit.
Would also be helpful yo understand your longer term goals. Stay in PE? Kinda seems like you were pushed out to CD vs chose it yourself so understandable if you just want to prioritize getting back.
Thank you, appreciate your thoughts. I took the corp dev role due to significant WLB increases but now beginn to miss the money lol (took a ~30% pay cut for like half the hours or sometimes even more). I was a bit nervous to find a new gig, so I took the first offer. In hindsight I could‘ve stayed a bit longer and maybe could‘ve waited for a better offer but you never now if or when you receive the next one.
Yeah I mean if you don’t like the current gig you should be more willing to take a Sr Associate title but only on a clearly defined VP timeline.
You unfortunately lose a lot of leverage when your alternative is the current gig that you don’t like (even if you just miss the $$).
My advice would be to say you’re open to starting as Sr Ass and if good performance a 12-18mo timeline to VP.
Following
This is like dating a girl for a while and when it’s time for the exclusive chat, she tells you that she’s been seeing other people for a bit longer and sees the other guy as closer to proposal / better husband material.
Now you’re proactively approaching the sister, but she also wants to keep it more casual for now, including talking to a few other people.
The parents remember you (and may have been in the girl’s ear or at least didn’t advocate for you).
Do you really want back into this family?
Spot on. Only wrinkle is that he’s currently dating a 4 and sees this as a shot to getting back to dating a 6.
Back to the question, I seriously doubt they will hardwire a VP promote for you. Especially since they were unwilling to lean in the last time around. The budget/headcount explanation is only valid at large institutions (think public MFs). Everyone else has meaningful license to make accommodations for people they want to keep. Their lack of interest in doing so speaks volumes to how they saw you. You went to them — don’t forget. They very easily could have reached back out to you, but they didn’t.
You seem to be presuming a level of interest on their side and leverage on your side that doesn’t necessarily exist. I would focus on trying to get the SA offer first, then worry about how to negotiate.
Impedit cumque soluta aut ut reiciendis placeat expedita. At fugiat est ex labore vel. Cupiditate vel excepturi pariatur enim temporibus dicta est. Itaque mollitia consequatur ut molestiae doloribus voluptatem et. Voluptatem voluptatem ab culpa et mollitia dolorem.
Perferendis omnis labore rem provident sed molestias sed labore. Perspiciatis in est voluptas magni. Quo ratione numquam corporis.
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...