Seeking External Perspectives
Hi fellow monkeys,
Creating this thread to seek external and honest opinions on my current situation. Currently a senior VP at a LMM fund where growth perspectives are very limited due to some very poor investment decisions in the past. I made the conscious decision to look for another job over the summer and I am now in the fortunate position to have a choice:
(1) VP in a sector team of a US BB with a clear path to MD within the next 5 years. Pros: Liked the team and individuals I met, good culture and would work on the largest deals in the sector and comp is very good ; Cons: Losing a couple of years of seniority, back to the grind big time and back into a very large corporation with all the politics involved
(2) Director in a sector team of a french bank. Pros: Like the sector a lot, nice people so far, doesn't seem to be a sweatshop and comp looks decent (albeit below any US peers) ; Cons: few question marks on the growth prospects, deals I will be working on and politics
(3) VP in the asset management team of a MM fund. Pros: Successful MM fund and currently raising another vintage with significant first close soon, decent upside if things go well, the AM team is involved in all bolt-ons, financing etc.; Cons: Asset management team so worried I would get pigeonholed, have a lot of question marks on culture and people (heard a very mixed bag of things)
(4) First time fund. Pros: Second joiner of a first time fund led by a very solid individual with large network. Very entreprenarial, no BS and if successful it could be a game changer ; Cons: Still need to understand (i) the comp structure, base + bonus are not stellar but there should be some form of LTIP/carried, (ii) pipeline of deals and more importantly where the equity is coming from and (iii) what's the downside case here, what if it does not work?
(5) M&A and Corp Dev role for a very large Middle East company. Pros: Absolutely loving the sector and would be joining the leader in the space with very deep pocket, comp will be great and I could negotiate a lot of additional benefits (housing, car etc.) ; Cons: Need to relocate to the Middle East which has never been a place where I would see myself with my family and question mark on the culture, I suspect it would require a big adjustment
(6) Still early stage but have a couple of other opportunities with a (i) MF, covering a vertical I would enjoying working on (already did 3 rounds of itw) and (ii) a small asset backed fund trying to raise their second fund in the coming months
Putting (6) aside, I must admit that I am a bit overwhelmed with the choices, never thought in a million years that my profile and experience was that valuable. I have been trying to rank all those opps but can't seem to be deciding so seeking an external perspectives to see wether I coud be missing important points. Happy to answer any question
Thanks a lot for your help.
What are you optimizing for? Cash comp? Long-term upside? Lifestyle? Learning?
Hard to guide you without knowing what matters.
Thanks, you asking the million dollars question. I still have a long career ahead of me and trying to find a balance but if I had to choose, I would pick comp > long-term upside > learning > lifestyle
My head tells me to go with the 'safest' option, i.e. the US BB. Comp will be great, clear path ahead, you can't get any better reputation and brand name on your CV. The flip side is that it won't be easy and there is a risk I just don't fit in the mold long term (never been great at politics, just like originating and executing).
My heart tells me to go with the first time fund. It could be extremely fun with tons of upside if things go well. The flip side is that it could be quite lonely as the role will be fully remote initially and if things don't go well, I am utterly fuc'ed.
I think those are the 2 options. You either go back to a BB (or the French bank) or you try the first time fund (you must have super high conviction on the people you are working with though). I like to frame it as do you need 10-20 bucks of fuck you money or do you need 100+ bucks of fuck you money. If it's the latter, then definitely stay on buyside and maybe try the first time fund. If it's the former... You'll probably get there with more certainty going back to a bank.
Personally I would choose the bank (and that's actually what I did, after spending 6 years on buyside I'm going back to sellside but in a product group with good hours, like maybe 45-50 a week). A few months into the job now and I don't really regret it tbh. Second time going back to banking after buyside experience really does feel more fun. Especially with so many more deals you can look at. Cash comp is also higher (at least for me).
If 3 is the MM infra fund starting with 'A', absolutely do not go
Feels like your choice is really the BB bank or the first time fund, the rest of it is just noise.
Now between those, they couldn’t be more different. The bank is gonna provide high, reliable cash comp and a ton of structure and infrastructure.
The first time fund is going to be much lower paid, entrepreneurial/all hands on deck with no frills or resources, but likely more exciting and potential for outsized outcome.
One is investing and one is professional services. Super different. You have to decide what you actually want.
on the first time fund, the questions you listed are not the ones that matter. comp structure and pipeline are secondary. the whole thing lives or dies on one question: where is the equity coming from. a first time fund that is "raising" with a networked founder and no anchor LP is a networking hobby, not a fund. ask directly who the anchor is, how much is hard-circled, and whether first close has actual dates. if the answers are vague, option 4 doesn't exist.
second thing: joiner #2 carry is negotiable right now and never again. get the points, the vesting and the good-leaver language in writing before you sign. once the fund is raised you have zero leverage.
on the BB being the safe option - you said you're bad at politics and just like originating and executing. at VP and above at a BB, politics is the job. internal capital, staffing, who gets credit for what. people who are bad at it don't cruise to MD, they get managed out at ED. your head is pointing at the option that tests your stated weakness.
and the downside case on the fund is less bad than you think. senior people re-enter banks after failed platforms all the time. two years at a fund that didn't work is a story, not a career ender.
Thanks man, appreciate the response.
On the first time fund, I sort of already asked the question on where is the equity is coming from. My understanding is that the first few deals will be done outside a typical fund structure, i.e. bringing co-investors directly into the transaction so you can view it as a fundless sponsor. I suspect it could be a quite frustrating set-up given you never have deal certainty but the plan is to raise a more traditional close-ended fund down the line once you have the track record. On paper it looks interesting and the sector targeted will be fun to work on but questioning whether this choice could screw my career if things don't well, just trying to protect my downside. On comp + carry/LTIP, I will be discussing the topic this week so I should have a better view on what's on the table
I view the BB as the safe option. I don't think I am bad at politics, I just don't like playing it and enjoy focusing on what in my views matter the most. Definitely need to work on this if I want to climb the ranks.
Bottom line is that I am still undecided, both opps are interesting in their own right but could not be more different which make the decision difficult.
You’re going to spend your overwhelming amount of time each day at work. Which of these jobs are you actually going to enjoy day-to-day?
If you interviewed for all these roles, it sounds like you aren't really sure what you want. As much as we can help, you need to think deeply about that first. It should eliminate a few of the choices.
Fair observation, roles are all on paper covering a sector I really like and there is some overlap. I think the main debate is the US BB and the first time fund.
I personally would go with 4 assuming the capital is largely secured
Capital is not secured. The idea is to operate as a fundless sponsor initially, make few transactions on the founder's own dime (and mine I suspect) to build credibility and then starting to bring investors along. The founder has operated this way several times over the years and built a pretty solid network.
I’m a hard no against (4). Doesn’t sound like any proof of capital or track record to lock it down, let alone having an investment strategy and implementation plan to go by.
Curious how you landed the middle-east gig - was that a cold application?
Via my network. I knew who to contact directly given I have done a lot of work in the space. The job is great on paper and I could be greedy and ask for a lot but moving there is a tough sell for my family.
Dicta sunt similique maiores. Ipsa dolore sint sint ut aliquid deleniti quis.
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...