Shitty situation at my fund - not sure what to do next

Bump, you just described my exact situation.

Hey, I want to start by saying that I work in IB and am a senior in what I'd regard as a good team. So take this for what it is and discard it entirely if you think the perspective isn't helpful as I'm so far from your situation.

My advice will be to get out.

1) Teams which have a toxic culture will always have a toxic culture; it rarely changes. Particularly from what you describe, it reads that the culture is bad among the senior (or at a minimum mid-level) level. To change that requires a monumental turnover in personnel, and especially in PE (where they're likely too handcuffed to carry) that's uncommon. In fact, the only way it happens is if the fund collapses or a raft of seniors are told to leave, and that's not an environment you want to be around anyway (it might be the case if your fund or team is in trouble, which might be the case from the rest of what you're describing). You're in a much better position than me to judge whether the fundraise will check out, there'll be more cash to deploy, and dealflow might return.

2) You're young enough that you have optionality to move elsewhere with relatively low downside (your upcoming bonus will feel like a lot, but it really isn't compared to giving up carry in 5 years when the "come to Jesus" moment finally comes (see point (3)) and you wish you'd moved earlier. Of course, make sure that anything you do is financially sensible from a cashflow and family background position.

3) The "come to Jesus" realisation in PE *might* be that you have limited room to move up in the organisation. Most people (?) are in this industry at least in part for the financial upside, and in PE that really comes at the Partner level, or at least more senior positions with access to meaningfully carry cheques. If there really is (and I take your judgment) favouritism in giving juniors opportunities today, then that same favouritism will factor into your promotion opportunities, particularly when it really matters.

4) Learning matters so much at the junior level. Those incompetent juniors you describe will gradually become (unless they truly are imbeciles) more competent than you. As a Director or Principal, they'll just feel more confident that those juniors know how to put together an IC memo. They know what questions to expect from which people at IC. And that will compound. I'm taking your post at its word here that the favouritism is real.

However, I'm a random person on the internet and I'm reading a short post on a Reddit knock-off. You're about to make a big decision, so make sure you agree with these arguments and those you hear from others, and have properly done diligence on the new fund. And I guess make sure you're ready to work longer hours.

Dude if you are working 40h a week for PE money, stop being difficult and enjoy it lmao. The alternative is basically this but 100h a week.

This is going to sound unnecessarily harsh, but a lot of the stuff you mention is present in every single fund, so you need to have some agency in dealing with it. Let's go through your complaints point-by-point:

• Staffing decisions are heavily politicized: this is the case in every financial institution I've seen. You don't get the staffings you want by sitting around and doing models that balance the first time around. A core part of the job is building relationships and influence in the firm so you become known as someone that people want to pull into their deal. Maybe you're not being staffed because people know you're kind of a negative person, and this "favoritism" is because they....actually like the other person getting staffed? I'd rather someone who needs some handholding but expresses genuine interest in a deal, tries to learn, and is good to be around than someone who can do an LBO right the first time around but I can sense they think they're above whatever deal or work I'm staffing them on. I've gotten fucked over by staffing enough times to know that at a certain point, it's up to me to try to build relationships with the Principals who I want to work with and try to get in a position where they'd advocate for giving me a chance.
• Work on shitty portcos: everyone has to work on a portco. And some of them are shitty. And many times the Associates are doing shit fucking busy work. That is just how things go. I hated getting staffed on underperforming shitcos more than anyone, and yes I am the first to bitch about it, but I also recognize that someone has to do it so I didn't go to the staffers and say "wtf you guys." Again, similar to point above, try to jocky to get in position for new opportunities, while doing well on whatever crap work that's on your plate already. Build rapport with the management team, try to be more engaged in decision-making processes, be the "confidant" for someone in the Portco (like the CFO or VP finance or something). Make something out of a bad situation.
• Lack of leadership / mentorship / development: It's pretty well-known that senior leadership in 99% of PE firms don't give a rat's ass about you, and even if they say they did, they really don't. Same for banking too. You have to accept that fact, and deal with it accordingly. Mentors don't pop up out of nowhere. Grab coffee with mid-levels, ask for advice, express interest in their life and if they have a specific sector coverage, etc. Finance professionals are some of the worst mentors on this planet, so sometimes you have to just take matters into your own hands. Also, most funds are horrible at employee development. You get thrown into the fire and are expected to swim, so I doubt you'd get anything meaningfully better at other places.
• Mixed feedback: I hear you on this as I have had similar experiences, but I highly doubt people make up inaccurate feedback just to shit-talk you. That's literally more work than just saying something they might've observed off-hand. One person's feedback reflects their experience with you - just because it contradicts other's feedback, doesn't make it wrong. If one person is known to be a piece of shit manager that gives everyone poor feedback, then obviously ignore it. But also think about if you might be inadvertently doing worse work for someone because you maybe respect them less, which then translates into poor feedback that doesn't reflect your capabilities.  Or perhaps their definition of "doing well" is fundamentally different from what you think it is. That's a disconnect you have to try to understand.

Now that all of that is out of the way, it does sound like there are legitimate concerns regarding the fund's trajectory as well as headcount for future growth. These are the extrinsic factors that may not be in your control, so it would make sense to go to another fund that has better fundraising momentum and growth if you truly want to stay in PE. But don't expect anything above to change, and I'd think about how you'd independently tackle these issues sooner rather than later because you'll face them nearly anywhere you go.

Also, 40 hours a week to 60-80+ is a huge difference. Everyone says "yeah I'm happy to grind for a few years if it's engaging" but I'd imagine after a year of working real PE hours you might be looking back and hitting yourself...lmao...