Shortest path to VP
What is the shortest path to VP you’ve seen in MFPE / UMM? How smart is it to get a lateral vs internal promotion asap (executability, goodwill, untested culture etc)?
More theoretical /out-of-curiosity given how tough the market is still. Also not a topic of chasing short term higher comp, but rather career track/scope of responsabilities etc
Generally the larger the firm you go to, the more rigid / standardized the timelines for promotions. The quickest way to advance scope of responsibilities will be to go to a smaller shop.
Right - is 2y-2.5y from asso to VP feasible staying at larger funds?
No, by the time a fund is considered UMM its competitive/attractive to enough people that they would see no need to advance people faster than normal.
Problem with PE (at the junior level) is that unfortunately you need the years/deals to be an effective VP (+ maybe some maturity/executive presence that comes with age). Add to that there is no real incentive to promote you unnecessarily faster than needed
You only see accelerated timeline with HFs where intellectual prowess can really shoot you theough the ranks as P&L could be easily attributable to you
Unless you move materially downstream no one will promote you into VP. Your quickest path is at your current employer
Stonepeak is promoting to VP after one year of senior associate. So it's like ~3 years to VP.
Does anyone have context on that?
The fastest 2 I've seen at MF is 3 years, so 2 aso -> 1 sr aso, both at the same fund different groups. The other one was 3.5 years so 3.5 years as aso -> principal. Both are NY based.
H&F has a 3 years to Principal (VP-equivalent)path, if you don’t go to b-school. Very challenging to do these days
It’s interesting because I don’t think the average PE professional needs 4 years to be ready for VP responsabilities.
That’s visibly a sign PE shops have the bargaining power. Is there any way to negociate? What skills would be tested before giving someone a VP seat (even if nothing practically, would love to understand the theoretical answer as well)
I don’t think it’s interesting at all the typical path for the last 17 years ie post crisis since this all has been quite standardized has been 2 year ASO and then b school then VP. And that’s 4 years:. As firms moved away from mba the question has been should it be 3 or 4 as ASO/SA and people are landing on different sides of that. I’m strongly of the opinion that 3 is the minimum. Very rarely is someone ready in 2.
What makes you think someone would not be ready in 2? Your own experience, a particular skill? The need for reps?
Another way to ask the question would be which rare profile would be ready in 2?
Just trying to understand the why, beyond the - this is the way it’s done -
Sixth Street has a 3 year path to Vice President.
I think it’s more maturity than it is experience. After 2yrs IB + 4 Yrs PE you’d be 28 turning 29. VPs are externally facing which means they need to be mature/ composed which an extra year does help with
Sed iusto quo placeat et commodi et ipsam. Aspernatur et veritatis vitae qui. Ratione est non quas. Ipsam quidem sit aliquid repudiandae culpa accusamus omnis.
Numquam nihil officiis expedita repellendus asperiores doloribus. Optio vel dolorum ad quos. Sed libero nisi ea assumenda. Ut voluptatem ut illo fugiat consequatur.
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...