TB, CD&R, H&F SA / FT Analyst Programs?

I tend to disagree despite having a banking background. I work at one of the larger UMM / MF PE funds that have an Analyst program and I have found that Associates / Vice Presidents / Principals coming straight through the ranks right out of school tend to be better positioned for a long-term career in the industry. Obviously this is a generalization and there are very very successful investors that come from banking backgrounds as well, but if I had to do it all over again, I would be chosen one of the PE Analyst positions vs. my banking role at one of the top groups / top banks. You’re right in the sense that the people coming out of PE Analyst programs aren’t as good at formatting, miscellaneous deal related tasks (e.g. working group lists, deal folder organization, etc.), and random side analyses, but they are generally more exposed to skills that become far more important as you move up the ladder. From my experience, Associates / Vice Presidents / Principals that skipped the banking experience generally have more institutional knowledge, have greater presence in meetings, are better at leading diligence calls / management meetings, etc. At this level, the hard skills you frankly learn from banking simply generally don’t matter as much. As with everything, there are exceptions, but this is just my experience. It is also easier for PE funds to promote Analysts and keep them through the post-MBA positions just purely from a marketing standpoint (i.e. when they go to campus to recruit, they can showcase all of the “successful” Analysts that have gone through the program and are now Vice Presidents / Principals in their late 20s). There is self-selection in that the best candidates end up going to the PE programs straight out of school. There are again exceptions and this isn’t a hard fast rule, but if you look at the Analysts at BX, KKR, Bain, WP, SL, etc., they all have stellar resumes and likely have a strong work ethic, interest in investing, well spoken, etc. 

The one benefit going to a big banking program is the network, especially if you’re from a non-target. It opens up an opportunity to build a network that will become increasingly important in your career. However, if you’re the typical summa cum laude graduate from Wharton / Harvard, you likely already have a strong network by way of going to a school with many classmates going into the same career path (e.g. IB, PE, HF, etc.). 

Last point. I don’t know why people keep talking about “robust” training programs. I don’t even know what that means. I went through the typical banking program and is that supposed to refer to the 3 week Knopman Marks / Training the Street program or on the desk training? Why is this so important? I didn’t learn a single thing from that 3 week training program and PE has the same “on the desk” training that a bank might have. Yes, if you’re at some small LMM or MM firm, it’s completely different, but when you’re at a MF / UMM, you probably have way more accomplished Associates / Vice Presidents that are giving you pointers vs. some random MBA Associate in banking that thinks he / she is above you.