Why do people go back from MF PE to IB?
Saw a few people who did the typical IB path, then went to MM/MF PE, and then went back to IB. I thought that was interesting; a lot of these were interesting cases. One was, I think, RX IB to MF PE special sits, and then back to RX IB; two were MF PE back to EB, etc. I think one of the most interesting ones I saw was this guy who worked at Centerview, went to WP, and then went back. I guess he didn't lose anything, including in terms of comps, etc., but it's still kinda crazy.
Don't you lose/burn bridges when you make these pivots? And why would you want to go back after spending 2+ years in PE?
I think your point about bridges being burned is off. Everybody understands that to make more money in this industry you have to switch jobs, and while people's egos are fragile when you leave them, they need to make an objective decision about how good you will be if you were to return. Kind of similar to LeBron going back to the Cavs after ditching them for the Heat; they knew he's one of the greats. Plus, say you go to a PE MF that specializes in X type of deals, now you have a buy-side network that has seen you in the trenches. If you return to banking and can show them X type of deals, they will give your business. Inevitably, some of the VPs you work with will become MDs and Partners and since they've worked with you directlty, they will be more confident in your ability to churn out a solid work product and good outcome for them.
IB has higher cash comp and easier progression with a more collegial culture
PE is more interesting with less cash comp and less visibility into the future but has carry "upside"
Everyone values things differently
People move back for different reasons. The work is generally a bit easier, progression a bit easier, and culture usually better / more collegial in banking.
I do think I'd be a way better banker having spent 4ish years in PE now than if I had stayed in banking. It's helpful to get more perspective around what buyers really care about and are looking.
It comes down to what you enjoy and think will be better at long term. If you think you would be a better banker (enjoyment usually correlated w/ that), you will make more money long term as a good investment banker vs a middling PE professional.
Why would you burn bridges if you do this unless you left in a scorched earth manner. Ppl go back because they didn’t like the work in PE. Pretty simple.
Places like Cenerview tend to have an emphasis on career bankers and frown upon any PE recruitment, so I assume they might have pissed people off if they left.
50%+ of CVP's analyst class still leave. They're a little weird about leaving before the 3 year mark, but it's all still cordial/no hard feelings.
Nah if you leave as AN3 its chill. The guy that did WP and back lateraled into CVP as AN2 and left as AN3 so still good
The specific case you’re mentioning here is that businesses services at wp was shut down so people had to move to new groups or do something else.
When thinking of doing PE recruitment, how do you factor in things like that? I know on cycle will start in a few months for those of us hitting the desk soon, and it's kind of annoying to think that an entire group at a large MF like WP could be just shut down after all the effort it takes to break in.
it rarely happens, just do your diligence
A big factor is cyclicality. PE and IB are different, and different folks are better at one or the other, but the argument for IB over PE gets much stronger when interest rates go up, portfolios are struggling, etc.
In a down cycle, PE is: higher comp ceiling, lower risk adjusted comp imo due to harder progression path, robotic and sociopathic culture, slightly more analytical than salesy/interpersonal, “board / IC accountability” role, slightly more luck driven, more performative through the highest levels, higher stress
EB IB is: lower comp ceiling but still very high comp ceiling, higher risk adjusted comp due to easier progression path, more collegial culture, slightly more salesly/interpersonal than analytical, client service role, slightly less luck driven, slightly less performative than PE at the highest levels
But in an up cycle with a strong portfolio, many of the flaws of PE are well mitigated by rising asset prices, culture is miraculously better, progression easier, pockets got fatter car got faster etc etc
As other posters said, largely personal preference and risk tolerance. PE can be more intellectually stimulating at times, but still has a lot of brainless grindwork like banking. I also find that I am working a lot more than my peers who stayed in banking and just generally more stressed.
Banking tends to pay more cash comp than PE (depending on year and shop), but in the case you cited, dude definitely increased his comp by moving to CVP from WP at least in the near-medium term. PE carry arguably increases the ceiling / upside long-term but that is influenced by fund performance and your allocation. Plus, you won’t see any real $ from carry for a long time (I’m still waiting)
TLDR; you should go for whatever you enjoy the most because that will be the biggest determinant of success in the long run.
Follow-up question that I think is interesting. I get the rationale for making the switch back -- Higher cash comp/no carry risk, less competitive to climb ranks...
But what do you actually say in an interview? I'd imagine you don't tell your interviewer that you're coming back to banking because you don't think you'll make partner in PE and want a safer path to higher comp...What is the "massaged" rationale you give to the bank?
Reiciendis minus qui nemo nihil maiores. Quo ut quo quae saepe. Repudiandae et eum non in excepturi odio totam. Qui mollitia provident velit illo dolorem.
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...