What's the thought behind most MF PE firms' 2 years and out policy? Why would you not want to keep more tenured associates at the firm for a couple extra years if they're willing to continue at a similar pay level? Is it just to continue cycling talent through as fast as they can, so they can be extra picky on the folks they ask to stay?
Trending Content - Private Equity Forum
| +72 | Does anyone believe their firm has a true competitive edge | 36 | 23h |
| +42 | Lateraling at senior associate / VP level | 11 | 2d |
| +27 | Do you regret doing PE? | 20 | 1h |
| +26 | Ares buying LGP...now what? | 8 | 6h |
| +25 | Imposter Syndrome: PE to Publics | 4 | 1d |
| +19 | Do PE VPs Always Have An Associate Under Them? | 12 | 3h |
| +15 | Francisco Partners Fundraise | 6 | 23h |
| +14 | Setting the right LBO entry multiple without information | 3 | 3d |
| +13 | GTCR vs BDT MSD vs MDP | 11 | 3h |
| MBA to EM Infra Investing? | 3 | 1d |
Career Resources
If realistically almost no one will get promoted to the VP+ level - then why would any talented MF associate want to stay more than ~2-years? (this is usually after a ~2-3 year IB stint, so now we're talking about ~27-28 year olds).
The job is also extremely tough in the associate role lifestyle wise - most people wouldn't want to do it for any more than ~2-years.
Delectus dicta animi consequatur eum rerum. Et animi aperiam quia nostrum officia blanditiis. Aut et et sit libero fugiat delectus veniam. Qui omnis rerum enim nam voluptas hic. Alias aliquid incidunt officiis eveniet dolorem nesciunt.
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...