Anyone successfully transitioned from debt to equity side as a VP/Director without taking a pay cut?
I’m a VP on the debt side (underwriting) focused on the multifamily product type. Mostly work in stabilized assets but also have prior experience with value add assets. Earn $200K+ all in. When I look at VP/Director level multifamily asset management opportunities in the equity side, they specifically state they are looking for current asset management experience which I do not have. For example, a director level AM position at Invesco was recently filled by a senior AM associate from a smaller shop. Will this usually be the case? So, any ideas on how to be given a shot here given I am on the debt side? Or do I have to be a senior analyst/associate first and take a pay cut? That’s hard to do with kids and a mortgage.
I feel like this is partly why you have so many lifers on the debt side. It’s not entirely by choice. Would really appreciate any ideas here on how to transition without taking a pay cut. Thank you!
I'm sure there are exceptions, but if I was hiring for a VP of AM, that means I want someone that can run with their tasks without needing my support. Given you don't have experience in AM, I can't see you being able to do that. You may be better off going for an associate level position where you are working under a VP that can run with the tasks while you're providing the analytical support which shouldn't be that difficult for you to pick up. Hopefully it's an entrepreneurial shop where you can quickly move into a VP position if you're a quick learner and show you can handle it
That’s fair. I’m just a bit discouraged because if given the shot, I would hustle and grind and prove myself but at the same time I fully understand why a VP for particularly an institutional shop like Invesco or Nuveen who is going to earn $200K+ would be expected to have direct AM experience coming in even if it’s at a smaller shop. Another reason I am discouraged is that I feel like I have a tight timeline where if I don’t make the switch now, I would no longer be able to. Within a few years, I would be D/MD at my current debt shop and once I start earning $250K+, I am not going to be an associate on the equity side and without equity experience i am not going to have a similar title and pay. So feel kinda stuck here and think this is why a lot of people just ride it out on the debt side after a certain point.
I wouldn’t get discouraged, you don’t have the exact experience to fit the role to a T but you have intangibles. If you’re a VP on the debt side you clearly have the bandwidth and capabilities to run with tasks/deals on your own and maybe even manage some junior folks on your team. asset management isn’t difficult not to say that it’s easy but it’s more time management in my opinion given your asset load. I think you could easily parlay your experience on the debt side which most AM’s don’t have extensive experience in. You can highlight your understanding of loan covenants and capital markets trends which would help illustrate your understanding of property level operations and returns. Given the run in rates over the past two plus (2+) years and now with the feds recent rate cuts; seniors pricing has come in and become more competitive. There could be plenty of opportunities within a portfolio for properties to be refinanced and you could use existing relationships to bridge that gap.
Any advice for college students? Who would enjoy debt vs who would be better suited for acquisitions?
Acquisitions is more fast paced (especially during healthy capital markets/liquidity periods) and potentially more repetitive, constantly vetting potential transactions for returns/risk profile, most of which your firm will not pursue. At the earlier part of your career you're essentially an excel monkey. With debt, especially early on and entirely if you're on the underwriting and/or portfolio mgmt. side, it will be less repetitive and more focused on risks and reporting. Debt is generally more stable all around, but especially so in aforementioned UW/PM/credit side, whereas acquisitions you will start to sweat/worry when markets are dry and your firm isn't able to make acquisitions. In the simplest of terms, acquisitions is more volatile with higher upside (in terms of both workload/hours and comp) to the relative stability (better WLB and job security, while still able to earn solid comp) of debt. Per usual, there can be exceptions, but that's the gist, which essentially mirrors the overall risk/return profiles of equity vs. lending.
Accusantium velit autem ipsa ea ipsum. Hic distinctio quasi quisquam culpa aliquid est eaque. Harum ullam repellendus accusamus voluptatem non ut laborum. Magnam ut voluptatum ea et quia rerum.
Voluptatem et vero quidem in neque. Natus et facere et qui veniam eos. Fugit ea sed sed ea ipsam.
Est ut sint veniam qui. Sed magni unde soluta saepe cupiditate sed. Quia aut laudantium sint quidem.
Facilis laboriosam debitis quam quam iure rem. Facilis non earum exercitationem voluptatem. Molestias assumenda voluptas cumque fugiat aut voluptatem reiciendis. Nihil ut molestias aspernatur quis qui impedit ullam harum. Qui architecto doloribus explicabo omnis sed facere.
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...