Negotiating title for VP role?
For context, I did 2 yrs IB > 4 yrs MM PE > MBA (current)
Currently going through post-MBA PE recruiting. Targeting VP roles for a specific strategy. Received inbound from a fund on my target list "hiring a post-MBA role." However, during initial convo they said this would be a senior associate role. They asked me to speak with the rest of the team and complete a case study.
Given my experience (and current processes w/ other firms recruiting explicitly for VP spots) I am considering withdrawing from the process / don't want to waste my time.
Is it worthwhile to try to negotiate with them for a VP title or is that useless? Appreciating '24-'26 has been a tough market for VP recruiting (both for laterals and post-MBA). However, the market seems to be turning around and picking back up.
I’d focus more on the role and career trajectory than the title.
How long is this step in the progression? Does VP exist too? Then what?
If diligence checks out, I’d continue as there’s a dearth of post-MBA seats. If it’s a strong opportunity and math is compelling, I’d put titles aside.
Do VPs not do modeling at the majority of PE shops? I'm a VP in LMM PE and still do some modeling on certain portcos/projects I don't have an Associate staffed under me (did a lot more modeling when I was VP1).
Don’t really understand the advice above of basically doing diligence to see if the role they baited and switched you on is actually the bait and not the switch…. feels pretty retarded use of time. Spoiler alert: it’s not the bait!!
I’d probably string them along and try to get an offer as leverage or just drop out. 4 years in MM PE is already enough time at the bottom of the stack.
Little older than you (ignore title). Seen a few guys take SA role post-mba and get stuck at that level for awhile.
Thank you.
Read the new replies. Seems I’m in the minority. Non controversial call-out that VP level is extremely bloated right now. Some well-meaning advice but I still don’t think the best solution for you is to join below the VP logjam.
Just kicks the can down the road for a chance (albeit >50% chance) to join the logjam in 12-18 months. Partners aren’t going to make the carry they thought this fund cycle… will try to recoup that next fund = less for newest VPs.
Truth of the matter is that it's now fairly common for many of the more desirable firms post MBA to hire people as senior associates for 1-2 years before the VP promote. Given how many firms promote without MBA and how bloated VP levels are, there is a massive supply and demand problem where there are far too many IB or consulting to PE profiles at Harvard / Stanford MBA compared to how many seats there are at the more desirable PE platforms that people want to join.
DEL - didn't realize this double posted.
MBA that graduated '26. As someone else mentioned I'd focus more on the role but seems to me 9/10 SA roles is more associate than VP (i.e., not like Blackstone where Senior Associate roles are actually VP but just title deflation).
When you talk to headhunters that you're looking for post-MBA roles they're still going to send you SA roles and its your job to either turn it down or take the 1st interview. I personally didn't interview for any SA roles (3 years MF background) except for 1 just to get interview reps.
With that being said, as someone else posted a lot of firms have started to layer this SA role as the trend has been shifting away from the MBA (+ brutal mid-level market). While there is no guarantee, from the folks I have seen (class of '24 / '25) most seem to have successfully been promoted to the VP mark after the 12 - 18 month mark.
Oh lastly where you come from helps. Much easier to go from MF -> MM VP than MM -> MM VP. I don't know why as the experience is the same but probably a pedigree thing. Of the 7 people that I know that landed successfully at UMM/MM VP roles, all come from UMM/MF firms
Do you have any other processes and or interest? Would be careful to drop it. I don’t think you can negotiate title. You should’ve done that before you entered the process
I don’t think this is always true. If you are a stellar candidate and have exactly the expertise / niche deal experience that a fund is looking for, you can negotiate title, especially if you blow everyone else out of the water.
I’ve also seen the opposite happen, where a candidate initially recruits for a VP title at a large cap, and then they make him an SA offer. Offer was accepted.
Two ways to handle anything like this in terms of job negotiations
(1) If you have options or are only going to take a job that checks all your boxes which it sounds like this is the case then you flag the issue upfront and say “I need a VP title / comp package for this to work” and then they say hey we can do that and you continue interviewing or they say they can’t do that and you leave the process and no harm no foul.
2. You don’t have other options do you interview and don’t say anything, get the initial offer, negotiate at that point but you bear in mind you can’t walk away so that impacts what you can push for vs. what you need to accept
Why not just keep pushing ahead with all the processes (all the VP roles and the one SA role) and make sure you at least secure one offer?
What is with the god damn arrogance of exiting a process when you don’t even have a job offer in hand?
Idiot.
Because this case study is a week long and will take up too much time when I have superdays for other firms that I should be focused on. Smh
Iure debitis delectus ex fuga saepe laboriosam ut. Veniam nisi maiores unde odit est molestiae. Non repudiandae esse vel sunt. Quia sit ad odio at rem labore et nihil. Nisi voluptatum rem dolores.
Eum perferendis rerum architecto illo. Modi magni tempora aspernatur. At quia expedita quos sunt asperiores nulla. Id non inventore totam a temporibus eum culpa harum.
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...