I'm currently a BB IB analyst interviewing at a firm that does GP led deals and direct secondaries (minority recaps and buying company stakes from existing shareholders) mainly in growthy tech companies. So they're doing asset-level modelling and DD. Based on other threads it seems like the consensus is that it's extremely rare/difficult to move from secondaries to direct investing. However, from what I understand don't a lot of "traditional" growth equity firms do pretty much the same kind of deals (specifically minority recaps labelled as "strategic growth investments")? Would it really be so much of a stretch to move to a growth shop after 2 years here? Especially one that has some of the same companies in their portfolio. Or is there another layer of nuance that I'm missing?
Trending Content - Private Equity Forum
| +55 | Predicted Net Worth in Trodden Finance Path by 60? | 20 | 3d |
| +26 | Reference checks after final round | 11 | 9h |
| +25 | What do you think of PE Value Creation Careers in 2026? | 7 | 2d |
| +20 | LT Career Path after MF PE Associate Program? | 7 | 15h |
| +18 | Is the lifestyle really better? | 17 | 10h |
| +17 | Those who left PE for Corporate, why? | 15 | 2h |
| +13 | Is it too late for me? (Rising College Junior) | 5 | 1h |
| +12 | NY LMM PE Recruiting | 3 | 4d |
| +11 | If you don't make it to the top: IB or PE | 8 | 7h |
| +9 | State of PE BD in 2026 | 4 | 4h |
Career Resources
Based on the most helpful WSO content, transitioning from a GP-led/direct secondaries role to a traditional growth equity shop is not impossible, but it does come with challenges. Here's the breakdown:
Overlap in Deal Types: You're correct that many growth equity firms engage in minority recaps and strategic growth investments, which can overlap with the type of deals you're describing. This similarity in deal structure (e.g., minority stakes, asset-level modeling, and diligence) could make your experience relevant to growth equity shops, especially if the companies in your portfolio align with their focus.
Key Differences: The nuance lies in the approach and focus. Growth equity firms often emphasize sourcing, building theses, and working closely with portfolio companies to drive growth. In contrast, secondaries (even GP-led or direct secondaries) are more transaction-focused, with less emphasis on operational involvement or proactive sourcing. Growth equity shops may view this as a gap in your experience.
Challenges in Transition: Moving to a growth equity role might require you to demonstrate:
Advantages You Have: If the firm you're interviewing with has overlapping portfolio companies with growth equity shops, this could be a strong advantage. Familiarity with these companies and their industries can make you a more attractive candidate.
Actionable Steps:
In summary, while the transition isn't straightforward, your experience with GP-led and direct secondaries in growthy tech companies could position you well for a move to growth equity, provided you address the nuances and gaps in your profile.
Sources: Q&A: PE Secondaries Principal, Tech Growth Equity vs Tech Leveraged Buyout Firms, Secondaries Comp / Culture in 2023, Turning down HBS/GSB/Wharton for the Promote-Through, Differences between Co-invest and Secondaries?
BUMP!
Very unlikely. Why not just apply directly to the growth funds instead?
GP-led secondaries nah. Direct secondaries maybe. In EU at least there are some funds like Verdane or Tempocap that does that
I think it would be possible to move but you probably won't get much/any credit for the past experience (e.g. if you do two years there you're joining as a first or maybe second year Associate).
I personally view secondary funds as very high velocity / mile-wide-inch-deep game. Of course they say it's the same rigorous diligence (what else are they supposed to say, "we're just winging it and hoping for the best"?), but every time I've worked with them they're basically just reviewing our materials, doing a couple calls with us, and then maybe doing 1 or 2 channel checks through their own network. It's like a one or two week process versus the level of depth the main sponsor is doing. And of course you don't have any exposure to sourcing, process management / coordinating workstreams, docs and closing, etc. since the main sponsor is going to handle all of that.
Odit velit iste alias nesciunt officiis. In eos natus eos quia facere reiciendis tempore. Officia minus numquam et est aut dolorum necessitatibus enim.
Aperiam quod omnis et. Non accusamus qui dolorum expedita veniam. Consectetur neque fugit repellat a dignissimos hic. Rerum magni magnam eligendi animi voluptas sit.
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...