Ares vs. Golub Direct Lending
Curious to hear if anybody has anything to share about the pros/cons between Golub's and Ares' direct lending groups. Interested specifically in level of prestige, pay, work/life balance, culture, deal flow, security types (senior vs. subordinated) etc.
Interested as well
Also curious. What kind of backgrounds do these shops look for in their juniors? Are they all former IB/levfin analysts/associates? Mostly MBAs?
Ares is a joke on the street right now, they even make their own pitchbooks. Take a look at their fundraising efforts and portfolio companies.
Can you explain this to someone outside the industry? Why does making their own pitchbooks make them a laughing stock?
You are a client to banks when you are on the buy side. Private equity / debt or asset management, you shouldn't do any external presentations like pitchbooks because you have the capital so all you need to do is present internally to get investment approval. When you make pitchbooks on the buyside you're making slides look banking-style for an uncertain transaction.
The ARCC website indicates that they "are able to underwrite for our own investment as well as syndicate middle market loans to other market participants." Wouldn't this type of capital markets activity require presenting to external co-investors to get the deal subscribed?
I think your understanding of the scaled players in the private debt space is a bit flawed. Direct lenders are not “clients to banks.” Not sure where you are hearing that... It really couldn’t be anymore opposite. They are more so a direct competitor to a bank as a separate financing alternative than traditional bank financing. So you are in no way a “client” to a bank as a direct lender. Sometimes, as others have mentioned, these scaled players might participate in a broadly syndicated process whereby the lead role is a bank, and you as the direct lender, will be taking down a portion of the overall underwrite that the BANK led. That is not very common, especially among the scaled players like Ares / Oaktree etc, but it still happens.
Most of the time as a direct lender you are competing against traditional financing arrangements from a bank and are actively trying to lure business away from that channel. This is obviously a huge area as leveraged lending guidelines, public syndication processes, public rating agency processes, etc are a huge burden on management teams / financial sponsors for many obvious reasons. So again you are not a client to a bank... Lets just make sure that’s clear. Ares in particular has each senior member covering a pool of private equity firms whom are its clients. Almost all of the direct lending business comes from its sponsor relationships, although recently they have been building the non-sponsored platform.
The scaled players like Ares are unique in that they can self-originate, so actively trying to pursue business is part of the job although again, this is mostly done at the senior level. Almost all investment opportunities come in through the sponsor relationships so they very much so employ a bottoms-up model. There is no “pitching” as you call it. Sponsors will come to Ares, and a handful of other direct lenders and/or banks to gauge their view on a specific financing opportunity. After several rounds, the sponsor chooses one (or multiple) financing parties to execute the deal. So not sure who is telling you people “pitch” there at the junior level. Nobody is making pitchbooks at a firm with 110 billion in capital. Deals flow into Ares constantly, every day. Again, bottoms-up investment research.
Most direct lenders cannot self-originate like Ares so the level of responsibility and depth in a process is limited at those shops in comparison to Ares. Id say Ares digs deeper than most other credit shops because of this, in that they are committing and holding control positions in most cases, versus the majority of small direct lenders who just simply buy a small % of a debt product that some other firm created. Also bear in mind Ares can invest throughout the cap structure, allowing them to be more creative in structuring which most other credit shops simply cannot do. If you are underwriting, structuring, negotiating etc which is what you will do at a firm who is Leading a particular financing, then you will be doing much more work on many fronts. The only guys in the space who are not massive banks that can do this are the ones we have been mentioning with scale - Ares, Oaktree, GSO, etc. These firms are very different than any other direct lender in the market today, so OP make sure you understand that. Happy to discuss further offline if needed.
Ares credit juniors make zero pitchbooks. You’re 100% incorrect on this.
has to be a troll
Probably lost a deal to Ares and is bitter about it...
Ares and Golub aren't executing broadly syndicated deals. If anything, they'll reach out to a handful of investors to round out a club. A credit job at either will be heavily weighted towards underwriting.
This is really helpful.
Are there any firms in the direct lending space that are more focused on "originate and syndicate" rather than "originate and hold?"
Are there any notable differences between debt arms of PE megafunds vs publicly traded BDCs vs privately held direct lending investment cos?
Antares is the closest in terms of holding paper and distributing.
In terms of work, no real differences between the options you mentioned. Different firms will have different strategies though
Antares Capital (division of GE force-sold to CPPIB) syndicate their positions.
Ares has the better brand
Bump, anyone have any more info on comp/culture/reputation on either at the analyst/associate level?
Can anyone give insight into what percentage of Ares direct lending is in NY and what percentage is in Chicago? Is it split pretty evenly, or do most senior guys work in NY?
Would also love to hear thoughts on HPS Chicago presence.
Not on HPS Chicago specifically but I've had such a good experience with their NY team twice on some pretty hairy buyouts when I was in PE and am a huge supporter of their platform. While I worked in diligence processes with guys like Ares, no one went out of their way to create dedicated sector expertise the way HPS did.
Golub/Owl Rock/Ares/Antares/Bain typical deals I see differ IMO vs. say a HPS, Cerberus, MC Credit, Comvest (who also have their differences).
Direct Lending - Club
Golub etc - you'll see some Direct Lending club deals with 4-7 lenders - incl/ New Mountain, Benefit St, Vista, Thoma Bravo (if V / TB are the Sponsor) See this in a lot of these recurring revenue deals. Terms are more borrower friendly on these DL club type deals I find.Also on the syndicated/ TLB side - you'll see Golub & Ares in the underwriting group in good amount of deals - getting underwriting fees of 2.25% (1L) and 2.75% (2L) on their commitment amount.
Directing lending clubs aren’t the norm per se. Rather, just mentioning when I see DL clubs, i often see these guys. Golub Owl Rock & Ares - will often be sole lender or 1 of 2 lenders. As they can lend in size.
Hold Sizes
Golub - can Underwrite $2B Unitranche, hold $700 ($25 Co-Invest - it says in my notes)
Ares - hold $500
Owl Rock - hold $500 (can anchor $200-500 in hold size). Active in non sponsor deals.
HPS -
agree their diligence and ability to take on a niche/bespoke credits is 2nd to none. Familiar with a good number of their deals. Active in non sponsor. Bespoke industry financial covenants, lopsided Last out Junior piece of Unitranche (opposite of 1L/2L you see), disrespectfully aggressive step downs to financial covs, a company/business with no comparables to leverage, and a company where EBITDA is not applicable - some of the highlights I often see.
Thanks a lot for this. Quick q. Would it be feasible to make a move to PE side like Vista/TB after working at DL like Area/Golub?
I’m A2A at top BB. If this is not likely and my end goal is landing a decent PE job, would I have better chance looking for PE opportunities while staying longer at IBD?
Not very likely to move to TB/Vista PE team after being at Golub, would stay at your bank.
Wdym by aggressive step Down to
covensbts?
Unis and first lien deals have a financial covenant, normally leverage-based.
Leverage starts out high, so your covenant is cushioned appropriately—20-30% adjusted EBITDA in normal times.
As the business grows and gets more refined under sponsor ownership, business is often expected to delever as revenue and margin growth is supposed to outrun the debt stack. Covenant will have “stepdowns”, basically tighter levels of leverage you have to comply with as time goes on.
So you start out at say 5.00x-5.55xish total/first leverage at close, initial covenant level is going to be something extremely comfortable like 7.25-7.5x, ie, business has to completely shit the bed to make covenant compliance a concern. But that 7.25x will drop down to 6.75x/6.50x or so around 18 months post-close, and then to 5.50xish 36 months post-close. 36 months out your lenders are expecting either the business is kicking ass, you’re looking to sell at some point, or you’re still bolting on addons so you need to amend the covenant for more flexibility.
Some lenders will impose .25x (or deeper) cuts each quarter or so, which is aggressive and less flexibility than the 18 month step downs laid out above. This is mostly in the context of always on maintenance covenants, not getting into cov lite.
Can your provide any insight as to where you see MC Credit playing typically? I’m at a bank U/W & syndicating and have been thinking about a move to the DL side. Primary reasons being desire to work across the capital structure as opposed to solely in 1L debt, and the degree of competition direct lenders are posing in the MM & LMM financing space. These guys were on my radar as a potential place to network.
Deleniti odio quidem porro. Corporis expedita perspiciatis expedita nulla. Ipsa maiores ipsum cumque veritatis voluptate autem ex. Eos distinctio voluptas rerum velit est fugiat ipsum occaecati. Neque explicabo molestias dolorum optio voluptatum. Dolorem qui aut molestiae ducimus aliquam est repudiandae sapiente.
Labore excepturi cum et cum adipisci hic. Iste voluptates architecto nulla aut ut. Et amet sequi labore id explicabo. Dolorum maxime illo alias voluptas. Eos et optio occaecati voluptatum. Et voluptatibus voluptatem a qui id fugit officiis. Quisquam labore nesciunt hic cum.
Saepe vel dolor quasi libero. Odit est tempora non iure.
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...
A itaque illum quos in iure quas. Molestias aut nisi officia deleniti et facere. Consequatur corporis est quia. Voluptas quia corporis aut officiis.
Fugiat eveniet eveniet voluptatem similique facere mollitia nobis rem. Enim consequatur ut id ipsam consequuntur incidunt. Voluptatum qui voluptates explicabo sapiente molestias sint. Beatae qui dolor quia dolorem veniam.