What are the pros and cons of taking a megafund analyst role (e.g., KKR, Bain Cap) vs. an offer from a bulge-bracket bank or MBB? I've heard some say that megafund analysts are basically guaranteed return offers, but also heard from others that PE analysts really struggle relative to bankers/consultants when they transition to the associate role.
| +38 | (Serious) PE Funds with Good WLB | 30 | 1d | |
| +30 | On-Cycle recruiting as 2nd year analyst? | 5 | 6d | |
| +22 | What are the clear-cut buckets amongst MF/UMM/MM funds | 19 | 5h | |
| +19 | Relative Attractiveness of Investing in US vs. Canada | 2 | 6d | |
| +19 | European Megafunds (based on PEI 2023) | 12 | 5h | |
| +18 | Partners Group Comp + Offices | 8 | 4d | |
| +16 | MBB first year exploring PE options | 3 | 4h | |
| +15 | Is Client Side the Place to Be? | 10 | 4d | |
| +15 | Partners Group Long Term | 1 | 22h | |
| +13 | Back Channeling when Thinking of Taking a Role | 6 | 11h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Good banking group: - most rigorous experience - good odds at access to prestigious PE firm as associate
Megafund analyst: - least rigorous experience - most prestigious - very good odds at reentry as an associate
MBB: - rigorous experience like banking, but a bit more variability, because only 1 project at a time - also very prestigious - hardest one to enter megafund from, but still happens decently often (lot of the bigger funds have bias towards bankers, with exception of Bain Cap)
also a con worth mentioning at as a MF analyst your network will be significantly smaller than someone coming out of a large banking/consulting analyst class
Megafund analyst role is a much more rigorous experience than a good banking group if you want to become an investor and it is not even close. Why would PE analysts struggle relative to bankers/consultants when they transition?
Because it's not even close to as rigorous. You work on fewer deals, you don't get the reps, and the associate above you takes most of the technical work, whereas at banks, the associate wants to push that work on you.
Would argue the exact opposite (and I have experience from both). Yes, might work on fewer deals - but the level of depth / analysis and actual thinking required at the MF far outweighs the benefit of working on more deals (at a more shallow level). Rigorousness of experience is to me what you actually learn at those places in order to become a better investor - and at least from my experience (and pretty much everyone I know who has done the same track) - it is not even close between MF / good banking group at BB. Depth > Velocity.
Seems pretty unlikely you were a megafund analyst and IBD analyst... why leave IBD early to be an analyst, when you could join as associate?
To each their own, but I think you're wrong. As I laid out above, there are trade-offs. Megafund analyst is by far the most prestigious, but I don't think the experience is as good.
Unlikely maybe, but true. You know there are megafunds with offices outside of US right where the system is different? To each their own indeed, it depends on what you want to do in the long-term, if you want to be an true investor I think megafund is superior to get an investment mindset/exposure as early on as possible. If you want to be transactional / dealmaker then sure, I don't necessarily disagree that banking is likely better.
No offense, but if your experience is outside of the US, it is practically irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
A BB/EB Analyst position - in the USA - is a very standardized level of experience: a lot of modeling (where you are in charge of the model), pitchbook making, etc. A MF/MM PE Analyst position - in the USA - is completely subservient to the PE Associate, which is 95%+ of the time a person with two years of BB/EB Analyst experience and fully fluent in modeling and PPT work. PE Analysts come on to kind of help out with some small aspects but never get to run a process, whereas their banking counterparts take on the bulk of work. For the vast majority of Analyst candidates, banking experience is superior in the long term compared with joining a PE straight out of undergrad. I could go a lot further on this topic if needed.
Honestly, people here pass off advice based on their own niche experiences as gospel. Please refrain from doing so. I have many years of work experience outside of the US and don't try to pass on my experiences as what a person in the US should expect. Outside of the US the junior levels are given a lot broader experience. In the US it is very standardized, specialized and technical, with highly defined roles.
What specifically don't you think is as good about the experience outside of getting fewer reps? I think if you actually want to spend your career on the buyside the experience is much better because you actually thinking about the right questions eg - what is this company worth versus how much can I sell this company for
Consequatur explicabo odit aperiam. Quia quasi excepturi non.
Dolores beatae non dolores eveniet saepe. Qui rem neque et iure dicta aliquid. Neque maxime a eos aspernatur est. Fugit non tempore aspernatur aut commodi.
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...