What's the point of a 2-3 year PE program?
On the recruiting trail now and I really don't get why PE firms do this. These programs at least makes some sense in banking, assuming analysts will already want to get the heck out of dodge. But why PE? You have associates who actually know something when they start (much better equipped than 1st-year IB analysts), have deal experience, good chance they won't hate their lives. Why push them out if they're doing well?
not enough room at the top
Let me stop you there
Simply, at the average large cap PE fund there aren't as many VP seats as associates who would want to stay on as VP, so only top performers will get promotions.
However, at the end of the day very few qualified (let's call it average associates and up) get pushed out of PE before VP, assuming they want to stay in. If you are a top associate, you will either get offered a direct promote to VP or the opportunity to return post-MBA at the VP level. If you are an average associate, there are ample opportunities to lateral to a VP-track role, with or without an MBA. Only thing is you'll probably take a step down in fund size, which isn't a huge deal and in some ways could be beneficial long-term (more opportunities for growth, more flexibilty in your role / promotion timeline, less politics, etc.).
In addition to limited seats, there's also a more old-school view on the MBA at many firms with rotational associate programs versus HFs and other areas of finance. May be somewhat warranted since ability to source deals can be enhanced with a b-school network but I think the attitude has continued to shift away from that.
Tempora incidunt error est quis aut excepturi. Dolores voluptas non sit est.
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...