Why Growth Equity vs Buyout?

Trying to be thoughtful before starting in a BB analyst program soon and wondering if those who were interested in both traditional buyouts and growth equity (or just one) went about narrowing down to one? Just kind of curious what things other people considered. Thanks!

 
Most Helpful

Generic talking points you can mix and match between: - More interesting to focus on pulling growth levers vs. cutting costs and financial engineering - Companies tend to be more interesting (consumer, tech, healthcare vs. industrials, manufacturing) - You're more of a partner with management teams vs. an owner; less focus on replacing management vs. working with founders - Opportunity for funds to differentiate themselves through ops and strategy added value vs. last dollar valuation (in theory more sustainable vs. returns being competed away in traditional buyout) - More entrepreneurial (smaller deal teams, associates tend to have closer relationships with management teams and take on interesting ops projects, associate often play more of a role in sourcing) ** **** **

 

Do you like sourcing or not? If yes, then growth equity, as most firms in that space are heavily sourcing focused at the junior level.

BTW, sourcing gets a bad rap. It can certainly be a grind, but i actually think the soft skills you develop in that type of role can be just as valuable as the more technical skills (e.g. financial analysis and engineering) you might develop in buyouts. Possibly more transferable too.

 

Assuming you are in OP's shoes (IB analyst) and your end goal is GE, I don't think it makes sense to work at an operating company first as you are basically taking a roundabout trip to the same place. Also, as mentioned, it's not always easy to get into a new industry at a mid/seniorish level, especially when it is an industry that is quite competitive.

Note that I am not saying that opco experience isn't beneficial. What I would suggest instead is IB > GE > opco. Many friends / colleagues have done this, and it actually works out quite nice. GE is usually a 2-3 year stint with an expected exit, and oftentimes you can just exit to a portco of your firm. Then go back to GE (sometimes with an MBA pit stop) and just say you wanted to be in GE long term but felt it was good to get the opco experience to understand the day to day of how real businesses work.

 

More emphasis on management (can't unilaterally change them) and security + rights (you are one of many investors, instead of the one in control)

Less so on ability to utilize debt (obvious reasons) and sometimes there is less DD overall, because you are presumably the senior security and not first loss

 

In my opinion, growth generally describes mid to late stage investments, so slightly larger businesses, ~$10+ in revenue, that are growing quickly and generally want money to burn as they grow.

The farther you get into late-stage growth, the more similar the workload will be to buyouts. Growth stage work will usually involve a fair amount of sourcing, both for deals you could immediately work on as well as earlier stage deals that could develop from a VC/Early Stage investment, into a growth round down the road. As far as technical analysis goes, the analysis is probably slightly simpler as most of the positions will be minority positions with no debt; however, you'll be more focused on cap table math and figuring out distribution waterfalls, dilution, etc. You'll also likely be doing more market analysis, ie does this company have the potential to get from $10M to $100M, what is driving that? What are the unit economics, retention/churn, essentially trying to validate what the CEO/founders are pitching to you as the big opportunity. Again, the later the stage, the more info you'll be able to dive into. In Airbnb's recent round, I'm sure the Sixth Street guys/gals on that were cranking through data and focusing more on Airbnb's burn rate, what the future looks like for them, at what valuation does the investment make sense, etc.

There's also much less operating control of the businesses. At a bigger growth fund, there's little chance that the investors have much sway and even less chance that at the junior levels, you'll get much exposure. Less control is a double edged sword, it makes things easier, but you also have less control over the investment.

For buyouts, it's a little more technical in that the deal is usually won/lost in the capital structure/financing piece of the deal. Growth assumptions are usually more modest and making money comes more from cost optimization and appropriate leverage. That is what makes the modeling more important, making sure the business can take on leverage, service debt payments appropriately, and generate enough cash is typically the most important part of the deal. These are also usually things that are easier to predict than a growth business' unproven revenue streams. PE partners often times take board seats, bring in new management, and juniors will sometimes have some role in the operations piece of the business. It's more project manage-y at times, making sure the business doesn't trip covenants, working with lenders to get the right financing, moving pieces around to make the business (appear) more profitable.

Neither one is better/worse than the other, kind of just depends on what you're interested in. Some people love growth investing and say that it's closer to true investing, others would say its glorified gambling. For those who love LBOs/Buyouts, they love the structuring piece of the deal and being able to create value in something where others might not see it. Critics of LBOs will say they're just chop-shops, levering up businesses, paying themselves out, and letting the business suffer.

I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting, but that's my high level take.

 

In terms of cost savings, it's really assumptions and insights into the sectors provided by senior banker who have been there and done that.

Well while it's true that access is one thing, how you structure the capital structure is another and that's where maybe more sophisticated funds have an edge. Besides' he's comparing Buyouts to Growth so capital structure is definitely a lot more important here

 

If you're interested in both, you can pursue both in recruiting.

To the Head Hunters with elite growth clients, you can pitch yourself as growth. To the head hunters with stronger tradiitonal PE shops, you can say that.

No need to narrow your options ahead of time. Think PE experience is more dependent on the firm (and its culture / style / operations) than an "investing strategy"

Obviously some exceptions, but my two cents

 

Numquam fugiat ut dolore in aut eos in. Est ex sit excepturi voluptates blanditiis. Nihil voluptas maxime aut et qui.

Nihil maiores inventore autem rem rerum repellat quis. Tenetur consequuntur qui libero.

Excepturi amet et quibusdam pariatur. Quis eveniet eius qui tempora. Excepturi veritatis dolore ea impedit dolor sed laboriosam.

 

Quia esse quia maxime eum ratione. Aliquid cum asperiores quasi ut nisi. Quaerat dignissimos ut provident libero et. Vel labore repellat quo. At officia earum itaque eligendi enim est rem fugiat. Eos reprehenderit facere nemo odit.

Cumque molestiae omnis beatae. Voluptatem veritatis eveniet dignissimos eos reprehenderit. Illo eum distinctio saepe commodi perferendis sint. Corporis quis delectus eius vero.

Laboriosam voluptas beatae quo possimus quas doloribus et voluptatem. Distinctio necessitatibus magni odio cupiditate. Architecto dolor dolore excepturi velit odio. Vel est occaecati in nam. Reprehenderit consequatur aut sit quia aut. Consequatur dolor iusto non facere porro tenetur.

Natus animi debitis qui iste. Eius autem vitae voluptatum error est enim dolore deleniti. Beatae corrupti architecto cum reprehenderit facere. Voluptatibus voluptates laborum qui id pariatur. Incidunt quibusdam fuga temporibus ut non. Expedita iure porro optio quis.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”