Yes, this is generally true (even at non-mega-funds). See the PE Analyst article for more.

It does matter because you tend to get more “credit” for closed deals. It also sounds like you accomplished more, even though you probably had nothing to do with the deal closing. But perception trumps reality in recruiting in a lot of cases. Traditionally, PE firms have recruited mostly from investment banks, but more firms are beginning to hire students directly out of undergrad.

The idea was to make sure people are trained in accounting/Excel/PowerPoint/valuation/modeling and then give them more “real work” in PE. But in a lot of cases, firms can also train people internally.

But does closing a deal matter that much when you’re working as an analyst? Because an analyst would analyze that deal no matter if it failed in the future or not.

Also, if the analyst/associate job is so similar between IB and PE, why do PE funds almost only hire people from IB?

One of the differences is that a higher percentage of the deals you work on in IB will close. By contrast, ~99% of potential deals in PE are rejected fairly early on, and even among the ones that advance further, the failure rate is probably higher.

If you think that you’ll be doing something much different than fixing slides, reviewing spreadsheets, and building models as a PE Associate, then I think you might not have a clear understanding of the industry and what you do as a junior-level employee. It’s a very similar job, but with more responsibility and less hand-holding. But if you find PPT and Excel fundamentally boring, you’re also not going to like PE.

In addition, how does fixing slides and reviewing spreadsheets give you relevant “training” to apply in as a PE associate?

Thanks in advance,
Jose

P.S. the link in “so you’re less likely to close many deals” is for deals in IB and not PE. I don’t know if it was intended or not, but by the placement used one thinks it is for PE deals.

That is not something we do because there is about a 0.1% chance that I can tell you anything useful about the AM firm because we don’t track individual firms that much, and outside of banks, we *really* don’t track individual firms that much. If you want information, look on LinkedIn find people who worked at this AM firm, left, and have been doing other things for a few years, and then contact them via email to ask for their quick thoughts. That takes time/effort, but it’s the only way to get good results… don’t trust people online, review sites, etc.

Thank you so much for your reply Brian! And so sorry about missing your original reply. Would it be possible to reveal the actual name of the fund to you in private chat so that you can give me a quick evaluation of how good the company is in terms of promotion paths (I will also name the Elite Boutique which will help)? Just two lines from you would help me greatly. The current employees of the company are very secretive and there is a lot of pressure to reveal as little as possible. I am also willing to pay for this service was it necessary, all I would want is really two lines on the AM fund versus the specific EB, I am sure that after your long experience and multiple conversations you will provide me with a comprehensive answer and help me make a correct decision. Thank you in advance

I responded to your original comment on the other post:

https://mergersandinquisitions.com/finance-recruiting-in-2019/#comments

“If you are 100% certain you want to stay in the hedge fund/asset management world, and this large fund is reputable with well-established promotion paths, I’d say the AM offer is better. The only real advantage of starting out in banking is that you get a better brand name and network if you’re at one of the bulge brackets, but those same advantages don’t quite exist for elite boutiques. “