Seemingly every MBA student wants to get into one of these industries, and when you combine them, the hype tends to multiply.

Over the past few decades, technology private equity has gone from “barely existing” to representing the largest single sector in PE by both deal value and deal count.

And just as tech and TMT investment banking have become the most desirable groups on the sell-side, tech private equity has reached a simlar status on the buy-side.

Some tech specialist firms have delivered an incredible performance, often with annualized returns (IRRs) of 30-40%, while others “followed the herd” and didn’t do quite so well.

I’ll cover the top firms, deals, recruiting, and career differences here, but as with any superhero saga, I’ll start with the origin story:

Definitions: What is a Technology Private Equity Firm?

Technology Private Equity Definition: A tech private equity firm raises capital from outside investors (Limited Partners), acquires minority or majority stakes in software, internet, hardware, and IT services companies, and grows and sell these stakes within 3 – 7 years to realize a return on their investment.

This definition includes both traditional private equity (buyouts and control stakes) and growth equity (minority stakes) because many “tech PE firms” do both.

The lines between different strategies have blurred over time, and many firms have multiple funds that target companies at different stages.

Why Did PE Firms Start Buying Tech Companies?

When private equity was relatively new in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, most firms stayed far away from technology.

If they did invest at all, they stuck to areas like hardware/semiconductors and services since they were seen as “less risky” than software.

Hardware companies had significant assets that could be used as collateral, pleasing the lenders, and services companies often had large corporate contracts that represented predictable revenue streams.

But all that started to change during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s.

Two of the biggest tech PE firms, Silver Lake and Vista, were founded in 1999 – 2000, partially as contrarian bets on the sector.

At the time, most people assumed that the only way to “invest in technology” was for venture capitalists to pay computer science majors to drop out, strap themselves to Red Bull IVs and espresso machines, start coding 24/7, and launch new websites that might become worth billions overnight.

But Vista and Silver Lake (and eventually Thoma Bravo) saw an opportunity to acquire and grow mature firms, and as the tech industry developed, that opportunity expanded.

Four major trends caused PE interest in tech to skyrocket:

1. The Shift to Subscription-Based Software (SaaS) – Software companies always had some recurring revenue from maintenance & support fees, but the switch to 100% subscriptions made revenue and cash flows far more predictable.
2. Industry Maturation – By the 2000s, many technology companies had matured and fallen into the “low-to-moderate growth, with too much corporate bloat” category.
3. Software Took a Few Bites of the World, But Didn’t Finish Eating – As Marc Andreessen wrote in his famous editorial, software became integral to so many industries that PE investors could no longer ignore it. But some areas proved much harder to “disrupt” than expected, so there remained a perception of untapped opportunity.
4. Loose Monetary and Fiscal Policy – Zero and negative interest rates and massive money printing tend to inflate valuations the most for high-risk, high-growth companies. So, as central banks kept printing, PE firms, VCs, and other investors kept benefiting as they could buy companies at nosebleed multiples and sell them at even higher multiples.

Tech represents the best of both worlds for PE firms: it offers high growth potential with light capital requirements, but also some downside protection because of most companies’ recurring revenue.

There is some risk that customers could switch to other vendors, but if the software is truly “mission-critical,” it’s likely to be deeply entangled with companies’ operations.

That makes switching or canceling long and very expensive processes, further reducing the risk.

Because of these factors, PE firms have been able to pay high multiples for software and other tech companies and still earn high returns.

The Top Technology Private Equity Firms

I would put tech PE firms and PE firms that “do many tech deals” into 6 main categories:

#1: Large, Pure-Play Tech Private Equity Firms

There are three main firms here: Vista, Thoma Bravo, and Silver Lake.

Vista and Thoma Bravo have accounted for around half of all software buyouts over the past few years, and they use a similar playbook: cut costs, increase efficiency, and raise prices when possible.

They also use “buy and build” strategies, such as bolt-on acquisitions, but most large deals are motivated by efficiency gains.

A great example of this is Vista’s $2.6 billion buyout of Duck Creek Technologies (insurance SaaS) in early 2023 for a seemingly nonsensical 234x EBITDA multiple and 7.6x revenue multiple:

And this was not a high-growth business: historical growth rates were in the 15 – 25% range (solid but unremarkable for tech).

But Duck Creek also had low margins, which PE firms likely viewed as an opportunity to cut costs:

A standard LBO model where you assume similar growth rates and margins into the future wouldn’t support this deal.

But if you assume the company can reach 20% or 30% margins, the IRR math might become much more plausible.

Silver Lake, in contrast to these two firms, is less of a software specialist because it also does plenty of hardware, communications, services, and even media deals.

It also does plenty of non-buyout deals, including minority stakes and occasional “rescue” deals for troubled companies, such as for Airbnb when COVID first struck in 2020.

#2: Mid-Sized and Smaller Tech-Focused Private Equity Firms

In this category are firms like Francisco Partners, Vector Capital, Accel-KKR, Marlin, Siris, Hg, Clearlake (more than tech), Symphony Technology Group, and GI Partners (more than tech).

You could also add names like Ardan, Luminate, Fulcrum, and Hermitage (Asia tech) to this list.

Some of these firms, like Francisco Partners, were founded around the same time as Silver Lake and Vista but did not grow to the same extent, with about half as much in AUM currently.

They still execute large deals but do fewer transactions in the $1+ billion range.

If you go even smaller, you’ll find names like Sumeru (Silver Lake’s middle-market firm), Banneker (founded by ex-Vista employees), Riverwood, and Leeds (with a “knowledge industries” focus).

Smaller firms in this category often focus on organic growth and bolt-on acquisitions to scale their portfolio companies.

You will still see traditional buyouts and some efficiency focus, but this group is closer to the “growth equity” side.

#3: Tech-Focused Growth Equity Firms

This list includes firms like Summit, General Atlantic, TA Associates, Insight, PSG, Susquehanna Growth Equity (not structured as a traditional PE/VC firm), and Vitruvian in Europe.

Many large PE firms and mega-funds also have smaller, growth-oriented funds (ex: “Tech Growth” at KKR and similar names at Blackstone, Providence, TPG, Bain, Advent, Permira, etc.).

The business model here is simple: find high-growth tech companies that need more capital to reach the next level, typically to pay for sales & marketing, and invest in minority stakes.

These stakes often have structure attached, such as liquidation preferences, which reduce the downside risk if growth slows or multiples compress.

Many of these deals also include both secondary purchases (existing shares) and primary purchases (new shares issued, which boost the cash balance).

Growth equity firms can often buy existing shares from employees at lower valuations, giving them more potential upside – while they can attach terms like liquidation preferences to primary shares for more downside protection.

#4: Private Equity Mega-Funds and Other “Large Funds” with a Tech Focus

All the PE mega-funds do tech deals, as do other “large PE firms,” such as Hellman & Friedman, Advent, Warburg Pincus, Permira, Bain, EQT, and Apax.

Some of these firms compete with Vista and Thoma Bravo to win deals, so you’ll see many of them in the same sell-side M&A auction processes.

In some cases, they might even team up to acquire companies together – one example was Blackstone and Vista partnering to acquire Ellucian in 2021.

I would also put many sovereign wealth funds and pension funds in this category – especially ones that are more active in deals, such as GIC in Singapore and CPPIB in Canada.

In some cases, they can be even more aggressive bidders because they’re funded by the government, not traditional Limited Partners.

#5: Middle-Market Private Equity Firms with a Tech Focus

You could add many of the firms in the middle-market private equity article to this list, but a few worth noting are Welsh Carson, Veritas, Genstar, New Mountain, and Audax (some of these do more than tech, but they all have a solid presence in the industry).

These firms usually do not compete with Vista or Thoma Bravo to win deals – the key competitors include smaller tech-focused PE firms and other MM PE firms.

Sometimes, these firms will put together custom deals outside bank-run auction processes, often via “sourcing” (cold outreach) and existing relationships.

#6: Tech Venture Capital Firms

Venture capital is a whole separate topic, but I list it here because many traditional, early-stage firms have moved up-market over time and now have separate funds that do growth deals for later-stage companies.

Also, you’ll occasionally see Vista, Thoma Bravo, or Silver Lake go “down market” and invest in earlier-stage companies alongside VC firms.

One example was MedTrainer’s $43 million Series B round in 2022, led by VC firm Telescope Partners and Vista.

On the Job in Technology Private Equity

You might look at these lists and think, “OK, there’s a metric ton of PE firms operating in tech. But how is the day-to-day experience different? And how is tech PE different from any other vertical within PE?”

Unfortunately, the answer here is boring: “It’s not that much different.”

The differences relate mostly to your firm’s strategy and size, not whether you work in tech vs. industrials vs. consumer/retail.

So, at a middle-market tech PE firm, expect the usual MM PE differences: smaller companies, less bureaucracy, more focus on operations and less on financial engineering, and more accessible recruiting.

Compensation has more to do with your firm’s size and performance than its industry focus, and the hours and lifestyle are similar.

The main difference is that you’re more likely to specialize in a vertical, such as insurance software, at the pure-play tech PE firms, while you’re more likely to be a generalist at a tech team within a larger PE firm.

Also, working at one of the “Big 3” tech PE firms might seem more like working at a mega-fund than working in tech at an actual mega-fund.

Since the entire firm does tech, it feels like “the team” is massive.

By contrast, tech is only a small part of what the PE mega-funds and other large firms do, and the day-to-day teams are smaller.

Recruiting at Tech PE Firms

Again, most of the differences here relate to the firm’s size and strategy, not its industry focus.

Recruiting differs far more between private equity vs. growth equity vs. venture capital firms than it does between industrial vs. tech PE firms.

That said, the “Top 3” tech PE firms have a reputation for starting very early, often launching the entire on-cycle private equity recruiting process each year.

So, you can expect fierce competition to win a role at one of these firms, as you’ll be up against all the other 1^st Year Analysts in the best groups.

Having tech or TMT experience in investment banking helps, but it’s not essential if you have good technical skills and can confidently explain your deals.

At the smaller tech PE firms, you can expect the off-cycle recruiting process (lots of networking, outreach, and following up) and open-ended private equity case studies.

Growth equity firms tend to use a mix of the on-cycle and off-cycle processes, depending on their size, but they test slightly different topics (see below).

And most VC firms are in the “off-cycle” category, as they’re not necessarily competing for the same types of candidates.

If you ignore firm size and the on-cycle vs. off-cycle distinction, the biggest recruiting difference is that different types of firms test different skills in case studies and modeling tests.

Here’s a summary from our Venture Capital & Growth Equity Modeling course:

Expect more qualitative case studies in VC and possibly a few cap table exercises; growth equity tends to focus on “customer analysis” and 3-statement models; and LBO modeling tests in private equity are more about the formulas and calculations.

Final Thoughts on Technology Private Equity

Technology private equity has had a great run, but I’m skeptical that it will continue at the same pace.

We’re now in a very different macro environment than the 2008 – 2021 period, enterprise software is increasingly difficult to sell, and tech valuations have fallen across the board.

Some of these points could change over time, but I doubt that we’ll return to QE Infinity anytime soon.

Tech and software will continue to be growth industries, but I don’t think pure growth will be valued as highly going forward.

And I expect that many of the funds raised and deployed toward the end of this cycle will deliver underwhelming returns (see: PE funds raised in 2007).

I’m not predicting the apocalypse; just that overall tech performance will move closer to the industry median over time.

That means the tech/PE hype train will probably decelerate – even though it will never go off the rails completely.

For Further Reading

I recommend these two articles/interviews if you want to learn even more about tech PE firms and one of the most prominent people in the industry:

• Operating Manual – Profile of Robert F. Smith of Vista
• Bain – Global Software Private Equity Report

The post The Complete Guide to Technology Private Equity appeared first on Mergers & Inquisitions.

1. Make a lot of money or gain power/prestige.
2. Take little-to-no risk.
3. And work normal, stable hours.

If you’ve read this site before, you know this set of goals is impossible for most finance careers: you take a lot of risk, work long/stressful hours, or both.

But one possible exception lies in sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), which are similar to funds of funds in some ways.

The pitch is that you do a mix of high-level “macro” work and occasional “micro” work, such as direct investments, you may get to live in exotic locations and pay less in taxes, and you work much more normal hours than in other finance jobs.

And while the pay ceiling is lower, it’s not that big a difference until you reach the top levels – especially after factoring in the lower taxes.

I’ll address all these points here and cover the advantages and disadvantages of SWFs, but let’s start with the definitions and overview:

What Are Sovereign Wealth Funds?

Sovereign Wealth Funds Definition: Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are state-owned vehicles that invest significant reserves from commodities or foreign exchange assets in various sectors to build up savings, stabilize the government’s revenue during downturns, and diversify wealth and income.

Sovereign wealth funds are the most common in countries with one or more of the following:

1. Commodity Wealth – Oil-producing countries tend to have cash surpluses, especially when oil and gas prices are high.
2. Trade Surpluses – Some countries, like Singapore, are not rich in commodities but serve as trade hubs and generate significant revenue from these activities.
3. Tax Revenues and Pension Contributions – In places like Canada and Australia, the pension or “superannuation” system generates significant funds to invest (but some would call the investment firms there “pension funds” or “superannuation funds” rather than SWFs).

SWFs in places like the Middle East, Norway, and Russia are heavily linked to commodities, while the ones in places like China, Hong Kong, and Singapore have more diversified reserves.

Commodity-linked funds want to diversify and avoid complete dependency on oil, gas, or lithium prices, while other funds are motivated by some combination of diversification and “saving for future generations.”

Sovereign Wealth Fund Strategies

Sovereign wealth funds can invest in almost anything, from equities to fixed income to real estate, infrastructure, private equity, hedge funds, and more.

Some SWFs operate like long-only asset managers (i.e., mutual funds) that allocate their assets top-down and then pick specific indices, companies, and securities that meet their criteria.

Others operate more like funds of funds and delegate much of the investing process to private equity firms, hedge funds, and other asset managers.

More recently, many SWFs have built direct investing teams to pursue minority-stake deals, credit deals, and even control deals for > 50% stakes in companies.

Examples in this last category include GIC and Temasek in Singapore and Mubadala in Abu Dhabi.

Also, many SWFs without official direct investment teams still co-invest with PE firms they’ve invested in, like the private equity fund of funds model.

Some sovereign wealth funds also pursue unconventional strategies.

One good example is the NZ Super Fund in New Zealand, which invests based on “diversifying risk” rather than a traditional asset allocation.

The firm uses passive and active strategies, often deviating from its reference portfolio based on the macro environment.

Sovereign wealth funds have much longer time horizons and more “permanent capital” than traditional PE firms, hedge funds, and funds of funds, and these points create differences in timing, strategy, and willingness to pay.

For example, many SWFs take their time making decisions and are sometimes willing to outbid traditional investment firms in areas like infrastructure assets.

They do not “need” to exit their investments within a specific time frame because they have no Limited Partners, so they can do things that traditional firms cannot.

The Top Sovereign Wealth Funds

You can easily find a list of the “biggest” sovereign wealth funds online: the Government Pension Fund (GPF) of Norway, the China Investment Corporation (CIC), the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), the Kuwait Investment Authority, GIC in Singapore, the Public Investment Fund (PIF) in Saudi Arabia, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority Investment Portfolio, Temasek, the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), Mubadala, and so on.

Some people would also put CPPIB in Canada (and other Canadian funds) on this list, but these firms are usually classified as pension funds rather than sovereign wealth funds.

But the more relevant question is: “Which of these funds would you want to work at?”

And the short answer is: “Some of the Middle Eastern ones, plus GIC and Temasek.”

These tend to be the funds that pay better, actively recruit new entry-level hires, and do at least some direct investing.

Funds like Mubadala, GIC, and Temasek are good for direct investing work, and ones like ADAI, PIF, and QIA offer competitive pay, even if there’s less direct investing.

Some other large funds might also qualify; unfortunately, there’s little information available on most of them.

I assume you probably need to be a Chinese or Hong Kong national to have a good chance at anything based in China or HK, but I’m not 100% certain of that (feel free to clarify in the comments).

On the Job at a Sovereign Wealth Fund

To understand the nature of the job, you should know what PE Analysts, PE Associates, and HF Analysts do because much of it is similar.

If you compare a junior role at a sovereign wealth fund to these jobs, the work tends to be broader and shallower:

For example:

• Time – Traditional PE: You might dig into 2-3 potential deals each week, build models, and conduct market research. You’ll also spend time supporting existing portfolio companies and reviewing their results. Almost everything you do at the junior level is “micro” in nature.
• Time – SWF: You might spend 50% of your time looking at specific deals and the other 50% on higher-level asset allocation decisions (sectors, strategies, funds, etc.) and supporting your Portfolio Manager’s ideas and requests.
• Presentations – Traditional PE: The “deal review” pace above means that you could make several presentations to the investment committee or Board each month. And each one will take a fair amount of time and effort.
• Presentations – SWF: You will not make nearly as many presentations to the committee or Board; it might be closer to one per month, depending on the number of direct investments you work on.
• Deal Approval – Traditional PE/HF: To win approval for an investment, you don’t necessarily need to please “everyone” – just the key decision-makers. But they will dig into your work and ask detailed questions.
• Deal Approval – SWF: More people will review your process and recommendations, but they won’t go into as much detail as much as a traditional PE Partner. The approval process might take longer (say, 2-3 months rather than 1 month) because more people need to weigh in.
• Depth of Work – Traditional PE/HF: You’ll spend time doing market research, meeting management teams/customers/competitors, and building detailed financial models for any deal that moves past your quick screening.
• Depth of Work – SWF: You’ll still complete many of these tasks, but not to the depth that you would in most PE/HF roles. For example, you might focus on the model’s 2-3 key points that will drive returns rather than getting all 273 line items correct.
• Returns – Traditional PE: The targets vary by fund type and strategy, but traditional buyout funds usually achieve IRRs in the 15 – 20% range.
• Returns – SWF: Targets are often 3 – 5% lower, whether directly stated or implicitly acknowledged. This might not sound like much, but it could be the difference between a 2.0x and 1.6x multiple over 5 years (for example).

If you do direct investing, you’ll be closer to the “PE/HF” side of the spectrum, but there will still be some differences.

For example, minority-stake investments, credit deals, and co-investments in leveraged buyouts are all common.

But control transactions where your fund acquires over 50% of a company are less common, partly because of rules restricting foreign investment ownership in many countries.

Sovereign Wealth Funds: Salaries, Bonuses, and… Carried Interest (???)

You should expect pre-tax compensation that’s ~25% lower than pay at large PE firms at the junior levels.

So, expect something in-line with pay at middle-market firms, such as $200 – $250K rather than $300K+ total.

As you move up, the pay differential increases because base salaries and bonuses increase more slowly, and carried interest is much lower or non-existent; at the Director level, it might be more like a 40-50% difference.

At the senior levels (MD or Partner), earning $1 million or more is still possible, but it’s less common or “expected” than in traditional PE.

But the biggest difference relates to carried interest.

The “Limited Partner” of any sovereign wealth fund is the government, and the government does not like to pay high fees on its investments.

So, carried interest either does not exist or is greatly diminished at most of these funds, which means that the potential upside at the senior levels is much lower than in traditional PE.

Some places offer “shadow carry” or other vesting compensation that’s linked to performance, but the total amount is much lower than in direct investing roles.

That said, there is a tax advantage if you work in the main office of a sovereign wealth fund because the personal income tax rate is 0% in many Middle Eastern countries and only 22% in Singapore.

If you’re a non-U.S. citizen, these rates make a $200K total compensation package go much further than in other countries.

If you are a U.S. citizen, you still must pay U.S. taxes, but you’ll pay a significantly lower rate due to the foreign earned income exclusion.

So, you could easily earn more after taxes than in a traditional PE job in the U.S. or Europe – at least up to a certain level.

Lifestyle, Hours, and Promotions

The good news is that you also work much less in exchange for the reduced compensation.

At the junior level, you might work anywhere from 40 to 60 hours per week (the upper end of the range is more likely for direct teams), which is much less than most IB and PE groups.

Also, taking time off, planning vacations, and having a real life outside work are much easier.

The general attitude is that you’re in the office to work, but you’re not “on call” 24/7.

The bad news is that it can be quite difficult to get promoted, partially because working at a SWF is much more political than most PE firms and hedge funds.

Completely unqualified people sometimes get hired just because they’re connected to Powerful Politician X or Oil Baron Y, and hardly anyone at the top ever wants to leave.

Another issue is that many SWFs only hire local candidates, greatly prefer local candidates, or promote local candidates more quickly.

The classic example is Singapore, where you’ll get promoted more quickly as a Singaporean citizen at funds like GIC.

But it also happens at many Middle Eastern funds, so it’s not Singapore-specific.

If you’re in a SWF satellite office in the U.S. or Europe, this is less of an issue, but promotion there could also be tricky because these offices are smaller.

How to Recruit at Sovereign Wealth Funds and Win Offers

As mentioned above, in some cases, you need to be a citizen of the SWF’s country to have a good shot at winning a job in the fund’s main office.

This varies by fund and region and changes over time, but it is something to consider before you apply for these roles.

Most SWFs do not recruit undergraduates, with some exceptions, such as GIC and Temasek (if you fit their profile).

So, your best option in most cases is to gain traditional investment banking or private equity experience and use that to move in.

It is possible to move in from backgrounds like equity research, hedge funds, or asset management, but you should target groups that do asset allocation and public-market investments rather than deals.

Some larger funds use headhunters, but networking is essential to win these roles because the process is more like off-cycle private equity recruiting.

If you are a U.S. or European citizen with experience at a large bank, you probably have the best shot at Middle Eastern SWF roles at firms like ADIA, QIA, PIF, and Mubadala.

For more about this one, see our coverage of investment banking in Dubai.

Interviews and Case Studies

Just as the investment process is broader and shallower at SWFs, so is recruiting.

A typical process might look like this:

• Round 1: You might speak with HR or investment staff about very standard questions (“Why the buy-side?” “How would you invest in Industry X?” “Why this firm?” “Why this country?”). They might ask you to pitch a stock, but it will be less formal than in ER and HF interviews.
• Round 2: You answer other fit/behavioral questions about your leadership experience, strengths and weaknesses, and so on.
• Round 3: You might have to prepare and present a short case study or investment pitch in this round (~60 minutes). For example, they could give you information about two similar companies (Visa and Mastercard, Google and Facebook, etc.), ask you to recommend investing in one, and have you answer questions from the PMs about your decision.

You are unlikely to get a traditional LBO modeling test, a growth equity modeling test, or even a simple 3-statement modeling test – but there may be exceptions for teams that focus on direct investments.

Unlike the private equity funds of funds process, you are also unlikely to get a “fund evaluation” case study where you recommend investing in a specific PE fund.

Sovereign wealth funds do more than just PE fund investing, so this task might be too niche for many teams.

The technical questions are similar to the standard ones in any IB or PE interview, but you should also expect broader questions about markets and the economy, similar to an asset management interview.

The best way to prepare for the case study or stock pitch is to practice reading about different companies and making decisions quickly.

You won’t have time to build a simple DCF model or do more than look at multiples and qualitative descriptions, so you must think and act quickly based on limited information.

Sovereign Wealth Fund Exit Opportunities

The good news is that at the junior levels, plenty of people at sovereign wealth funds move around to other buy-side roles.

For example, it’s possible to win offers at middle-market private equity firms, funds of funds, family offices, and even venture capital and growth equity firms if you have tech investing experience.

You can also potentially join a portfolio company if you’ve worked in a group that does direct or co-investments.

On the other hand, it is extremely unlikely that you will go from a SWF to a PE mega-fund because they tend to “discount” SWF experience and prefer candidates from the top bulge-bracket banks.

You can get into good business schools in the U.S. and Europe from SWFs, but your chances at the top 2-3 schools are slightly lower because they also tend to discount SWF experience, especially in the Middle East.

That said, if you do IB/PE first and then work at a sovereign wealth fund for 2-3 years, your exit opportunities will be only marginally diminished.

Your chances at hedge funds depend heavily on what you did at your fund.

You can move to strategies like long/short equity if you have experience there, but if you’ve only done high-level asset allocation, you won’t be competitive.

The bad news is that the exit opportunities get much more limited as you move up the ladder to the VP/Principal/Director level.

Most traditional PE firms will not hire SWF professionals who lack normal PE experience at this level, so many people end up “stuck” at SWFs.

They don’t want to leave and take a big pay cut, but they also can’t easily move to other roles that offer similar pay.

Do Sovereign Wealth Funds Live Up to the Hype?

While sovereign wealth funds have their downsides, I would argue that they come close to offering the perfect mix of high compensation and relatively normal hours.

They are especially good in two specific situations:

1. IB/PE Burnout – Maybe you’ve worked in deal-based roles for a few years and enjoyed some of the work but want more of a life and a slower pace. In this case, joining a SWF for 2-3 years can be an interesting option that will set you apart from others without limiting your exit opportunities too much.
2. Long-Term “Buy and Chill” Career – If you do not care about advancing to the MD/Partner level in traditional PE or starting your own PE fund, and you’d be perfectly happy earning $500K – $1 million while working relatively normal hours, senior-level jobs at SWFs can be quite cushy.

The main problem with sovereign wealth funds is that everything between these two career positions is tricky.

Getting promoted can be very difficult and political, you’ll deal with a lot of bureaucracy, and if you stay too long, you’ll likely take a big pay cut if you decide to leave.

So, I’m not sure I would recommend SWFs over traditional PE/HF/VC/GE roles if your main goal is career advancement.

But if you’re willing to make a side trip to the desert for a few years, you might find a few diamonds in the rough right next to the oil wells.

The post Sovereign Wealth Funds: The Full Guide to the Industry, Recruiting, Careers, and Exits appeared first on Mergers & Inquisitions.