EVR M&A Class of 2019 Exits
Hi all, does anyone have detailed information on the PE associate exits from this class? The following are sample co-equivalents of what I'm looking for. For context, I'm evaluating a SA 2023 offer.
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/moelis-ny-…
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/moelis-cla…
Also, information on MF PE on-cycle participation and MF placement would be super helpful. My understanding is there are ~70 kids across NY and MP and analysts keep telling me "everyone who wants MF gets MF." It seems like ~50 people do PE recruiting, but only ~10 kids exit to UMM/MF PE. I feel like the people who are going to MM shops (many of which are considered sweaty) say they didn't want UMM/MF PE but actually recruited for those roles, didn't get them, and are now pushing the narrative that they didn't want those roles as opposed to telling me that they didn't get those roles. Am I wrong? I feel like Evercore perpetuates the myth that "everyone who wants MF gets MF" and no one wants to admit that it is false since that would require analysts openly admitting they didn't get UMM/MF roles and that they took MM roles because they didn't get anything better.
Thoughts? I plan on taking the offer but would appreciate some frankness and honesty. It just seems crazy on-cycle PE recruiting participation from EBs is like 60-70% but only ~20% of those who do PE recruiting end up at UMM/MF.
EDIT: see my methodology below. I am only filtering for the largest 20 PE funds. However, the results don't meaningfully change when you expand to include the next 10 names.
~10 going to UMM/MF PE sounds quite light for them. If this is for Class of 2019, this should be pretty trackable through LinkedIn.
I worked at a different "EB" and actually turned down most of my MF interviews (went to 1 of 5 I was invited to, 3 were different groups at same fund) for MM/UMM funds and went to a UMM fund instead. Honestly, the recruiting timeline is pretty similar for a lot of these funds for on cycle so it's perfectly plausible someone signs with Lindsay Goldberg or Berkshire around the same time, or even before, someone else does at KKR.
I am sure most people who want MF get it and there is some self-section bias on the MM/UMM front but also some people who struck out.
If you can't get interviews coming from Evercore, then there's something wrong. Getting the interview is usually the hardest part. When picking between a bunch of spots to interview at, there's also a lot of luck involved. At the end of the day, Evercore will position you just as well as any other top bank / group will.
Edit: I swear people just give MS on anything
thanks for the response.
I actually did try filtering via LinkedIn. For context, my methodology is as follows: I select the 20 largest PE firms under the current employer, Evercore as the past employer, and United States for region. I then filter "Private Equity Associate" for the title since I have noticed that almost all PE associates list Private Equity Associate as their title whereas non-PE group associates (i.e. Credit, Real Estate, Secondaries, Impact, etc.) just list Associate.
I found 21 current PE associates and I know several of these people are not in Corporate PE (i.e. 2 are in BX energy PE almost certainly given Houston TX EVR experience, few people in Growth PE such as TPG Growth, 1 dude is MF Real Estate Private Equity, etc.) I just assume the # of people who list Private Equity Associate and are not doing flagship LBO PE offsets the # of Associates who are doing flagship LBO PE but just list associates and are filtered. I assume this because people who do flagship LBO PE are incentivized to explicitly state that whereas non-LBO PE group associates are almost always going to just put associate. I also went through a lot of people's profiles who just list Associate and they list in their job description the group they're in and of the ~10 profiles I did this, none were in LBO PE.
I then just divide the # of associates by 2 and assume people are all 1st or 2nd years and get to the ~10 people figure.
My methodology obviously has deficiencies which is why I was seeking more granular data from someone who is in this class and/or an associate at the firm with access to this information.
In other words:
If you go to HBS or GSB you say you go to HBS or GSB;
If you go to W you say you to go to HSW;
If you go to Booth, Kellogg, MIT or Columbia you say you go to M7.
Out of curiosity, how are you sorting the 20 largest PE firms? Latest fund size, AUM, number of employees on LinkedIn, etc.?
Interesting fact pattern on the Associate vs. Private Equity Associate point. I think I put the former on LinkedIn, as did a lot of my colleagues, and we do traditional LBO PE. The fund I'm at doesn't do any credit or more niche stuff like real estate or energy so just assumed people would know I was in LBO PE. Also as people get promoted to Senior Associate and VP, I feel like you usually don't see people include "Private Equity" before their title but to each person, his or her own. I can see why they do that though.
That’s what needs to be clarified with this question and general definitions of “MM” PE. Someone at EVR turning down MF interview/offers for a place like Veritas or Berkshire is totally likely, but agreed that the kids ending up at random $1B funds are generally indicative of striking out at bigger funds. This might happen once in a while, but I would doubt most of these kids had MF/UMM opportunities.
I’d go on LinkedIN and look at exits - would honestly group UMM/MF exits in one bucket for reasons I mention above and assume ~50%+ of class is recruiting on cycle (my rough guess based on anecdotal evidence) and do the math from there on placement rates
Honestly, participation may have even been less than that...
re: your last paragraph, I know Evercore is a great firm and I know it is comparatively quite strong (arguably the strongest) but the research question is: what is the veracity of the "Everyone who wants MF gets MF" statement?
Not at EVR but my take would be “everyone who wants MF that checks the boxes gets an MF interview”. From there it’s on you to convert and it’s not Evercores fault if you fail a model test.
As far as checking the boxes to get an interview, it comes down to properly managing head hunter game, having a solid resume (GPA, closed deals, etc), having good internal reputation if a headhunter asks an older analyst to rank you, etc. Evercore certainly is positioning you as well as basically any bank, so eventually it’s on the candidate to land the offer
And to clarify, when I said MM/UMM funds, think Lindsay Goldberg, Centerbridge, Madison Dearborn, Welsh Carson types (i.e., not some random no name funds)
Can confirm anyone who wanted UMM / MF got it
troll 😂
Thank you for the insight, prospect. Surely you know more than me
This is a very naive way of viewing recruiting. There are a ton of reasons to choose UMM or MM or even LMM funds over megafunds. Location, culture, industry, long-term pay. Anecdotally, I have friends who chose offers at smaller shops over larger ones. Thinking individuals only optimize for size of shop isn’t exactly right—those that do/ are maximizing for only working for a megafund likely end up a megafund from evercore. I think more likely, most analysts recruit and don’t really know what they want then click with one firm and at times that isn’t a megafund.
I concur not everyone wants UMM/MF. Wasn't trying to say that and you're right many people voluntarily choose LMM/MM opportunities for a variety of reasons. However, the point I am making is that if the data analysis is directionally right (which I think it is), then only ~20% of people end up in UMM/MF.
I doubt ~80% of people who are doing PE recruiting decided they don't want to do UMM/MF PE for the reasons that you listed. In fact, I really doubt the MAJORITY of analysts are optimizing for 1: locations where UMM/MF presence is non-existent or 2: culture (albeit some are). Additionally, people who are leaving the industry are excluded from this analysis when I apply a % to the analyst class size for PE recruiting participation.
A few things I think you are missing:
I feel like this website often has these sort of LinkedIn analyses people do and I always cringe a bit. I didn’t work at evercore, but trust me you aren’t struggling to recruit coming from there. Everyone knows it. You can try to find that they are perpetuating some myth and find other confirming evidence, but trust me they aren’t really. I have enough friends who recruited from there and frankly I have my own datapoints at an EB similar that had me with plenty of options. Where else would megafunds be hiring from? Only GS or MS? People just aren’t that retarded in hiring. Is it a higher proportion at those places? Maybe. You might be able to find some correlation of the clown that values brand over all else will go to GS and chase the prestige to KKR almost certainly whereas an evercore analyst might have realized EB’s often pay more and can give a better experience so they are more likely to be more open minded in choosing funds.
I think this is a bit of a disingenuous way of looking at it - there’s obviously exceptions and there are certain smaller funds that are either very prestigious or offer great long term opps, but I would argue the average analyst is solving for fund size/prestige when recruiting out of an EB. Not at EVR but at a competitor so based on my id the kids in my class.
Like I posted above, someone going to GTCR or Berkshire makes complete sense over a MF based on culture/location/etc. Same can be said about a place like Summit if they want growth or even if they join some flashy newer fund (Growth Curve, Cove Hill, etc) for faster progression.
I just have a hard time believing anyone at EVR targets a place like HIG (don’t want to pick on them just the first generic MM PE fund I saw on LinkedIn) over a bigger or more prestigious fund. Culture and pay both bad, this person was in NYC so location isn’t an excuse, etc.
Like someone else on here posted, people don’t like admitting failure and everyone I know who struck out at MF/UMM recruiting always ends up saying “I chose MM PE based on fit / interest and don’t want to go to a MF”. Again, nothing against MMPE, but pretty much every EB analyst I know either went for MF or solved for culture/location at a top UMM firm.
Thank you for the thoughtful write-up. I really appreciate this. Not sure why people are so against admitting that most people are optimizing for fund size and prestige.
I'm also the one who mentioned the admitting failure component and I'm glad to hear you concur with that perspective. Seems like most issues (location, culture, firm strategy) can be optimized for at the UMM level if not MF.
At the end of the day, just want to know what I'm signing up for and figure out the truth.
Really doubt your friends turned down offers from BX/KKR/APO/H&F/Bain/Silver Lake/Advent/Vista/Thoma Bravo/BDT/Leonard Green/Warburg Pincus/Carlyle/TPG/Clearlake/Etc.
All of the major cities in the US have MF/UMM firms. Additionally, 90+% of kids are targeting a major city. Neither OP nor anyone else on this forum cares about random instances of kids targeting exits to Hawaii or Arkansas.
"long-term pay" come on dude, you're not making more over your career by jumping from EVR to a LMM platform vs. a UMM/MF.
I went to a new fund starting out over going to a megafund—my long term comp is significantly higher and I learned significantly more with more flexibility in hours compared to my peers that went to megafunds out of our analyst stint. I’m not insecure, it’s the opposite actually. I made a decision when I was young that went against the grain and it has paid dividends. Truthfully, I got really lucky and I don’t think I would suggest doing that for most people, since you need to find unique situations to do it, but my point is post IB the job market is way way more messy. At this point, my title is really not accurate since I’m a few more years out than a traditional associate would be. I comment at times to help users and when I see dogmatic takes like this that experience has taught me aren’t correct. I can tell you undeniably your take is naive and lacks a nuanced understanding of exits. From my view, the sharpest people pursued less traditional exits either right after banking or quickly after accepting a PE role and realizing there was a better path. Knowing the team you are getting in bed with for the next 2 years is severely underrated. Especially when post PE what exits are you optimizing for? Bschool? That same PE fund? A hedge fund?
A great example of dogma that bothers me, a lot of people on this forum view HBS/GSB as the holy grail. Experience has taught me most the people that end up at either are pretty lost and likely haven’t gotten traction yet at a fast growing firm. The real asskickers in business likely don’t go to bschool. The goal shouldn’t be to get an mba it should be to get the job you want.
But please make assumptions about a verified user urging kids to display more nuanced thinking rather than sweeping generalizations.
EVR is getting diluted given the size of their class but the top candidates do amazing in recruiting. Anecdotally, people consider EVR M&A > EVR RX but I’d argue that % of MF/UMM is much higher in the RX group because of how small and technical the group is
Ya EVR RX has mostly MF/UMM/Credit Fund/HF
These are the key questions wso needs to answer definitively.
Is the statement that “every analyst at evercore who wants to work at a mega fund (definition be damned), gets to work at a mega fund” true?
Let’s now debate for several pages if a top junior at evercore could easily secure a mega fund role or if it might be slightly difficult. And remember, the person obsessively asking this inane question has 0 hours of real life work experience. Love it.
1: OP defined MF as T20 firm by Fund Size.
2: fair question given that everyone on this forum says Top BB/EB to MF is easy when in reality that's not the case. No need to be so hostile. This forum is literally for people to ask questions and get advice.
Besides, I think you have some analysts who you need to hate on and PowerPoint logos to rearrange so get back to it!
I think this one is cut and dry. I think when people say "everyone who wants MF gets it", they are obviously making a sentiment-driven statement of questionable veracity as opposed to a data-driven statement. It is certainly plausible that almost everyone at EVR who wants an MF interview gets it if they take reasonably easy steps. But "everyone who wants MF gets it" is clearly false to anyone with any industry knowledge or critical thinking skills...
Even if we determined half of EVR wants MF, you would probably still need to be at least in the top third of that sub-cohort to get a legit MF offer.
At the end of the day it's impossible to come up with acceptance rates or yields for this stuff, because for one, not all candidates who throw their resume in for KKR are actually trying equally seriously for the job. And there are way too many buyside verticals that making a clean hierarchical assumption of MF > all is clearly false (what about growth? VC?). But at the same time, there is NO bank where "everyone who wants MF gets it", and certainly not EVR. Just look at the number of MF seats and that would tell you enough. It should have also been clear based on the Moelis data: because there is no bank, no matter how much better than Moelis, which would have placement performance significantly better (>1 sigma).
By the way there is no way anyone on the street would agree that MFs comprise 20 firms. Impossible to be precise but it's more like a dozen at most.
Thank you for the clear and thoughtful write up!
Took a look since I know that class well, exits from NY M&A for fairly well known PE/Investing roles, basically my criteria is just if I would have heard if these firms when I just started:
2 KKR
2 Welsh Carson
Rest have 1:
Blackstone
Temasek
Permira
Apollo
GA
LGP
Apax
Carlyle
Oaktree
Citadel
Summit
TPG Growth
BX Growth
BX Tac Opps
For that EVR RX class, they hit it out the park, 6 people in that class:
3 Apollo (unclear what groups)
Starboard Value
Sycamore
not OP but this is top-tier content. Everyone, please SB Associate 2.
Interesting that this comes to around ~20 out of around 60 (im guessing). Any guesses on % who either exited or tried?
This class was 50 people in NY M&A. Idk who tried but high single digit people still in EVR as senior analysts and high single digit to low teens didn’t do any form of PE (tech/corp dev/other corporate)
Seems like OP was right about the ~10 UMM/MF LBO PE exits for the M&A group...
seems good, not great
List is missing quite a few other names
checks out, exits for PJT/HL/EVR RX are unparalleled given the group size
Lol
Missing a fair amount of info here, but good list
feel free to fill in the gaps. you are anon
Who the fuck moved this to PE forum
X
Ut ex inventore molestiae laborum. Illum tenetur minus dolor id. Delectus laboriosam exercitationem in. Quidem est quidem aut dolor accusamus maxime.
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...
Cum totam cupiditate nobis voluptatem accusantium. Est nostrum et error quis sit ut accusantium. Expedita eius repellendus quo itaque dicta necessitatibus. Aut atque alias fugiat quibusdam sunt unde laborum.