Evaluating In-House Fund Opportunities Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel associate in a practice that is currently getting a lot of buy-side interest (think securitizations / PE secondaries - not those but similarly going through a hype cycle now), and accordingly I'm fortunate enough to pretty regularly get inbounds that are facially appealing. Unfortunately I have no good idea how to evaluate the strength of the actual business unit I'd be working for. I very much don't want to go to a fund that's actually doing poorly and have my product axed in 18 months. For folks who went in that direction, how did you evaluate the job offer?

[Chapter Eleven]

I did funds biglaw, then in-house, and then went back to biglaw in another practice area (banking and finance).

To answer your question, it depends on the fund’s reputation, how well its funds are performing (including recent fundraises), and how specialized the platform is. For example, if you are planning to join a credit-only fund, I would be cautious - no one knows how long the current credit hype will last. If, instead, you are joining a more diversified fund running multiple strategies (PE, credit, real estate, etc.), that generally implies greater economic resilience and, hopefully, more longevity.

You should check databases such as PitchBook or FactSet and look at how the vintage funds are performing across standard metrics (TVPI, DPI, etc.), as well as how recent fundraising efforts have gone. If, for example, they failed to raise their stated target, that should be taken as a warning sign (i.e., their optimism was not matched by LP demand which can be fund-dependant (red flag) or broader demand (acceptable)).

When reviewing past returns, you should also look at percentile rankings relative to peers to assess competitiveness. If the fund is consistently below average, that is not a great sign, unless it operates in a highly niche, cycle-dependent strategy that only delivers strong returns at the right point in the cycle (e.g., distressed debt).

Broadly, it is also fair to say that if you join a closed-ended fund (PE, VC, PC, etc.), you should benefit from a degree of stability due to the fixed life of those vehicles. By contrast, if you're eyeing a HF, the due diligence is faith-based, and you just need to hope it does not blow up in the next 2-3 years from a bad trade .

If you are unsure how to check those, maybe speak with people from the fund you're interviewing and see what they say or how they justify their shortcomings.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a midlevel associate in a practice that is currently getting a lot of buy-side interest (think securitizations / PE secondaries - not those but similarly going through a hype cycle now), and accordingly I'm fortunate enough to pretty regularly get inbounds that are facially appealing. Unfortunately I have no good idea how to evaluate the strength of the actual business unit I'd be working for. I very much don't want to go to a fund that's actually doing poorly and have my product axed in 18 months. For folks who went in that direction, how did you evaluate the job offer?

Are you on the M&A side of the PE secondary transactions? Very different answers depending on that.

[Anonymous User]

I did funds biglaw, then in-house, and then went back to biglaw in another practice area (banking and finance).

To answer your question, it depends on the fund’s reputation, how well its funds are performing (including recent fundraises), and how specialized the platform is. For example, if you are planning to join a credit-only fund, I would be cautious - no one knows how long the current credit hype will last. If, instead, you are joining a more diversified fund running multiple strategies (PE, credit, real estate, etc.), that generally implies greater economic resilience and, hopefully, more longevity.

You should check databases such as PitchBook or FactSet and look at how the vintage funds are performing across standard metrics (TVPI, DPI, etc.), as well as how recent fundraising efforts have gone. If, for example, they failed to raise their stated target, that should be taken as a warning sign (i.e., their optimism was not matched by LP demand which can be fund-dependant (red flag) or broader demand (acceptable)).

When reviewing past returns, you should also look at percentile rankings relative to peers to assess competitiveness. If the fund is consistently below average, that is not a great sign, unless it operates in a highly niche, cycle-dependent strategy that only delivers strong returns at the right point in the cycle (e.g., distressed debt).

Broadly, it is also fair to say that if you join a closed-ended fund (PE, VC, PC, etc.), you should benefit from a degree of stability due to the fixed life of those vehicles. By contrast, if you're eyeing a HF, the due diligence is faith-based, and you just need to hope it does not blow up in the next 2-3 years from a bad trade .

If you are unsure how to check those, maybe speak with people from the fund you're interviewing and see what they say or how they justify their shortcomings.

I have a similar background to you in that I am considering making a move back to biglaw from an in house position that I came to from biglaw. When you went to a different area of law from in house, how did you express your interest? Did they want to see demonstrated competency based on what you were doing in your inhouse role?Also, what role did references from your old biglaw firm play in you getting the new biglaw job? I'm curious if I'll need old writing samples/deal sheets/etc; but curious how this would be relevant if I am seeking a new area of law.