Funds Exit Opportunities Forum

[tahssit]

Anyone have a sense for how good/bad exit opportunities are for a funds associate? Ideally jumping around years 3-4 (assuming that’s possible and I get the funds group I requested at my firm) but willing to stay longer if needed to secure a great gig.

[Anonymous User]

Also interested. are in house funds jobs mostly in nyc?

[Anonymous User]

Also interested. are in house funds jobs mostly in nyc?

Also interested (+ do you exit to purely legal work?)

[smile0751]

Are you talking private funds, venture funds, hedge funds, registered funds, or what? Each has their own general exit path, but in my experience yes it’s not that hard to move in house. Better roles open up though years 4-6.

[tahssit]

Are you talking private funds, venture funds, hedge funds, registered funds, or what? Each has their own general exit path, but in my experience yes it’s not that hard to move in house. Better roles open up though years 4-6.

If you're able to elaborate on each, that would be terrific. The group I've requested does a bit of everything, but my current understanding is I'd be doing mostly private funds (including PE, VC, RE, and hedge funds). Also, what are, in general, the differences between the roles available around year 3 versus the better roles that open up by waiting until years 4-6?

[Anonymous User]

Is the skill set the same for PE, VC, RE, and hedge funds, at the entry level?

[Anonymous User]

Are you talking private funds, venture funds, hedge funds, registered funds, or what? Each has their own general exit path, but in my experience yes it’s not that hard to move in house. Better roles open up though years 4-6.

If you're able to elaborate on each, that would be terrific. The group I've requested does a bit of everything, but my current understanding is I'd be doing mostly private funds (including PE, VC, RE, and hedge funds). Also, what are, in general, the differences between the roles available around year 3 versus the better roles that open up by waiting until years 4-6?

Would also be highly interested

[Olimando]

For private funds I would boil it down to two main categories -- private equity (closed-end) and hedge funds (open-end). VC and RE might have their quirks, but all private funds will fit in those 2 buckets. Private funds work has somewhat of a steep learning curve at the start, but once you understand the basics (including the differences between open- and closed-end) you should be able to competently work on any type of private fund. If you can, you should get exposure to both buckets as this will increase your opportunities on exit.

I really would not bother looking before you have 3 years experience, as the only in-house jobs someone would offer you before that are dead-end compliance roles. Once you have those 3 years of experience, you can definitely find some good in house roles where you will do real legal work and have opportunity to move up. It will all depend on how much substantive experience you actually got and how well you can sell yourself in the interviews, but I think most 4th year funds associates are likely just as qualified for most in-house fund roles as a 7th year, so no point in waiting (and honestly don't wait too long, as you don't want to be a 7th year competing with 4-5th years for the same role/pay).

Also, yes most in-house fund roles are in NYC (or CT). But if you start your search early and keep your options open, then you will eventually see opportunities pop up all over.

[Anonymous User]

For private funds I would boil it down to two main categories -- private equity (closed-end) and hedge funds (open-end). VC and RE might have their quirks, but all private funds will fit in those 2 buckets. Private funds work has somewhat of a steep learning curve at the start, but once you understand the basics (including the differences between open- and closed-end) you should be able to competently work on any type of private fund. If you can, you should get exposure to both buckets as this will increase your opportunities on exit.

I really would not bother looking before you have 3 years experience, as the only in-house jobs someone would offer you before that are dead-end compliance roles. Once you have those 3 years of experience, you can definitely find some good in house roles where you will do real legal work and have opportunity to move up. It will all depend on how much substantive experience you actually got and how well you can sell yourself in the interviews, but I think most 4th year funds associates are likely just as qualified for most in-house fund roles as a 7th year, so no point in waiting (and honestly don't wait too long, as you don't want to be a 7th year competing with 4-5th years for the same role/pay).

Also, yes most in-house fund roles are in NYC (or CT). But if you start your search early and keep your options open, then you will eventually see opportunities pop up all over.

Thanks for this! Would you see major differences in exit ops from a non-elite biglaw funds group (e.g., Hogan Lovells, Perkins Coie, or Arnold & Porter) versus a boutique?

[Olimando]

Thanks for this! Would you see major differences in exit ops from a non-elite biglaw funds group (e.g., Hogan Lovells, Perkins Coie, or Arnold & Porter) versus a boutique?

I can't say for sure, but coming from any biglaw firm will at least bring your resume some name-brand recognition as compared to a boutique. That's solely based on me just looking at a lot of LinkedIn profiles of in-house legal folks I interviewed with and seeing biglaw backgrounds pretty much exclusively.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for this! Would you see major differences in exit ops from a non-elite biglaw funds group (e.g., Hogan Lovells, Perkins Coie, or Arnold & Porter) versus a boutique?

I can't say for sure, but coming from any biglaw firm will at least bring your resume some name-brand recognition as compared to a boutique. That's solely based on me just looking at a lot of LinkedIn profiles of in-house legal folks I interviewed with and seeing biglaw backgrounds pretty much exclusively.

Typical comp?

[Olimando]

In-house comp will vary a lot more depending on the shop, what the role entails and the hours you are expected to work. For an NYC in-house role requiring 3-4yrs experience minimum, you are probably looking at all-in comp range of anywhere from $200k to $450k.

[Anonymous User]

In-house comp will vary a lot more depending on the shop, what the role entails and the hours you are expected to work. For an NYC in-house role requiring 3-4yrs experience minimum, you are probably looking at all-in comp range of anywhere from $200k to $450k.

Does that figure tend to go up at 4+ years experience or are you really not adding anything beyond that point?

[Anonymous User]

I would say this entirely depends on how good your funds practice is.

If you are on a funds team that staffs 20+ associates on each fund and all you do is review sub docs for the first 2 years, you are not going to have great experience moving in-house on year 3.

If you are on a team where you can be actively marking up fund docs, negotiating side letter provisions and actually participating in calls with investor counsel (assuming you are sponsor side), you will have much better work experience to move over. Sweet spot is probably ~4ish years depending. Not all firms are equal so take the time to find a good department that won't just see you as a piece of meat to review the 50 investor sub-doc answers or compile the 1,000 page MFN bundles.

In-house PE/VC firm roles can vary. I would say most are deal lawyers basically working the underlying portfolio deals since firms can, and often do, just expense outside counsel to investors and use them for most of the heavy lifting when it comes to new fund launches/negotiations. I think on the actual fund formation side you only start seeing in-house roles for that with some of the larger firms.

In-house hedge is similar in that they often utilize outside counsel, but I personally have found they are more fee conscious so have more likelihood of keeping an in-house "funds" team (although never huge departments) to help manage costs and since you aren't re-launching a new fund ever 18 months. You, obviously, won't get a chance to do "deal" work at a hedge fund since you are going to be in the public markets usually and it is more purely an investment fund/SEC reg position.

In either side, the "funds" lawyer is also going to take on things you normally don't at a law firm (run of the mill compliance issues, ADV updates, service provider negotiations, etc.).

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

[Anonymous User]

I would say this entirely depends on how good your funds practice is.

If you are on a funds team that staffs 20+ associates on each fund and all you do is review sub docs for the first 2 years, you are not going to have great experience moving in-house on year 3.

If you are on a team where you can be actively marking up fund docs, negotiating side letter provisions and actually participating in calls with investor counsel (assuming you are sponsor side), you will have much better work experience to move over. Sweet spot is probably ~4ish years depending. Not all firms are equal so take the time to find a good department that won't just see you as a piece of meat to review the 50 investor sub-doc answers or compile the 1,000 page MFN bundles.

In-house PE/VC firm roles can vary. I would say most are deal lawyers basically working the underlying portfolio deals since firms can, and often do, just expense outside counsel to investors and use them for most of the heavy lifting when it comes to new fund launches/negotiations. I think on the actual fund formation side you only start seeing in-house roles for that with some of the larger firms.

In-house hedge is similar in that they often utilize outside counsel, but I personally have found they are more fee conscious so have more likelihood of keeping an in-house "funds" team (although never huge departments) to help manage costs and since you aren't re-launching a new fund ever 18 months. You, obviously, won't get a chance to do "deal" work at a hedge fund since you are going to be in the public markets usually and it is more purely an investment fund/SEC reg position.

In either side, the "funds" lawyer is also going to take on things you normally don't at a law firm (run of the mill compliance issues, ADV updates, service provider negotiations, etc.).

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

This is helpful. Do you have any info on going inhouse to an lp? Honestly, Id much rather do that than go inhouse at a megafund to work long hours for lower pay. Current mid level.

[Anonymous User]

I would say this entirely depends on how good your funds practice is.

If you are on a funds team that staffs 20+ associates on each fund and all you do is review sub docs for the first 2 years, you are not going to have great experience moving in-house on year 3.

If you are on a team where you can be actively marking up fund docs, negotiating side letter provisions and actually participating in calls with investor counsel (assuming you are sponsor side), you will have much better work experience to move over. Sweet spot is probably ~4ish years depending. Not all firms are equal so take the time to find a good department that won't just see you as a piece of meat to review the 50 investor sub-doc answers or compile the 1,000 page MFN bundles.

In-house PE/VC firm roles can vary. I would say most are deal lawyers basically working the underlying portfolio deals since firms can, and often do, just expense outside counsel to investors and use them for most of the heavy lifting when it comes to new fund launches/negotiations. I think on the actual fund formation side you only start seeing in-house roles for that with some of the larger firms.

In-house hedge is similar in that they often utilize outside counsel, but I personally have found they are more fee conscious so have more likelihood of keeping an in-house "funds" team (although never huge departments) to help manage costs and since you aren't re-launching a new fund ever 18 months. You, obviously, won't get a chance to do "deal" work at a hedge fund since you are going to be in the public markets usually and it is more purely an investment fund/SEC reg position.

In either side, the "funds" lawyer is also going to take on things you normally don't at a law firm (run of the mill compliance issues, ADV updates, service provider negotiations, etc.).

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

This is helpful. Do you have any info on going inhouse to an lp? Honestly, Id much rather do that than go inhouse at a megafund to work long hours for lower pay. Current mid level.

Does anyone have any experience or know if it is possible to go from doing funds work at biglaw to an in-house role at a non-fund? Wondering if the negotiation experience would translate to a more general corporate in-house position too, or if biglaw funds can only exit to funds/banks/etc.

[Anonymous User]

I would say this entirely depends on how good your funds practice is.

If you are on a funds team that staffs 20+ associates on each fund and all you do is review sub docs for the first 2 years, you are not going to have great experience moving in-house on year 3.

If you are on a team where you can be actively marking up fund docs, negotiating side letter provisions and actually participating in calls with investor counsel (assuming you are sponsor side), you will have much better work experience to move over. Sweet spot is probably ~4ish years depending. Not all firms are equal so take the time to find a good department that won't just see you as a piece of meat to review the 50 investor sub-doc answers or compile the 1,000 page MFN bundles.

In-house PE/VC firm roles can vary. I would say most are deal lawyers basically working the underlying portfolio deals since firms can, and often do, just expense outside counsel to investors and use them for most of the heavy lifting when it comes to new fund launches/negotiations. I think on the actual fund formation side you only start seeing in-house roles for that with some of the larger firms.

In-house hedge is similar in that they often utilize outside counsel, but I personally have found they are more fee conscious so have more likelihood of keeping an in-house "funds" team (although never huge departments) to help manage costs and since you aren't re-launching a new fund ever 18 months. You, obviously, won't get a chance to do "deal" work at a hedge fund since you are going to be in the public markets usually and it is more purely an investment fund/SEC reg position.

In either side, the "funds" lawyer is also going to take on things you normally don't at a law firm (run of the mill compliance issues, ADV updates, service provider negotiations, etc.).

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

This is helpful. Do you have any info on going inhouse to an lp? Honestly, Id much rather do that than go inhouse at a megafund to work long hours for lower pay. Current mid level.

Sure. Vast majority of in-house roles at LPs will be at public pension plans. I know at least 3-4 of these that actively hire former biglaw funds attorneys. I've also seen some roles recently for bigger endowments (think private universities). Family office opportunities are the diamond in the rough, hard to find but sweet gigs if you can. Hours are obviously less but so is pay.

A decent amount of the pension plans have publicly available salaries for all state employees, so you can look up comp numbers for their investment teams. You also often qualify for a pension...so not the worst exit ramp if you are interested in putting in 20 years into a place like that for guaranteed retirement.

Purely for reference, TRS in Austin is hiring at salary comp is $174-$258k based on experience. Higher end is more experience, but I couldn't tell you how a midlevel will fall there. That's surprisingly good comp numbers if you ask me. I know a lot of people in-house at funds that aren't making that much more who are probably working twice as hard.

[Anonymous User]

I would say this entirely depends on how good your funds practice is.

If you are on a funds team that staffs 20+ associates on each fund and all you do is review sub docs for the first 2 years, you are not going to have great experience moving in-house on year 3.

If you are on a team where you can be actively marking up fund docs, negotiating side letter provisions and actually participating in calls with investor counsel (assuming you are sponsor side), you will have much better work experience to move over. Sweet spot is probably ~4ish years depending. Not all firms are equal so take the time to find a good department that won't just see you as a piece of meat to review the 50 investor sub-doc answers or compile the 1,000 page MFN bundles.

In-house PE/VC firm roles can vary. I would say most are deal lawyers basically working the underlying portfolio deals since firms can, and often do, just expense outside counsel to investors and use them for most of the heavy lifting when it comes to new fund launches/negotiations. I think on the actual fund formation side you only start seeing in-house roles for that with some of the larger firms.

In-house hedge is similar in that they often utilize outside counsel, but I personally have found they are more fee conscious so have more likelihood of keeping an in-house "funds" team (although never huge departments) to help manage costs and since you aren't re-launching a new fund ever 18 months. You, obviously, won't get a chance to do "deal" work at a hedge fund since you are going to be in the public markets usually and it is more purely an investment fund/SEC reg position.

In either side, the "funds" lawyer is also going to take on things you normally don't at a law firm (run of the mill compliance issues, ADV updates, service provider negotiations, etc.).

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

This is helpful. Do you have any info on going inhouse to an lp? Honestly, Id much rather do that than go inhouse at a megafund to work long hours for lower pay. Current mid level.

Sure. Vast majority of in-house roles at LPs will be at public pension plans. I know at least 3-4 of these that actively hire former biglaw funds attorneys. I've also seen some roles recently for bigger endowments (think private universities). Family office opportunities are the diamond in the rough, hard to find but sweet gigs if you can. Hours are obviously less but so is pay.

A decent amount of the pension plans have publicly available salaries for all state employees, so you can look up comp numbers for their investment teams. You also often qualify for a pension...so not the worst exit ramp if you are interested in putting in 20 years into a place like that for guaranteed retirement.

Purely for reference, TRS in Austin is hiring at salary comp is $174-$258k based on experience. Higher end is more experience, but I couldn't tell you how a midlevel will fall there. That's surprisingly good comp numbers if you ask me. I know a lot of people in-house at funds that aren't making that much more who are probably working twice as hard.

Thanks again. Where do you find these oppos? Just brwose pension fund/endowement websites? Are these jobs generally competitive?

[Anonymous User]

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

could you talk about why registered fund work sucks, the firm I'm going to does a decent amount of it and I'm curious

[Anonymous User]

Thanks again. Where do you find these oppos? Just brwose pension fund/endowement websites? Are these jobs generally competitive?

Troll their websites, LinkedIn, glassdoor, indeed, etc. Jobs used to be more competitive because of the nice benefits, but nowadays that biglaw salaries scales tend to apply nationwide and they are rising high more people are tempted to just keep getting that bigger paycheck. I am not sure about what their WFH flexibility is either now, so, if you are working at Calpers for example, you might be stuck moving to Sacramento. I think last I heard TRS was offering remote, but you still might need to have an active TX bar license to be attorney for state agency, not sure.

I would say, based on people I've worked with at these places, that they aren't attracted to the more ambitious, stay 2 years and jump, kind of people. They want long-haulers. So if you are interested market yourself in that mindset.

Also, to throw out another two cents, there are some insurance companies and investment companies (fund of fund firms) out there that act more like LP side on investments.

[Anonymous User]

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

could you talk about why registered fund work sucks, the firm I'm going to does a decent amount of it and I'm curious

That was an exaggeration. In my opinion it is just a lot of not-sexy prospectus work, FINRA, weird fee issues and analyzing a lot more SEC regs which apply than in private fund world. Registered fund world should just be a different practice group entirely in my mind since the structures are just so different. Some people love digging into the rules like that, I personally like thinking through the risk shifting of private funds more.

Also to add on to my above, LP side work does involve more than just alternatives, since they will also invest in public markets directly, may do direct investments, may do mutual fund managers, etc. Alternatives might only be like 10-15% of their overall portfolio (which is still like 10-15+ deals a year if you are big and need to re-invest a few billion each year).

[Anonymous User]

I am not going to get into the seedy underbelly of registered fund work (aka mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) because frankly, I think the work sucks and I would not recommend it to anyone.

could you talk about why registered fund work sucks, the firm I'm going to does a decent amount of it and I'm curious

That was an exaggeration. In my opinion it is just a lot of not-sexy prospectus work, FINRA, weird fee issues and analyzing a lot more SEC regs which apply than in private fund world. Registered fund world should just be a different practice group entirely in my mind since the structures are just so different. Some people love digging into the rules like that, I personally like thinking through the risk shifting of private funds more.

Got it. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

What do the exit options look like for someone interested in doing PE fund formation at Deb/KE/STB?

I've been looking at other threads on this subject for a while, and I'm still confused as to what typical exits are for this practice area.

I've seen some people say the exit options are some of the best out there (salary cut, but as close to 9 to 5 you can find), but I've seen others say the opposite (Big Law salary, Big Law hours).

I've also no idea how common and competitive these jobs at 9 to 5 funds exists are.

The predictability of funds is attractive to me, but I'd rather do M&A or Cap Markets if I'm struggling to find a job after my stint in Big Law.

[Anonymous User]

What do the exit options look like for someone interested in doing PE fund formation at Deb/KE/STB?

I've been looking at other threads on this subject for a while, and I'm still confused as to what typical exits are for this practice area.

I've seen some people say the exit options are some of the best out there (salary cut, but as close to 9 to 5 you can find), but I've seen others say the opposite (Big Law salary, Big Law hours).

I've also no idea how common and competitive these jobs at 9 to 5 funds exists are.

The predictability of funds is attractive to me, but I'd rather do M&A or Cap Markets if I'm struggling to find a job after my stint in Big Law.

I will just say that in general these days, across practice groups and exit options, I think it is really hard to find a true "9 to 5" job anymore if you want a job that provides you with above average income in America. Even at a cushy job I think at a minimum you'll probably work 9 to 6 (or more accurately 8 to 5). From a funds practice perspective, I find it difficult to to imagine that being an option. Investment management work just isn't that kind of life, from the global investors/offices you need to manage to the internal business folks you have to partner with.

I think the closet you can get to "easy" options, might be working LP side at a big public pension plan or the like since it is really just working for the government.

If you don't mind longer hours and want a higher salary, if you exit out in-house to a well-performing fund at a senior-ish level (5-6 years minimum) you can do quite well for yourself. In-house a decent amount of your comp is going to come from bonuses instead of base salary too, which may vary based on fund performance instead of individual hours like at a law firm.

There aren't as many fund exit jobs out there because there aren't as many fund lawyers as there are traditional M&A lawyers. So I don't think they are inherently more competitive than other jobs. I think if an in-house M&A role opened up at a FAANG, for instance, they'd probably receive 20-30x the applications than an opening for a funds role at a big fund shop just because there are way more M&A lawyers who qualify. Fund job openings also tend to be in NYC, to a lesser degree in other larger cities. M&A/gen corporate roles tend to be more spread out geographically.

Deb/KE/STB are all well regarded funds teams. You will be incredibly busy because I think KE and STB alone must handle like 50% of all larger fund formations, particularly on the VC and PE side. I don't know what life would be like as an associate though and whether you can get good experience early on due to the volume of work they have and their size. I will say that their fund teams are often on the larger side compared to other firms out there, but you will more than likely be working on the "hotter" and most popular funds in town.

If you specifically want to think about hedge funds, I would also maybe add Schulte, Kleinberg Kaplan, Fried Frank and Wilkie, among others.

[Anonymous User]

What do the exit options look like for someone interested in doing PE fund formation at Deb/KE/STB?

I've been looking at other threads on this subject for a while, and I'm still confused as to what typical exits are for this practice area.

I've seen some people say the exit options are some of the best out there (salary cut, but as close to 9 to 5 you can find), but I've seen others say the opposite (Big Law salary, Big Law hours).

I've also no idea how common and competitive these jobs at 9 to 5 funds exists are.

The predictability of funds is attractive to me, but I'd rather do M&A or Cap Markets if I'm struggling to find a job after my stint in Big Law.

I will just say that in general these days, across practice groups and exit options, I think it is really hard to find a true "9 to 5" job anymore if you want a job that provides you with above average income in America. Even at a cushy job I think at a minimum you'll probably work 9 to 6 (or more accurately 8 to 5). From a funds practice perspective, I find it difficult to to imagine that being an option. Investment management work just isn't that kind of life, from the global investors/offices you need to manage to the internal business folks you have to partner with.

I think the closet you can get to "easy" options, might be working LP side at a big public pension plan or the like since it is really just working for the government.

If you don't mind longer hours and want a higher salary, if you exit out in-house to a well-performing fund at a senior-ish level (5-6 years minimum) you can do quite well for yourself. In-house a decent amount of your comp is going to come from bonuses instead of base salary too, which may vary based on fund performance instead of individual hours like at a law firm.

There aren't as many fund exit jobs out there because there aren't as many fund lawyers as there are traditional M&A lawyers. So I don't think they are inherently more competitive than other jobs. I think if an in-house M&A role opened up at a FAANG, for instance, they'd probably receive 20-30x the applications than an opening for a funds role at a big fund shop just because there are way more M&A lawyers who qualify. Fund job openings also tend to be in NYC, to a lesser degree in other larger cities. M&A/gen corporate roles tend to be more spread out geographically.

Deb/KE/STB are all well regarded funds teams. You will be incredibly busy because I think KE and STB alone must handle like 50% of all larger fund formations, particularly on the VC and PE side. I don't know what life would be like as an associate though and whether you can get good experience early on due to the volume of work they have and their size. I will say that their fund teams are often on the larger side compared to other firms out there, but you will more than likely be working on the "hotter" and most popular funds in town.

If you specifically want to think about hedge funds, I would also maybe add Schulte, Kleinberg Kaplan, Fried Frank and Wilkie, among others.

I agree with this take. 9-5 in funds is pretty rare. That said, it’s still better to be the client. Even if you have to discuss a side letter at 8 pm, it’s better be the one giving the directions than turning the doc while you eat dinner at your desk.

Typical funds exit options are banks (pretty chill, low pay), pensions and family offices (most chill, pay varies but likely akin to a bank), mega funds (pay and hours vary but typically you would see lower pay than at a large fund), large funds (high pay, long hours), smaller funds (can be absolutely insane in terms of hours and pay really varies, especially if you come in early).

Hours are cultural for the most part. The large funds (like 40 billion with a principal/partner structure) are still run pretty lean and pay well, so hours tend to be high. The mega funds like Blackstone tend towards bureaucracy and pay less due to size. That’s not to say there isn’t massive variation in in hours. Best thing to do is always talk to people with first or second hand experience with the culture.

Only downside to a Deb/KE/STB is you won’t be quite as marketable for certain types of funds coming out as a ~3rd year than if you worked at firm with slightly smaller funds. Clients generally know that juniors at firms with big teams are doing sub docs and checklists. So you won’t be able to get a role as say, a number two at a lean hedge fund. But obviously those firms are super prestigious and exiting to one of their clients is a great outcome.

Would replace KK with Sidley maybe or Lowenstein. Having first hand experience with KK work and it’s not on par with the others mentioned.