<p>It's been said a lot here that most people go into investment banking for the exit opportunities (PE, VC, etc.). My question is, if you are not in M&A, but in S&T or consulting, how much tougher is it to jump into PE or VC after a few years of work experience? Would you basically need to go to a top MBA program to jump into those fields? I'm asking because it's most likely that I'm not going to be super competitive for an investment banking job. I'm at Penn but not in Wharton. I do have a really high GPA and am a math major so I might be better suited to apply for S&T and consulting. Also, most Wharton students don't apply for S&T so there is less competition in house (though there might also be fewer seats that banks usually save for Penn students).</p>
<p>People in S&T tend to go into HFs</p>
<p>HFs that use fundamental strategies want people with valuation skills, and these people mostly come from IBD. Same with PE, and most of the principal investing groups (GS PIA, GSPS, SSG). </p>
<p>Consulting –> PE is harder than IBD –> PE. Some PE funds that recruit consultants were started by a bunch of ex-consultants, but the transactional/valuation/modeling experience from IBD is more relevant.</p>
<p>If by S&T you mean flow trading, then you won’t have the valuation skills for PE and fundamental HFs. Exit options for S&T include prop shops and quantitative HFs, I’m not sure what else.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that IBD does not require math major-level quant skills. Neither does PE, for that matter - at the senior levels, they’re very relationship-driven. Have you thought about looking into places that are more aligned with what you’re demonstrably good at (quant skills)? If you get into a shop like Jane St or DE Shaw and do well there, the earning potential is just as good or better than ibanking/PE.</p>