I’m trying to map exits that don’t mean trading 100-hour cycles for stagnation. Veterans in the community shared playbooks showing which roles and firm types rewarded transferable skills without requiring constant burnout. From what I’ve heard, certain MM PE shops, sector-focused buyside roles, and product finance at larger tech firms can offer steadier hours while keeping upward mobility. I’m less interested in glossy promises and more in concrete trade-offs. Which exit path did you choose that balanced intensity and career growth, and why?
there’s no utopia. mm pe still eats weekends around deals, but you actually do fewer mindless repeats. most ppl who rave about ‘work-life balance’ moved to roles with less client theatre, not less work. pick a path where the work aligns with your metrics for promotion, not buzzwords. dont assume ‘tech’ equals sane hours — it depends on stage and team. be picky about day-to-day tasks.
if you want ‘balance’ and ‘advancement’, look for places with structured promotion cycles and clear deliverables. startups might pay well but promotions are fuzzy; some buyside shops demand less face-time and more output. reality: anytime money and decision-making collide you get busy spells. learn to spot firms where the busy spells are predictable, not perpetual.
i moved to a sector-focused middle market PE team and hours became more predictable. still busy, but i knew when live weeks hit. promotion path clearer too. glad i took the gig.
product-finance at a big tech firm gave me better evenings and room to learn pm skills. not perfect but much better balance.
I jumped from a big bank group to a growth-stage corporate strategy team. Initially I feared slower learning. Instead, work was more predictable and I owned projects end-to-end. Promotions were tied to outcomes, not face time, and I learned product and business skills that opened doors later. Not everyone will have the same luck, but looking for ownership and outcome-driven metrics helped. What skills do you want to keep after leaving banking?
My mate moved to an in-house M&A role at a mid-size company. Hours dropped a lot, but deal volume was low, so advancement required cross-functional influence. He built that by leading post-merger integrations and now has a clear leadership track. The lesson: lower hours + growth is possible if you pick roles offering visible impact.
I surveyed 27 ex-analysts who left banking for exits: 11 went to PE (mostly MM), 8 to corporate development, 6 to tech finance, 2 to consulting. Reported median weekly hours: PE 55, corp dev 48, tech finance 45. Promotion timelines varied: PE median 3.5 years to next level, corp dev 4–5 years, tech finance 3–4 years. Interpret cautiously—samples bias toward those self-reporting. Still, if you prioritize predictable hours and clear advancement, corp dev and structured tech roles statistically score better on hour stability; MM PE gives faster finance-path progression but episodic spikes.
A quick quantitative tip: if you can get anonymized headcount and deal cadence for the team, estimate expected peak weeks per quarter. Teams with >2 live deals per quarter correlate with higher sustained hours. Ask for deal cadence in interviews and use that as a proxy for predictability.