• Sharebar

Many people here on WSO are obsessed with hedge funds and look upon the mutual fund industry with disdain.  However, I have seen a lot of misinformation out there on what mutual funds even do, so I wanted to layout the basics of both hedge funds and mutual funds and what makes them similar and what makes them different.  Also, I want to layout what some of the incentives are for some of the managers of these funds and how those incentives either align or don't with the investors.  I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.  This is just a general outline.

Back in the 1930's and before, pooled investment vehicles were not standardized which invited increased regulation which culminated with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_Company_Ac...).  The former defines the fiduciary responsibilities of investment advisers and the latter describes the regulations of '40 Act funds (mainly mutual funds).  Generally, both hedge fund and mutual fund managers need to be registered with the SEC as a Registered Investment Adviser.  A Registered Investment Adviser can run both hedge funds and mutual funds, if they so choose and many do.

There is no legal definition of a hedge fund
Most hedge funds are set up as either 3(c)1 or 3(c)7 limited partnerships.  The basic difference between these funds is that a 3(c)1 is limited to 99 investors and has an Accredited Investor standard (basically, $1 million net worth or $200,000 in income or $300,000 in income for a married couple) and a 3(c)7 fund allows for up to 499 investors and also has a Qualified Purchaser standard (basically a $5 million liquid net worth requirement and additional standards for institutional investors).  Most funds go for 3(c)7 status so they can maximize the number of investors.  

Whereas, in a mutual fund, basically anyone can own one.

Fees
As you all know, partnerships are allowed to charge virtually any type of fee they desire.  Most hedge funds are partnerships that have settled on a management fee and an incentive fee.  Mutual funds don't charge incentive fees.  As one might expect, this can have a significant impact on the behavior of these managers, sometimes in unexpected ways.

Incentives by fund type
Everyone knows that good performance attracts assets.  So, whether you are a hedge fund manager or a mutual fund manager, you seek to have good performance.

Incentives for mutual fund managers
Because mutual fund managers only receive a fee based on asset levels, the incentive is to gather as many assets as possible. This can be accomplished through strong performance, an effective sales force, differentiated offerings, advertising, brand, convenience, etc.

I'm not going to argue for or against EMH here, but one thing that is almost universally accepted is that a large asset base is the enemy of good performance.

Places like Morningstar rate the performance of mutual funds and make it easy to compare funds. The good or bad performance of a fund follows it for a long time. So, an incentive for a fund that has had good performance is to 'lock-in' that performance by becoming more like their index. One of the dirty little secrets of the mutual fund industry is that many fund companies will start a number of funds and manage them before making them available to the public. The reason this is important is because they can make available to the public only those funds which have strong performance. Once again, this good performance will help them attract assets and now they could become more index like and few investors will know because they will generally just see the longer track record.

This isn't to say that all fund companies do this, I am just laying out their financial incentives. An incentive for someone might also be to protect their reputation and if they have banked enough money, that may be more important to them than anything else.

Incentives for hedge fund managers
Because hedge fund managers receive both an asset based fee and a performance fee, their incentive is to find a balance between asset levels that they can continue to generate strong performance and a sufficient asset base to generate fees. For some funds, this level is relatively small, while for others it is virtually without limit.

In addition, most funds have a high water mark for performance. This means that if they have a bad year, they need to make up that ground before they can start earning an incentive fee again. The incentive here is not to take too much risk so as not to put your incentive fees at risk.

However, there are negatives to the incentives of hedge fund managers as well. The performance fee does present an element of heads I win, tails you lose, for the hedge fund manager. Let's assume there was a trade out there that had a 20% chance of gaining 1,000% and a 80% chance of losing 100%. A hedge fund manager might take this bet because if they lose, they just close shop; if they win, they earn 20% of the 1,000% (200%). One reason many investors ask hedge fund managers how much they have invested in their own funds is because they want to minimize this incentive to recklessly gamble with their money. However, you have seen enormous blow-ups in the hedge fund space (LTCM, Amaranth, etc.) that you just don't see in the mutual fund space, partially because of this incentive for hedge funds and partially because mutual funds don't really have the freedom to blow up like this because of their diversification requirements.

Summary of Incentives
While both types of managers have incentives that may not always be to their client's benefit, most people in the industry try to do the right thing. However, it's important to know their incentives, because whether it is conscious or not, bad incentives can negatively impact behavior, for at least some people.

Basic Description of Mutual Funds
Mutual funds are considered to be Registered Investment Companies (RICs).  These are registered funds that need to comply with certain rules to maintain their tax status and remain available to the general investing public.    There are several types of RICs:
1.  Open end funds:  these are the funds you are most likely familiar with.  You can buy or sell these funds at the close at the Net Asset Value (NAV: the net value of all assets of the fund divided by the shares outstanding).  Fidelity, Capital Guardian, T. Rowe Price are some examples of big fund companies.
Liquidity:  Daily at the close
Share pricing:  Trade at NAV with fund company
Leverage:  usually none

2.  Closed end Funds
Liquidity:  During market hours you can trade your shares on the secondary market.
Share pricing:  Done in the secondary market at the prevailing market price.  Shares often trade at significant discounts or premiums to NAV.
Leverage:  Most funds are levered, especially fixed income funds.  Leverage often comes by issuing preferred stock.
Special note:  Because the fund never really needs to meet redemptions, these funds can own can own illiquid investments.

Diversification Requirements:  Mutual Funds
http://www.bbdcpa.com/blog/internal-revenue-code-d...

Here are the two big diversification rules for mutual funds:

1.  The 50% Test:  For at least 50% of the assets, you can't have more than 5% of the fund's assets in any one issuer.  Exceptions are government securities and other RICs (usually money market funds, but could be another type of fund).

2.  The 25% Test:  No more than 25% of fund assets can be invested in one issuer (government securities exempted) or in publicly traded partnerships (usually MLPs).

Diversification Requirements:  Hedge Funds
There really is no restriction for hedge funds.

Other reading:
http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/8D0...

At most, I've covered the tip of the iceberg on this topic, so feel free to add your comments here.

8

Comments (50)

  • Hooked on LEAPS's picture

    Awesome post.

    Competition is a sin.

    -John D. Rockefeller

  • huanleshalemei's picture

    Great article, thank you Sir! As generous as I can be, I will throw no more than 5K to the MF recommended by my friend and see if the fund will break its underperformance record in the new year.

    The Auto Show

  • bearcats's picture

    Good info. However, what he says only applies to US funds. Mutual funds overseas are governed by the local jurisdiction and not subject to 40 act.

    For instance, SICAV funds marketed across borders in Europe under the UCITS directive have a lot of other restrictions that distinguish them from typical 40 act funds.

    Also, hedge funds based out of Europe will be governed by AIFMD starting mid this year, which will add some restrictions as well.

    Point is, both mutual funds and hedge funds are going through a lot of regulatory changes in various places.

  • Viktri's picture

    Fantastic, thanks for sharing.

    - V

  • tangent style's picture

    Thanks for following through on that other thread and all the confusion there Sir. Would throw you an SB if I had one.

    "Do not go gentle into that good night"

  • Ricqles's picture

    great post, would the OP mind to add how to break into mutual funds from a hf background. Also, would be great to hear more about lifestyle, money and career progression, etc. Thanks

  • In reply to bearcats
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    bearcats wrote:
    what he says only applies to US funds.

    That's a good point, thanks for bringing it up. Everything regulatory in this post is US only.

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • In reply to Ricqles
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    Ricqles wrote:
    great post, would the OP mind to add how to break into mutual funds from a hf background. Also, would be great to hear more about lifestyle, money and career progression, etc. Thanks

    It probably depends on what kind of hedge fund you're coming from and what type of mutual fund you're going to and what position you have and you're seeking.

    If you're coming from a L/S hedge fund, it should be easy to transition to an equity mutual fund. On the investment side, your day to day job will be very similar. Believe it or not, there are mutual funds that employ the following strategies:
    - Long-short
    - Merger arb
    - Convert arb

    There aren't a ton of them, but they exist. There are also plenty of go anywhere mutual funds that would probably take people from macro backgrounds. Global tactical allocation and global fixed income funds would probably look for people with macro backgrounds as well.

    My old firm, which was a relatively large asset manager had both a centralized research group and a bunch of PM teams. The research analyst's pay ranged from about $250k to about $1 million, depending on experience and performance. The median was probably about $400-450k. The portfolio managers pay ranged from about $400k to $25+ million, mostly determined by assets and seniority on the team. The median was about $1 million. I know most people who give these estimates are usually just guessing, but I was in management there, so I would review the P&Ls, including comp for everyone on these teams/groups. So, these aren't my best guess, this is what was true at our firm a few years ago.

    As far as lifestyle, the hours were usually about 8 am - 6 pm for most people; longer during earnings season. In other words, it was pretty sweet to be a PM there.

    Career progression for most at our firm was not standardized at all. Many people came from research (either internally or externally) and then joined as a relatively junior PM. If they were good, they could either branch out on their own or wait for the old guy to retire. As you could imagine given the lifestyle, people didn't want to retire often.

    Hope this helps.

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • whatwhatwhat's picture

    would be good to expand on the effects diversification requirements and relative vs absolute performance have on holdings

    that to me and aum raising vs performance are the largest differences

  • In reply to whatwhatwhat
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    whatwhatwhat wrote:
    would be good to expand on the effects diversification requirements and relative vs absolute performance have on holdings

    that to me and aum raising vs performance are the largest differences


    You want to take a stab at it? I would only note that not every mutual fund is relative performance focused, even though most are. There's nothing that requires them to be, it's really the consultants and Morningstar that cause most of them to be that way.

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • joblo1's picture

    Interesting situation at a mutual fund i know of, they are not benchmarked and do not pay attention to any index weightings or performance. This is all fine and good but in marketing meetings with institutions the analysts on that side simply randomly pick their own benchmarks to compare it to, so while they say they are non-benchmark, from a fund raising perspective they are benchmarked, they just don't get to choose the benchmark! The institutions/consultants will acknowledge that it doesn't make sense but they will say that is the best they can do. It is truly idiotic but that's the way it goes. Being absolute return as a mutual fund can be quite odd while fund raising.

  • Bateman Begins's picture

    Highly informative post, thank you OP. But I'm curious regarding the prestige level at HF's vis a vis MF's. Why is it so difficult to get into HF's as compared to MF's; and why are most HF managers held in such high regard as compared to MF managers?

    Read my blog: Bateman Begins

  • Bateman Begins's picture

    [Double post]

    Read my blog: Bateman Begins

  • PeteMullersKeyboard's picture

    Great post, and some great comments.

    "When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

  • In reply to Bateman Begins
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    CAinPE wrote:
    Highly informative post, thank you OP. But I'm curious regarding the prestige level at HF's vis a vis MF's. Why is it so difficult to get into HF's as compared to MF's; and why are most HF managers held in such high regard as compared to MF managers?

    There are a couple of ways that your questions can be read, so I'll answer them in the way that is most interesting to me.

    I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that HFs are only allowed to take money from wealthy people and institutions while MFs can take money from 'commoners'. The gov't made it more difficult to get into (invest in) hedge funds, because they didn't want the middle class to get raped by Wall Street. So, the regulatory environment allowed for a velvet-rope type feel for hedge funds. It sucks for the avg. investor, but regulations often work that way.

    Hedge fund managers are one of the most reviled group of people in the country, so I'm not sure what you're getting to about them being held in such 'high regard'. I run a hedge fund and I barely ever describe it that way when people ask what I do for a living. Probably you mean amongst people who are reading this site. Probably because hedge fund managers make more money at the top end. I would argue, the largest part of the difference as to why hedge fund managers make more money than mutual fund managers is because most hedge fund managers are entrepreneurs and most mutual fund managers are employees.

    I have a response in this thread about why I think the entrepreneur makes more than the employee, even though it's relatively obvious. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/how-much-do-...

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • lotsofquestions's picture

    CAinPE, I think you are confused. The idea that it is more difficult to get into a hedge fund vs a mutual fund is just not correct. They are both extremely difficult to get into. In my sector there are as many mutual fund analysts as hedge fund analysts and I can assure you there is no difference in the difficulty, if anything turnover is so much lower at the mutual funds that it is actually easier to get a hedge fund job. Another thing, i personally don't know a single person over the age of 30 at a mutual fund trying to get a hedge fund job. A mutual fund is typically part of a larger organization which often times equates to more stability. Even the largest hedge fund is typically owned by no more than a few people, think of a hedge fund as working for an internet startup up with all of the uncertainty while working for a mutual fund is like working for a fortune 500. While an Analyst is probably going to make $200-1 million at a mutual fund very, very few hedge fund analysts are going to make more than that and if they do it is quite possible they are taking massive beta risk which means their fund can collapse at any time. Hedge fund managers are held in high regard in the media because they make an enormous effort to be in the media as often as possible, think about Ackman and HLF, how many times has a Fidelity manager invited hundreds of media outlets to a stock pitch? It doesn't happen. Also, how often is the number ten guy at a fortune 500 held up as a star in the media? Name the number 10 guy at Cisco or Microsoft, the person is still worth tens of millions of dollars most likely yet we don't know who it is. This simply goes back to a hedge fund being like a startup and a mutual fund being like a fortune 500 company.

    If you had two kids and a wife that didn't work and someone offers you 500k per year with virtually no volatility in your earnings or the outside chance to make 1-1.5 million or lose your job every year at a hedge fund, most people will take the steady job where you will still be rich over time. Also keep in mind that just because a hedge fund is high profile and has high AUM doesn't necessarily mean every Analyst there is making millions of dollars in a good year. Unless your contract specifically states a quantitative formula for your compensation a great year for your hedge fund does not always equate to a great year for an Analyst. There are a number of old threads of hedge fund analysts complaining about their poor pay in a great year. The best quote i've read on WSO is "A hedge fund is designed to make one person a billionaire while an investment bank is structured to make thousands of people millionaires" This is applicable to the hedge fund vs mutual fund debate as well.

    When i go to industry conferences the "new" guys are always from hedge funds while the people you see year after year are the mutual fund guys, most are making $300-$400k while very senior analysts and PMs are making seven figures, working 8 to 6 at the most and having a great life. I only know a few hedge fund guys who i see year after year at industry conferences, everyone else gets blown out over time. Hope that helps.

  • pitbul13's picture

    Hedge funds : Good for employees, bad for investors.
    I was surprised when I found out that Hedge Funds, after taking all their fees, mostly underperform mutual funds! (Yes, you read that right).

    I highly suggest all of you read: ''The Only Guide to Alternative Investments You'll Ever: The Good, the Flawed, the Bad, and the Ugly'' - Larry E. Swedroe

    It's but one of the interesting books listed here: http://www.mcgilleig.ca/index.php/eig-content/read...

  • In reply to SirTradesaLot
    Bateman Begins's picture

    SirTradesaLot wrote:

    Probably you mean amongst people who are reading this site.

    Thank you, your answer explains a lot of things. And yes, I did mean prestige value inside the industry. I don't care much about what outside people think, because most of them don't really understand what finance people do anyways.

    lotsofquestions wrote:

    A mutual fund is typically part of a larger organization which often times equates to more stability. Even the largest hedge fund is typically owned by no more than a few people, think of a hedge fund as working for an internet startup up with all of the uncertainty while working for a mutual fund is like working for a fortune 500.

    When i go to industry conferences the "new" guys are always from hedge funds while the people you see year after year are the mutual fund guys, most are making $300-$400k while very senior analysts and PMs are making seven figures, working 8 to 6 at the most and having a great life. I only know a few hedge fund guys who i see year after year at industry conferences, everyone else gets blown out over time.


    This is the first time I have come across this explanation, and it makes a lot of sense. The main point that I am taking away from this is that HF managers are comparable to entrepreneurs - they're in a high risk, high reward scenario. While MF people are only in a slightly(?) disadvantageous position but do have the benefit of stability.

    I'm just starting out and reading tonnes of content - literally anything I can find. Seems like as long as your question is intelligent, the responses at WSO are always professional and informative. So thank you, it is much appreciated.

    Read my blog: Bateman Begins

  • In reply to SirTradesaLot
    Bateman Begins's picture

    SirTradesaLot wrote:

    I have a response in this thread about why I think the entrepreneur makes more than the employee, even though it's relatively obvious. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/how-much-do-...
    Reading this thread right now - makes a very interesting read.

    Read my blog: Bateman Begins

  • Y2A's picture

    What is the typical recruiting and career path to becoming a PM at a mutual fund? People tend to generalize recruiting for HFs as IBD->PE->HF, what about "boring" mutual funds?

  • In reply to Y2A
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    Y2A wrote:
    What is the typical recruiting and career path to becoming a PM at a mutual fund? People tend to generalize recruiting for HFs as IBD->PE->HF, what about "boring" mutual funds?

    I can't comment, in general, but just how it was at my old firm. The most common path was to spend time in equity research (either sell side or buy side) before becoming a PM. We had a centralized research group: Associates came from the sell side (usually as an associate over there) or from MBA programs. Equity analysts either were promoted from associate or lateraled from another firm. Junior PMs came from research (internal or external) or were a PM somewhere else. Senior PMs were either recruited from another firm or were brought up on the team as a junior PM. Not all fit this mold, but it was fairly common. Usually, people didn't make it to PM until late 30's or in your 40's. Very few lead PMs were under the age of 50 on the equity side (less than 20%). To be fair, most people had very long careers, so the guys were usually younger when they made head PM. Still, it was rare to make it before 40.

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • In reply to Y2A
    BeastMode's picture

    Y2A wrote:
    What is the typical recruiting and career path to becoming a PM at a mutual fund? People tend to generalize recruiting for HFs as IBD->PE->HF, what about "boring" mutual funds?

    My experience is that you're hired either out of MBA or at some firms even out of undergrad. The most common path I've seen is 2 years banking, 2 years PE/HF, B school, then hired from OCR. Some people have consulting backgrounds, other buy side shops, or some sell side research. Those experienced hires who come without doing an MBA almost always come from another asset manager or HF.

  • diceclay's picture

    There is a lot of money in the retail/consumer side of funds, you can have lots AUM with 10 investors or 100,000 investors, mutual funds just cast a bigger net with very wide spread distribution channels. Here is a list of the largest mutual fund families by size (it is a bit dated but you get the idea; last number is the amount of distinct funds they offer).

    1
    Fidelity Investments
    $984,173,589,258
    315

    2
    Vanguard Group
    $962,331,327,507
    148

    3
    American Funds
    $956,584,547,987
    42

    4
    Franklin Templeton Investments
    $377,385,331,414
    122

    5
    T. Rowe Price & Co.
    $345,725,591,811
    110

    6
    Columbia Management (Ameriprise Financial)
    $167,493,529,444
    140

    7
    Dodge & Cox
    $126,826,526,974
    5

    8
    OppenheimerFunds
    $125,473,946,434
    72

    9
    John Hancock Funds
    $119,789,419,458
    225

    10
    Pacific Investment Management Co.
    $118,411,876,036
    73

    11
    Invesco Ltd. (Morgan Stanley Smith Barney)
    $95,323,126,745
    92

    12
    BlackRock Inc.
    $90,785,119,662
    116

    13
    Janus Capital Group
    $84,717,855,431
    48

    14
    American Century Investments
    $71,948,919,961
    86

    15
    MFS Investment Management
    $71,059,542,832
    74

    16
    Lord Abbett & Co.
    $66,647,971,069
    42

    17
    ING Retirement
    $58,294,891,374
    150

    18
    Wells Fargo Advantage Funds
    $48,938,991,118
    101
    .....

    39
    Goldman Sachs Asset Management
    $26,350,742,126
    72

    Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out...and the corporations sit there in their...in their corporation buildings, and...and see, they're all corporation-y...and they make money

  • BlackHat's picture

    Keep in mind there's an entire world of more boutique-ish mutual fund / asset management companies that are highly selective and extremely well-respected on the street, both on the MF and HF sides. A guy who was brought up working under Bruce Berkowitz or Bill Miller is going to be infinitely more attractive at most equity L/S hedge funds than someone who's just lateraling from random HF XYZ.

    I hate victims who respect their executioners

  • In reply to BlackHat
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    BlackHat wrote:
    Keep in mind there's an entire world of more boutique-ish mutual fund / asset management companies that are highly selective and extremely well-respected on the street, both on the MF and HF sides. A guy who was brought up working under Bruce Berkowitz or Bill Miller is going to be infinitely more attractive at most equity L/S hedge funds than someone who's just lateraling from random HF XYZ.

    Absolutely. All funds are not created equally, whether hedge funds or mutual funds. I would even go further and say there can be huge differences within firms, especially at mutual funds. One PM team is highly respected and others are mediocre at the same firm.

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • In reply to BlackHat
    KarateBoy's picture

    BlackHat wrote:
    Keep in mind there's an entire world of more boutique-ish mutual fund / asset management companies that are highly selective and extremely well-respected on the street, both on the MF and HF sides. A guy who was brought up working under Bruce Berkowitz or Bill Miller is going to be infinitely more attractive at most equity L/S hedge funds than someone who's just lateraling from random HF XYZ.

    I really wanted to apply to work for Bruce in 2011 when everyone was giving up on him..haha

    Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/_KarateBoy_

  • In reply to KarateBoy
    BlackHat's picture

    KarateBoy wrote:
    BlackHat wrote:
    Keep in mind there's an entire world of more boutique-ish mutual fund / asset management companies that are highly selective and extremely well-respected on the street, both on the MF and HF sides. A guy who was brought up working under Bruce Berkowitz or Bill Miller is going to be infinitely more attractive at most equity L/S hedge funds than someone who's just lateraling from random HF XYZ.

    I really wanted to apply to work for Bruce in 2011 when everyone was giving up on him..haha

    Have they even had new hires in like the past 8 years? I would have loved to work there but never heard of any opportunity to get in. And my hatred for financials would make it hard, but maybe that would have made it a great experience. Hard to find managers like that out there in the HF world that are actually focused on growing their young talent. That's what really matters at the junior levels.

    I hate victims who respect their executioners

  • In reply to BlackHat
    KarateBoy's picture

    BlackHat wrote:
    KarateBoy wrote:
    BlackHat wrote:
    Keep in mind there's an entire world of more boutique-ish mutual fund / asset management companies that are highly selective and extremely well-respected on the street, both on the MF and HF sides. A guy who was brought up working under Bruce Berkowitz or Bill Miller is going to be infinitely more attractive at most equity L/S hedge funds than someone who's just lateraling from random HF XYZ.

    I really wanted to apply to work for Bruce in 2011 when everyone was giving up on him..haha

    Have they even had new hires in like the past 8 years? I would have loved to work there but never heard of any opportunity to get in. And my hatred for financials would make it hard, but maybe that would have made it a great experience. Hard to find managers like that out there in the HF world that are actually focused on growing their young talent. That's what really matters at the junior levels.

    None that I know of. I figured that someone who is losing 70% of their AUM in 1-year isn't looking to take a bet on a junior guy like me. Not sure if I would of liked being in Florida.

    I'm not a big fan of financial either, but it would be world-class experience. Plus, I bet a focus on financial is temporary.

    Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/_KarateBoy_

  • Walkerr's picture

    Great post Sir! Diceclay, do you have a source for the list you posted? Thanks

  • In reply to Walkerr
    diceclay's picture

    Walkerr wrote:
    Great post Sir! Diceclay, do you have a source for the list you posted? Thanks

    I tried to post the link but havn't been here long enough for WSO to allow me to post links. Try just google searching "Largest Mutual Fund Families". I also know Barrons does an annual list of best over all fund families based on AUM and net flows.

    Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out...and the corporations sit there in their...in their corporation buildings, and...and see, they're all corporation-y...and they make money

  • BlackHat's picture

    Just because it's large doesn't make it good. Looking up "largest mutual fund families" just gives you the names you'd expect, and honestly who wants to work at Vanguard?

    Check out Morningstar's annual nominees for best domestic fund managers and that usually gives you a good idea of some of the mutual funds that might be preferable to the average hedge fund (particularly at junior levels).

    I hate victims who respect their executioners

  • diceclay's picture

    Black Hat had a great point. You can search Fund Mojo and that site gives a overview of top managers and their funds by asset class etc...

    Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out...and the corporations sit there in their...in their corporation buildings, and...and see, they're all corporation-y...and they make money

  • constipatedmonkey's picture

    Any thoughts on exit opps from mutual funds?

  • In reply to constipatedmonkey
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    constipatedmonkey wrote:
    Any thoughts on exit opps from mutual funds?

    Either other mutual funds or hedge funds. Most people managing money don't think about leaving that for other types of careers.

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • Working9-5's picture

    I must admit that I prefered doing work for PMs in the MF space over HF. They were more experienced, knew how to place orders, wouldn't argue on the fourth decimal, were open for discussions and could take a joke.

    This is my take and experience with PMs and a good handful of them are on Diceclay's list over asset management firms.

    CNBC sucks

    "This financial crisis is worse than a divorce. I've lost all my money, but the wife is still here." - Client after getting blown up

  • xqtrack's picture

    To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

    Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Google

    Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
  • diceclay's picture

    Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out...and the corporations sit there in their...in their corporation buildings, and...and see, they're all corporation-y...and they make money

  • In reply to Smartmoney
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG

  • In reply to SirTradesaLot
    Smartmoney's picture
  • In reply to Smartmoney
    SirTradesaLot's picture

    adapt or die wrote:
    What would P.T. Barnum say about you?

    MY BLOG