Trying to benchmark a bit for myself and others. I'm pretty familiar with approximate payscales for hedge fund analysts 1-3 years out, but I'd like more insight into what happens when you're a 'senior analyst' or possibly 'junior PM' (but not actually managing your own P&L/doing position sizing) at a big fund (lets say ~$2B). I know fortunes diverge a lot based on performance, etc, but just a few examples would be useful. What happens when you're 4-5 years in at, say, a ~10 year old, ~$2-3B Tiger Cub or similar role, where you're neither a founder nor a PM but at this point you're a proven non-junior level investor?
Trending Content
Career Resources
Threads on HF Comp turn into a total shit show even when they are about the first one-two years where things are loosely uniform. This is going to be compounded by the fact that there are very, very few posters who could comment intelligently on a senior analyst/Junior PM level (Blackhat, Mr. Pink Money). More senior positions have both a wider dispersion of pay samples and more diverse compositions (cash base/bonus, deferred cash, levered co-invest, etc).
Your best bet would be to maybe try to find a copy of Glocap report or talk to a headhunter that you trust. If I had to make a guess based on the circumstances you provided I would say 500k-2mm. If the fund did ok but not great, and the ideas contributed by the analyst were in line with overall fund performance, I would guess 600k-800k. To get significantly higher the fund would have to do really well or the analyst would have to have a concrete tie to well performing positions.
The rumor is that the Tiger funds tend to pay at a slight premium due to the halo effect and ability to easily transfer other places based on reputation. I think the huge overlap in positions within that network adds to this effect. A lot of stocks that are held in $2bn-$3bn tiger funds wind up being $1bn positions at the bigger places. I imagine if word got out the original analyst at the smaller place would have a lot of leverage come bonus season.
Slight premium meaning to similar size funds or to hedge funds in general? Would a smaller tiger cub pay more than a top-tier non tiger (Farallon, maybe the big multi managers like Citadel and balyasny?)
Gray Fox, could you elaborate on that last point? Were you envisioning a situation where an analyst at a smaller Tiger Cub puts on a position that later gets followed by the bigger Cubs?
By the way, any pros/cons of joining the said $3-4bn sized Tiger Cubs versus the giant $10bn+ ones?
To my knowledge there are only two $10B+ cubs: Viking and Lone Pine. I would describe these as all upside if you can get the job lol
This happens all the time. These guys (the founders) all worked together at one point and if you're in this business you know that you talk to your friends a lot. So if you're an analyst at one of the smaller shops in the network (say Bridger of Valiant) and you come up with a great idea that leads to your fund having a $75m-$100m position in it. There's a good chance that Roberto or Chris wold tell John (Blue Ridge) about it if / when they chat. Next thing you know, John (and team) do work on it and whereas Roberto put on a $50m-75m position, John now has a $200m-$300m position in it. Then the next time John is talking the Stephen (Lone Pine), it may come up and then low and behold Lone Pine has a $500m position, etc. Then if it goes well, Stephen, John and whoever else now think of that analyst at Bridger / Valiant as a smart guy / girl and Roberto and Chris know this. So when bonuses come around, they may pay said analyst well, because they know that there is a chance of them being poached by John / Stephen / etc. if they're unhappy and want to leave. This happens a lot hence the "premium" that gray fox was talking about
My general experience is that many mid-level people get paid less than you think they do
If you are a great stock picker, then all else being equal, what type of platform (small/large Tiger Cub, multi strategy fund, etc) would probably reward you the most? Obviously if you're really good, then I assume you'd be able to start your own fund and all, but curious what one would do before that
Gray Fox Thanks. I think your ranges are broadly correct. I understand the variability but given the lack of transparency, even understanding whether good mid level pay is are 500 - 1.5M vs. 2-3 is very helpful. I think maybe establishing cielings is the way to go. What kind of money CAN'T you make unless you are basically a PM/founder? I think its nearly impossible for someone without a concrete profit share deal to make more than ~ $4M? Am I right?
SlowMonkey08 The feeling I've always gotten is that the multi-managers are 'high risk, high reward'. You can make a ton of money or significantly impair your career by blowing up/getting fired. I think some ppl have a bit of a stigma against people with the multi-manager background (the 'trader reputation'), so it's easier to leverage a Tiger Cub into a job at a multi-manager than the other way around. Basically, reputation/prestige/'exit opps' vs. multi-platform money. IF you really kill it, you will make more at place where you have a concrete tie to P&L (more likely multi-manager) than one where you're just an employee
Overall, I'd guess other sources of variation (pay culture, negotiation skills, etc) outweigh the simple multi-manager vs. big single manager comparison though.
@wso_user" I don't think a Tiger Cub would pay differently from a similarly sized top tier fund. I use "Tiger Cub" as a proxy for fundamental single-manager style funds as opposed to multi-managers, which are substantially different business models
^Blue Ridge, Tiger Global, Maverick, Coatue and Egerton are all >$10bn and there's probably another 3-5 in the $3-$5bn that could "probably" double their size if they wanted to be.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily bucket or view working at every tiger cub the same (in response to the "all upside" comment). Working at Viking is different than working at Blue Ridge, etc. and "senior analyst" can take on a bunch of meanings. In some cases it may mean you generating ideas and pitching them to a PM, that's it. In other cases, it means more of a working relationship with your superior(s); the difference is subtle but there's a difference. If you think you're good and ready for the former, you'll probably be fine anywhere (if you're good). But if you're looking for the latter, you should look harder at the place you're thinking about joining (tiger cubs included).
Akybaky, which funds do you think have the potential to double their AUM if they wanted to?
PM me. The use of the word "double" may have been a bit overzealous. That said, there are some of the smaller shops that have opted to stay in the in the $2bn-$5bn range not because of a lack of interest / capital but out of choice. It's harder to invest $15bn vs. $3bn and have great returns. That's a better way to put it
Voluptatibus et officiis quam a et totam perspiciatis. In explicabo aut rerum est ipsum.
Velit nulla laudantium perspiciatis qui voluptas earum sit. Laboriosam at nesciunt omnis vero. At et rerum id omnis quia illum doloribus ipsum. Repellendus quia in neque autem molestias alias soluta. Excepturi quos magni corporis doloremque doloribus beatae a.
Rerum et dolorem dignissimos. Est distinctio voluptates est error ipsa. Recusandae in vitae natus enim sunt odio ex animi.
Eos eveniet ea iure cupiditate alias hic magni. Ut ut dignissimos sint. Asperiores dolor pariatur aut in error. Itaque hic itaque accusamus assumenda. Esse et earum qui dolorem et aut perferendis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...