• Sharebar

Clearly its recruiting time. The PE firms struck early and it seems as if half of the analysts are already going to Carlyle (yes, exaggeration).

Anyways, now the hedge fund opportunities seem to be coming up and while I have been interviewing with some PE shops, I'm also considering an opportunity with a $5bln+ long/short fund. How would you guys tend to think about pro/cons for this, addressing:

1) Learning opportunities and long term skill building
2) Pay (on average is pay roughly comparable? Highly AUM dependent? Any specific examples/numbers?) What happens as you move up (think roughly VP level for PE)?
3) Advancement and career building
4) Anything else I should think about (yes, i'm interested in both, enjoy investing and doing deals, etc...)

Addendum: Seems as if a lot of people do top PE (TPG, BX, Apax), then move to HF? What kind of HFs do they tend to move into, and why? Would you not usually take a pay cut?

Sorry for being a bit long. Thanks for answering.

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation + Learn More.

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions Learn More.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (7)

  • dbdbdip's picture
  • alpha mail's picture

    Full disclosure, I'm biased to the HF path, but have friends at top PE shops. First things first, PE and HF are two fundamentally different career paths. Yes, they're both buyside gigs and both pay extremely well. However, it's the differences you'll have to pay attention to.

    1. I would say HF is less modeling intensive than PE just bc at the top PE funds you're only going to be modeling as a pre-MBA associate, whereas at a top HF (fundamental value / long-short equity) you'll be doing some modeling to support an investment thesis but you'll also be screening for ideas, crafting the thesis, and defending it with valuation models, et al. Obviously this a blanket statement and realistically the real answer is that it depends on the shop. At the top non-sourcing PE shops, dealflow is going to be driven primarily by bankers and the rolodex of your operating advisors and senior professionals. This means that as an associate you're going to primarily do LBO modeling with little work on the sourcing side and little work on the post-acquisition operations side. This is great because it'll make you extremely comfortable with modeling down to a very granular level and it'll help you understand swappable cap structures and HY debt. As mentioned in some other threads, megafund PE is very much banking 2.0.

    At a top L/S fund, on the other hand, the place you want to aim to for will operate in the ex-Tiger tradition of PMs cultivating a culture of idea generation at the junior AND senior level. This means intensive fundamental research both bottoms-up and top-down. From a top-down perspective, how is the current turmoil in Japan opening up interesting opportunities in Asia? As a research analyst, one line of thinking could be: Earthquake in Japan --> billions of infrastructure damage in the region --> increased China-Japan trade over last decade --> long China cement producers --> which China cement producers are currently undervalued? --> identify opportunity and accumulate X shares at Y price and exit position at Z price. Each junction in that predicated decision tree needs to be thoroughly researched via reports, valuation modeling, diligence trips, etc. If your thesis is complete horseshit, your PM will chew you out but at least you'll learn how to identify value more efficiently. This is an excellent model as it teaches you to become an intelligent investor and is a crucial experience if you ultimately want to manage your own portfolio.

    2. Pay is roughly comparable, although probably skewed towards PE at the pre-MBA associate level (bc PE funds tend to be much larger than HFs) and then towards HF at a more senior level (where PMs are generally more predatory with comp vis-a-vis returns). The inflection point is highly dependent on the shops and their investment strategies, returns, management structures, etc.

    3. Can't speak to the PE side, but on the HF side, there's no set timetable to promotions. If you're a senior research analyst at Viking, for example, it could be years before you make it that next step to become a PM. However, what's common a lot of times is leaving a top fund with another PM, securing LP commitments, and starting your own shop. That way, you're making much more money and also in turn getting a promotion to PM. You see this a lot recently given the instability within banks and other large shops.

    4. I think this decision comes down to something all college juniors are asked when they think about IBD vs S&T: are you passionate about the markets? It's a simple question, but important. If you don't give a shit about where the VIX is at because you're an M&A banker and want to continue working on deals on the buyside, lever up a company, and exit at a higher multiple, then PE is the way to go. If you're an ardent follower of the markets, enjoy reading earnings transcripts, digging through K's and Q's, and coming up with investment ideas, then the HF route makes sense. Possible to do both, obviously, but most people have a leaning one way or another.

    And to your addendum, most people do PE and then move to a fund after business school because a lot of top HFs require buyside experience. Generally, they'll move to L/S equity funds, but if you're coming from a levfin or restructuring background, end up at a distressed PE shop, event-driven funds like Third Point are a good fit.

  • firefighter's picture

    is it easier to get into a top MBA from PE than from HF? i know based on alpha mail's discussion HF's get very involved in qualitative understanding as well but do you think business schools, whether accurately or not, perceive PE guys as better operators and HF guys as investors? it seems like MBAs have a bias towards McKinsey and BCG guys over banking guys, so i can see this play out in the HF/PE scheme

  • In reply to alpha mail
    Millhouse's picture

    alpha mail:
    Full disclosure, I'm biased to the HF path, but have friends at top PE shops. First things first, PE and HF are two fundamentally different career paths. Yes, they're both buyside gigs and both pay extremely well. However, it's the differences you'll have to pay attention to.

    1. I would say HF is less modeling intensive than PE just bc at the top PE funds you're only going to be modeling as a pre-MBA associate, whereas at a top HF (fundamental value / long-short equity) you'll be doing some modeling to support an investment thesis but you'll also be screening for ideas, crafting the thesis, and defending it with valuation models, et al. Obviously this a blanket statement and realistically the real answer is that it depends on the shop. At the top non-sourcing PE shops, dealflow is going to be driven primarily by bankers and the rolodex of your operating advisors and senior professionals. This means that as an associate you're going to primarily do LBO modeling with little work on the sourcing side and little work on the post-acquisition operations side. This is great because it'll make you extremely comfortable with modeling down to a very granular level and it'll help you understand swappable cap structures and HY debt. As mentioned in some other threads, megafund PE is very much banking 2.0.

    At a top L/S fund, on the other hand, the place you want to aim to for will operate in the ex-Tiger tradition of PMs cultivating a culture of idea generation at the junior AND senior level. This means intensive fundamental research both bottoms-up and top-down. From a top-down perspective, how is the current turmoil in Japan opening up interesting opportunities in Asia? As a research analyst, one line of thinking could be: Earthquake in Japan --> billions of infrastructure damage in the region --> increased China-Japan trade over last decade --> long China cement producers --> which China cement producers are currently undervalued? --> identify opportunity and accumulate X shares at Y price and exit position at Z price. Each junction in that predicated decision tree needs to be thoroughly researched via reports, valuation modeling, diligence trips, etc. If your thesis is complete horseshit, your PM will chew you out but at least you'll learn how to identify value more efficiently. This is an excellent model as it teaches you to become an intelligent investor and is a crucial experience if you ultimately want to manage your own portfolio.

    2. Pay is roughly comparable, although probably skewed towards PE at the pre-MBA associate level (bc PE funds tend to be much larger than HFs) and then towards HF at a more senior level (where PMs are generally more predatory with comp vis-a-vis returns). The inflection point is highly dependent on the shops and their investment strategies, returns, management structures, etc.

    3. Can't speak to the PE side, but on the HF side, there's no set timetable to promotions. If you're a senior research analyst at Viking, for example, it could be years before you make it that next step to become a PM. However, what's common a lot of times is leaving a top fund with another PM, securing LP commitments, and starting your own shop. That way, you're making much more money and also in turn getting a promotion to PM. You see this a lot recently given the instability within banks and other large shops.

    4. I think this decision comes down to something all college juniors are asked when they think about IBD vs S&T: are you passionate about the markets? It's a simple question, but important. If you don't give a shit about where the VIX is at because you're an M&A banker and want to continue working on deals on the buyside, lever up a company, and exit at a higher multiple, then PE is the way to go. If you're an ardent follower of the markets, enjoy reading earnings transcripts, digging through K's and Q's, and coming up with investment ideas, then the HF route makes sense. Possible to do both, obviously, but most people have a leaning one way or another.

    And to your addendum, most people do PE and then move to a fund after business school because a lot of top HFs require buyside experience. Generally, they'll move to L/S equity funds, but if you're coming from a levfin or restructuring background, end up at a distressed PE shop, event-driven funds like Third Point are a good fit.

    very insightful post! SB to you.

  • BeatStreet's picture

    HF, Really? Versus PE? Get real. PE's are picking up their classes much earlier these days.

  • dazedmonk's picture

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

    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!
  • APAE's picture

    Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

    Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author