Clusterstock has an interesting piece from Bloomberg about what it's like working for Stevie Cohen.
Some of the highlights:
You might sit next to Cohen (he sits right in the middle of the trading floor)
Phones don't ring, they just light up. Cohen doesn't like the noise. (We also know he has a thing against the whirring sound computer fans make.)
The temperature is exactly 69 degrees (kind of cold, to keep people perky)
Cohen yells “Do you even know how to do this f---ing job?” frequently
If you're a manager, you'll have to sign a contract with a “down-and-out” clause. It means that if you lose 5 percent from your peak assets, SAC can take away half of what remains. Suffer a 10 percent loss, and you could be out.
The office is kind of like a small scale art gallery - with works by Vincent Van Gogh, Pablo Picasso and Andy Warhol hanging near the trading floor.
The interview process can take 14 months and the background check is really extensive. The joke is that Cohen will find out the name of a candidate’s second-grade teacher.
Here's the link
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-what-its-r…
That is pretty funny.
I know for a fact it doesn't take 14 months to get a job there. Also, (this is just from a PM's standpoint), if you make your numbers on your book within the first year, Steve for the most part lets you be. And it's ridiculously quiet on the floor.
How much do successful PMs at SAC make?
I grew up in the area and a bunch of my friends work at SAC. The background check is not nearly as extensive as mentioned and it doesnt take that long during interviewing. A lot of SAC is relationship based (just like the industry in general).
Tough to tell, he wouldn't tell me exactly. But he hinted his comp package for the year could be around 2MM if he makes his numbers.
is this part of the new SAC publicity tour?
"Your IMs and emails are monitored by a staff of 20 "compliance officers"
rofl
Mostly correct but very conservative write-up. This is pretty universal knowledge.
You won't sit next to him unless you're the new Chandler Bocklage or one of the senior PMs.
There's a Warhol lithograph. Don't think there's a van Gogh or Picasso.
Business Insider is a piece of garbage. Anybody who reads that must be a complete moron.
i visited SAC Capital with mu undergrad biz school during a trip to NY. The environment seemed very relaxed, although the office is extremely quiet. I didn't get to see Steve Cohen, but I heard that Mr. Cohen doesn't scream @ ppl who makes mistakes, but rather those who made mistakes but refuses to acknowledge them. Apparently, it's better to tell him "i know i screwed up" then "i'm sure it's because of XXX, and it'll prob go up in YYY time"
I can imagine that conversation going something like this: Dude: Oops! I know I screwed up. Cohen: Then you'll understand why you're fired.
Then again, I'm aspiring to be the said dude (sans the screwing up).
this is a pretty funny post. i can assure you that while the atmosphere looked relaxed, running money at SAC is anything but relaxing. The place is notoriously cut-throat amongst PM's and steve cohen is known as being very hard to work for...what looked to the untrained eye to be relaxation was no doubt seering tension and passive-aggressive loathing!
Business Insider is kind of sloppy. Carney does a nice job there. I don't visit the site for the reliability of a story, I go for the sheer volume of stories they touch on.
lol omg he looks like Dr. Evil in that picture. lol. I guess who cares about looks when you're that successful. My dad thinks he remembers meeting him during his days at wharton undergrad. said he looked like a huge dork. I guess somethings never change.
One thing is definitely true- The guy plays crooked. There is no doubt in my mind that he has engaged in some major insider trading activities throughout the history of SAC. I just never realized why he was never prosecuted.
I've heard about this too
"Definitely true"... "no doubt in my mind"...
Seriously, what evidence do you have of this? Suspicion of 'really high returns' doesn't count.
99.99% of this=hearsay from people who have never worked with or remotely interacted with Steve Cohen or the firm. Dubious at best.
And P.S. this is not directly in defense of Steve/SAC, but of everything which has become a target of the rumor mill. In an industry which has become so reliant upon public opinion that $25 billion banks have gone under, unsubstantiated accusations are as murderous as it gets.
Widespread Rumors always have a grain of truth. It actually takes a lot to push a rumor all around a well educated community and back.
But of course I don't have hard evidence. I'm not a regulator and don't have access. But the sheer number of insiders accusing SAC should make people curious if not just a little suspicious. Some of them maybe biased (e.g. the ex-wife who whistleblowed about insider trading during SAC's RCA shares debacle in the 80s) and others are quite trustworthy (the reuters journalists who tried to run a article on SAC and insider trading but where torpedoed by Reuters management after Cohen got wind of the article before publication and attacked). There's actually quite a few instances. I'm not saying he's necessarily in the top decile of crookedness among fund managers. But I think its a winner's bet that he's above average.
Oh, and many many years of consistent high returns IS enough of a reason just by itself to warrant suspicion. In the long run some healthy suspicion is always good. Teaching us that was the only thing Madoff was good for.
I'm not sure if cohen did anything unethical. But it is well known that he hired some DC lobbyists to give SAC inside information on pending legislations that could affect their stock portfolio.
Meh, don't know about this accusation, but regardless, still doesn't qualify as insider trading.
One of my good friends used to work on the floor of CME. He was a highly successful eurodollar trader, now works for himself out in los angeles. A former clerk of his is now a trader at SAC capital, trading equities. According to my friend, getting a job at SAC as a trader is the second toughest finance gig to land, after RenTech.
A far second, but second.
There are a lot of finance firms that are tougher to get into than SAC capital. Just off the top of my head, DE Shaw, citadel, blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, PIMCO, are all harder.
In the 80's and 90's it was probably standard with most other HF's, but at this stage in the game almost half their employees (and you can guess which jobs these ones hold) have PhD's in Math, Physics, Astrophysics and Engineering Phsyics, and CS.
If you haven't contributed to the scientific community from a research stand point you probably are not what they are looking for. I can guess they have the most PhD's of any HF. Depending on where you are trying to be placed part of the interview is talking about how you have contributed to the scientific community through your dissertation, or for programmers some advanced code you've written for numerical physicists.
I'm a Phsyics/Math student right now and getting those degrees and being able to contribute to the emerging fields that interest Simon's and his people at Ren Tech like Game Theory, Quantum Phsyics, and Thermodynamics is not an easy thing to do. Excelling in them is even more difficult, I'm very proud of how far I have come but would never go for a PhD at a place like MIT which are the kinds of tracks people at Ren Tech have taken whether they thought they'd end up at an HF or not.
Scientifically they have the brightest minds in the country working for them, as if the actual interview questions aren't daunting enough you may be getting interviewed by a Rocket Scientist.
Doesn't RenTech mainly do high frequency trading of equities? Seems like a boring type of work for people that brilliant.
Then you don't understand HFT.
^ Well put.
Read more about their strategies on line, though they have evolved a bit and some of the info is out dated, it's pretty cool stuff.
Working at SAC? (Originally Posted: 03/04/2014)
If you get an offer from SAC to work as a research analyst, would you take it?
This is a question I am trying to think through and would love to hear the thoughts of others.
This is the 4th one of these this year.... use the damn search function.
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/would-you-accept-an-offer-from-sac
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/will-you-still-take-an-offer-from…
Sorry guys...and jBone24 thank you for the links.
Not if you have other options or the possibility
Would you accept an offer from SAC? (Originally Posted: 02/14/2014)
Everyone knows about their legal troubles and the associated issues so I don't think I need to go into details, but I am considering an offer for a research analyst position with them and wanted to get the community's view on if you would take it if you were me.
As background, I work at a BB bank and was fairly fortunate (or unfortunate depending on your view) to get this early on in my process of making a move to the buy-side. I do not have other offers or interviews on tap currently, but the headhunters I've been working with assure me if I keep going I'll have more interviews/opportunities.
I'm very conflicted on this, because I like the PM I'd be working with a lot and think I'd be able to learn a ton from him, but......it's SAC. Having only been in the sell-side my whole career, I'm not sure I have the context and experience to make the best decision. On the one hand, I think the work/learning experience (assuming the firm is still a going concern longer-term, which is another consideration...) will still be top-notch and I'd be working with and learning from some of the smartest investors. On the other hand, I'd have to explain why I chose to join SAC and deal with that stigma for the rest of my career if I eventually choose to move on to another fund (or something else entirely). What do you all think? Would appreciate any and all thoughts.
Not sure if you've seen this but worth taking a look at
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/will-you-still-take-an-offer-from-sac-capital-advisors
Thanks cooldurg, I did see that a couple months back but didn't want to resurrect an old thread (although I see now that someone else did anyway). Definitely helpful, but was wondering if people might have a different/updated view post Martoma trial.
If you like the guy, just take it. There's several different HF groups under the SAC name and it's not like you'll be rubbing shoulders with Stevie everyday so there should be no worry on that front. Some of the funds have even been absorbed into other well-known HFs lately, providing even greater evidence that the SAC name won't tarnish your name.
Yeah, that's sort of how I think about it too, but I wonder if my joining the fund after the fact would cause people to look at me differently vs. someone who was there for a few years, went through the storm and then jumped ship because of it. For them, they would have the angle of "I was already there, I had no idea what was going on and now I'm looking to leave" whereas I would be going in after the fact.
I would wait for other opportunities. You don't want to have to explain this to somebody in the future. There's also huge systematic risk from SAC Capital --- firing rate has historically been extremely high, and is more likely than not to get worse given current going-ons.
SAC seems to be done with their legal troubles, and it could be a great time to get in at this "low" and learn a lot while establishing a great footing. I am sure they are still very well respected within the HF world, and have some of the smartest PM's in the industry. If you don't have any offers currently this seems like it could be an incredible one to take.
I can't say how I know, but this is not accurate.
Take it.
@RLC1 and @bigblue1234 I agree with both your points, although I'm not sure about the firing rate getting worse. Attrition might get worse as people voluntarily leave, but for the most part I think the "firings" are done, especially since they are actively hiring for a number of positions. From my perspective, it's really a question of handicapping the potential hit to my "reputation" if I work for SAC vs. the opportunity to learn at an established fund with a good PM.
2 years from now assuming nothing worse comes out in the news...would another HF or asset manager really ding me because I worked at SAC (or whatever new name it changes to)? I tend to think that finance people are generally a very practical bunch and would recognize that I was not a part of the scandal, but would love to hear the opinions of more HF veterans here.
I'd take it
You should ask yourself where do you see SAC in 5-10 years? If you think they have a future this may be a great opportunity for you to get in while people are on the way out. Leaving allot more room to advance. In my opinion , firms want to know how much money you can make them. If you make SAC a ton of money,you will either 1) get promoted 2) have a track record of making money without having to explain a name on your resume to other hedge funds. Just my two cents.
I wouldn't have any qualms about taking it for the reasons you're stating.
However, and I don't mean to generalize, a good deal of the junior analysts I've met from SAC haven't really impressed me in their ability to articulate the thesis for their investments, etc. This would imply to me that they were mostly spreadsheet monkeys and weren't being brought along by senior analysts/PMs. I'm not saying every analyst I've talked to fits this mold or even most of them, but it's certainly been enough to form a pattern in my observation. Again, I'm not bad mouthing SAC or its analysts, but make sure of the type of experience you can expect there as your development as an investor will likely have a greater impact on your future opportunities than this insider trading scandal and its repercussions.
It's in Stamford, don't do that to yourself.
@Simple As Thanks the advice, I don't think I'll have that issue with this team and PM but I'll definitely keep it in mind.
@Cruncharoo That's how I'd hope the majority of people would see it, but I've been talking to a lot of different people and frankly I'm surprised at the split in opinions this generates. Maybe it's just because it's so front of mind and topical right now, but a lot of people think joining SAC now would show that I am morally bankrupt and unethical. These are industry insiders and recruiters, btw, not non-finance people. I'm hoping that this type of reaction would fade over time, but it's still pretty disconcerting and makes me feel like I'm missing something or thinking about it the wrong way.
@Anihilist It's not ideal, but given that a lot of HF's are out in CT, it was always a possibility in my mind that I'd accepted. I'll probably be working out of the NY office fairly frequently anyway.
Hah, yeah I was being slightly facetious. I just kinda hate the suburbs; especially Westchester/Greenwich/South Conn areas.
The mere fact that you are posing this question should be sufficient evidence that you should not take the offer. If you can get an offer from SAC, there will be other opportunities. This is a trust business and you should comport yourself accordingly.
@RLC1 I wish I could argue against that, that thought has crossed my mind, as well. But then I think about that old saying about how "a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush". The reality is it's just not easy to land a buy-side offer, and even tougher to get one where I think I'll have a good relationship with the PM.
I hear you on trust and reputation, and it does worry me (hence why I'm posing this question :P). But I have to weigh that against the uncertainty that I'll be able to find a comparable position with a PM that I like at another HF. I think I can, but that's the risk that I need to handicap against the future reputational risk of accepting an offer I have from SAC.
SAC's changing it's name and it's to become a nimbler, family office.
@"BatMasterson" yep, was told that as well. Do you think that should change how I think about the opportunity? From my perspective, anyone in finance would still recognize it as the new SAC.
How the hell did you get an offer from SAC? Jeez. I'd take it. What's the worst that happens? What's better than SAC & do you have an offer there?
at present the market value of the share is good so you can go for the hold the shares .
hell yea, unless you're literally changing your name to Michael Martoma. Lotta people from Drexel Burnham Lambert and Lehman moved on
I don't see the problem of taking the offer. In average American's eyes, Goldman Sachs is the definition of greed and wall street evil, but most of us would still take it in a heartbeat. Morgan Stanley's Facebook IPO crushed a lot of investors early on, but coming out of MS Tech Menlo Park is still baller in the eyes of many recruiters
Take the fucking job...
If you're worried about future employers - don't. All they have to do is look at the hiring date, and know you did absolutely nothing wrong. It won't even become a conversation. SAC is probably the cleanest shop on the street right now with how close they're being watched.
If the firm goes under, your boss will probably start a new fund, or you'll get in somewhere else.
Haha, no, unless you don't have any other front-office options. There are tons of places to work...not sure why you would insist on picking one that colors your resume with historical scandal. Even if their legal troubles were completely over (which they probably aren't), there will always be this nagging subconscious suspicion in the mind of anyone that looks at your profile that you are somehow shady. Finance is a reputation driven service business...act accordingly.
Expedita sit et unde voluptates. Sed a repellendus cumque qui quos facere. Voluptas iure excepturi quia. Eum explicabo voluptates dolorum et harum tenetur. Beatae aliquid doloribus dolor consequatur excepturi omnis.
Rerum est qui qui incidunt deserunt minima. Dolores soluta blanditiis quibusdam et et ratione maxime. Temporibus beatae ducimus consequuntur nostrum.
Assumenda veniam ut qui hic. Optio adipisci distinctio repellendus tenetur quas qui qui. Quisquam in qui sunt debitis quaerat sit. Dignissimos libero a distinctio corporis nobis sed et. Eos assumenda quibusdam praesentium et. Eaque eos laudantium itaque est aspernatur. Et rerum fugit quaerat voluptatem.
Odio magnam iusto iure odio assumenda voluptate vitae iusto. Non expedita odio delectus esse quos suscipit. Et et similique ab cum velit quia. Laboriosam harum officia sit sunt quam inventore fuga optio. Vel nulla aut officia. Repellendus cupiditate eum est iste exercitationem nihil veniam.
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...
Culpa iusto omnis animi. Eos deserunt dolore itaque fugiat repellendus earum. Aspernatur id et mollitia corrupti. Sit sint sunt commodi dolore sit placeat autem.
Cum voluptate repellat sunt officiis. Nobis rerum veritatis ducimus expedita. Quaerat deleniti et enim nulla laudantium mollitia qui. Sed enim velit illo atque. Quia nobis omnis amet ullam aliquid aspernatur ipsam.
Vitae fugit harum ea reiciendis incidunt omnis. Qui nulla et est molestiae modi est. Delectus magnam nostrum unde dolor enim atque. Optio cumque quisquam dignissimos totam beatae qui.