Best way to get to top LOs: BB ER vs Small AM ($10b-$25b AUM)
Hello all,
Need career guidance/opinions.
Finishing a two-year ER stint at a boutique bank. Was able to source offers from a BB for a Senior Associate role (non-II ranked, but highly regarded) as well as a buy-side role at an awesome, but lesser known, AM w/ $15b-$25b in AUM. Both would be covering TMT, right where I want.
Longer-term, I am aiming for a top LO AM, (Wellington, Templeton, BlackRock) or maybe a L/S HF. Would the buy-side experience be better for my trajectory, or would it be better to go to a well-regarded BB? The BB would give me some prestige (some people like seeing the BB names on resumes, even without II) and potentially more optionality, though the AM would give me great experience to dip my feet into investment management. I feel pretty confident I want to be managing equities, just maybe not sure what capacity (HF/LO).
Please give opinions/advice!
100% go buy side if you want to be on the buy side. $10-25bn isn't that small and the experience will give you a leg up over SS people when you want to make the switch to other LOs down the line IMO.
@dickthesellsider probably has good insight on this
Word, what Dom said.
I also recommend deep introspection on:
I will stop here.
Thanks brotha. I think i personally find L/S funds to be more in my wheelhouse. They are incredibly competitive, so I think i need more experience before I can land something. But I also get nervous i would get tired of the L/S stress after 10-15 years, especially when i have a partner/kids/sugar baby.
Seems like buy-side would be my best bet currently, then move from there? If i love the LO i just stick around, and if I dislike it or want a faster-paced strat I can give the L/S option a go. Does that seem like the right mindset?
Great articles btw!
Been in SS ER over a year and get multiple recruiters reaching out for MM hedge fund/SS roles on a weekly basis. Have received exactly one email from LO recruiter... I'd take LO if I were you it seems like they're pretty hard to come by. Plus comp is good for funds of that size...
Well, we need to adjust for the fake jobs sent by Mercury Partners.
Was going to comment this word for word lmfao
I'd absolutely do the LO if you want to do LO.
Additionally, it's worth mentioning that once you're at the LO you're at, you should entirely be focused on performing your best. The fund you'll be at isn't huge, but performing your best at the end of the day is what matters more than anything, including where you work.
Some people also really like the smaller shops compared to the horrible bureaucracy of top LOs. I work at one such "top LO" and as much as I love my job, the bureaucracy, especially in these times has been a major challenge. The firm I'm at has been doing a ton of internal realignment (and that unfortunately has brought me away from posting). I really don't enjoy this type of stuff, but I think you're lucky not to have to deal with that type of stuff now either.
IMO unless you know you want to work at a MM hedge fund (and I think you'd know with 2yrs of experience) then 100% take the LO seat. Very hard to come by good LO seats. If you are totally dead set on working at a Wellington-type place, Top 5 MBA is probably your best bet. 2yrs at LO then B-school is probably a better path to that seat than looking to move there laterally from LO
Why would you want to work for a $500bl+ manager? The bureaucracy / lack of autonomy sounds horrible
I work at a boutique manager that's somewhere betw $40-80bl (at least now after the correction) and if anything it's gotten even more bureacratic as we've grown AUM here, would be cool to work for a manager with 20-30bl AUM.
Why would you want to work for a higher AUM manager? Um, better comp, better access, better resources, better exit ops … stop pretending like you wouldn’t jump at a chance to work at a Fidelity or a Capital
This is retarded, you're from PE where yes the MFs tend to to offer better comp / better exit opps vs. MM / UMM. Sure. It doesn't necessarily work like that in AM, there are elite managers with $10-80bl AUM which are very well recognized & offer top comp. I make more for my position at my top boutique manager than my buddies at T Rowe for instance (which is probably the one larger manager I'd consider working for)
You don't understand this industry. I would NEVER work at Fidelity FYI. Ever. Culture there is absolute crap and you get too siloed. Capital is definitely solid but again I'm much, much happier working at a smaller shop with less bureaucracy where I can still make the same comp.
You're a true autist, of all the examples you could offer you choose Fidelity? What the hell do you know about asset management? Fidelity is notorious for being a shitty shop to work for. Sweet spot in AM is to work in the middle where you have enough AUM to make very good money but not too much that you become constricted
Definitely plenty of obvious positives that come with working at a place like Fido/Capital but some negatives include:
Bureaucracy
Need to publish frequently
Scale means smaller / less-liquid opportunities are less relevant (getting Apple right is more important than 3 good calls on small cap names where less $$ can be put to work)
More likely to be an index-hugger
Rerum quo quos id dolor perspiciatis labore dolorum. Molestias rerum qui et praesentium voluptatum qui. Reprehenderit et doloribus ex in aut.
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...