Q&A | Asset Management, Investing & the Stuff They Don’t Teach You in School

I’d separate the AI theme from AI valuations. I don’t think AI itself is simply a bubble; there is real adoption, investment and potential for significant productivity gains but that doesn’t mean every company exposed to the theme is fairly valued.

From an investment perspective, the question is whether the growth and cash flows implied by current valuations can actually be delivered. When expectations are extremely high, even a very good company can be a poor investment if too much future success is already priced in.

There are definitely areas where valuations look aggressive, particularly where the AI narrative has moved faster than fundamentals. I’d expect a lot of dispersion over time between companies that successfully monetize AI investment and those that don’t.

So my view would be: AI is a genuine structural theme, but that doesn’t make every AI-related valuation sustainable.

I definitely think there are lateral routes in, and I wouldn’t limit yourself to RM roles if your longer-term interest is on the investment side.

With a nontraditional background, the key is usually finding a role that gives you enough overlap with the destination you want. Depending on your current experience, that could include investment operations, performance/reporting, manager research, portfolio analytics or an investment-support role. From there, it becomes much easier to build the technical experience and internal relationships needed to move closer to research or portfolio management.

That said, RM can also be a good route into private banking if you genuinely enjoy the client side. I just wouldn’t choose it solely because it appears to be the easiest entry point, the skill set and career trajectory can become quite different from a more investment-focused path.

Your H/Y/P network is absolutely worth leveraging, particularly for informational conversations rather than simply asking for referrals. I’d speak with alumni across both PB and AM and use those conversations to understand which entry points best match your existing experience. You may find your background is more transferable than it initially appears.

If you ultimately want to be involved in investment decisions, I’d optimize for getting as close to the investment process as you can in your first move.

Yes, I think that’s a very viable pathway and your fixed-income capital markets experience should give you a relevant foundation for making the move.

If fixed-income AM/PM is the goal, I’d use your first 1–2 years to build as much depth as possible in rates, credit, yield curves, duration/convexity, relative value and how different fixed-income securities behave across market environments. I’d also try to get exposure to investors on the buy side whenever possible and understand how they’re evaluating the securities you’re helping bring to market.

When you start the recruitment process, I’d target fixed-income research/credit analyst, investment analyst or junior portfolio-management roles rather than focusing only on positions with “PM” in the title. PM is generally something you grow into after developing the research and portfolio-construction skill set.

I also think CFA L1 makes sense if you’re serious about the transition. It won’t substitute for relevant experience but the curriculum is closely aligned with investment management and it’s a useful signal that your interest in moving to the buy side is intentional.

On timing, I personally wouldn’t feel obligated to stay in banking for an arbitrary number of years. Once you’ve developed a solid technical foundation and can articulate why you want to move from originating/structuring securities to actually analyzing them and managing portfolio risk, I’d start having conversations with FI managers. Networking is really effective.

Comp and hours vary significantly by firm, strategy and location, so I’d be cautious about giving you a specific number. Broadly, traditional asset management tends to offer a more sustainable lifestyle than IB, while compensation can become very attractive as you progress into senior investment/PM roles and variable compensation becomes more meaningful.

You’re starting from a strong position so I’d spend the next couple of years making your experience as relevant to the buy side as possible rather than treating the eventual move as a complete career reset.

Congratulations on the new role! 

A rotational seat across credit and rates is a great place to start because it gives you exposure to both issuer-level fundamentals and the broader macro factors that drive fixed-income markets.

Early on, I would focus on building a really strong foundation rather than trying to develop a “market view” too quickly. Get comfortable with how bonds actually behave: duration, convexity, spread movements, yield curves and the relationship between rates and credit risk. On the credit side, learn to read financial statements with the question, “What could impair this issuer’s ability to service its debt?” rather than approaching them from an equity perspective. I’d also pay close attention to how senior investors make decisions, particularly what information they consider important, how they size risk and importantly, what makes them change their minds.

I’d also recommend keeping a record of your own market views and investment ideas. Write down what you expect to happen and why, then revisit it later. Being wrong is inevitable but understanding why you were wrong is one of the quickest ways to develop investment judgment.

As for active management, I think it will remain particularly relevant in fixed income. Higher yields have brought income back as an important component of returns, while differences across issuers, sectors and regions create opportunities for security selection. I think the value of an active manager will increasingly come from disciplined credit selection, portfolio construction and risk management rather than simply making large directional calls on rates or markets.

Most importantly, stay curious! Ask why a bond is trading where it is, what the market is pricing in and what would have to happen for that pricing to be wrong. Developing that habit early will serve you well throughout your career.

I think the CFA charter can add significant value early in an asset management career, particularly because the curriculum is closely aligned with the work you are likely to encounter across investment research, valuation, portfolio construction and risk management.

That said, I would view the charter as a complement to experience rather than a substitute for it. The technical foundation is valuable, but learning how investment decisions are actually made, understanding clients and mandates, developing judgment and seeing how portfolios behave through different market environments ultimately comes from experience.

For an early-to-mid career associate who intends to remain in asset management, research or portfolio management, I would generally recommend pursuing it. Beyond the technical knowledge, completing the program demonstrates a level of commitment to the investment profession and can strengthen your credibility as you progress toward more senior investment responsibilities.

I would be more selective if someone’s long-term career goals were outside investment management, simply because the time commitment is significant. In that case, another qualification or developing a more specialized skill set may provide a better return on that time.

Overall, I think the CFA is most valuable when there is a clear connection between the curriculum and where you want your career to go. If your goal is to progress from analyst or associate-level work toward investment decision-making and portfolio management, I think it remains one of the more relevant qualifications you can pursue.

Thanks for the questions!

I think the best starting point is simply getting into the habit of following markets consistently. I use Bloomberg quite a bit professionally but you definitely don't need a Bloomberg Terminal to develop market awareness. The FT, WSJ and Reuters are all useful. I’d also recommend reading actual investment research and fund commentary when you can. Over time, try not to just read what happened but ask yourself why it happened and whether you agree with the explanation. That’s really where you start developing your own views.

I don't think there is one “correct” investment process. Different strategies can work but what matters is having a process that is disciplined, repeatable and appropriate for what you're trying to achieve. Personally, I think the bigger danger is changing your process every time the market moves against you. You should always be willing to reassess your assumptions but there should be a reason behind the decisions you make.

Not necessarily. A long-term investor with a diversified portfolio can absolutely do well with relatively light monitoring and for many individual investors that may actually be preferable to constantly trading. Professional fund management is different though. A lot of the work isn't just trying to “beat the market” every day. You're researching investments, monitoring risk, reviewing portfolio positioning, dealing with cash flows, reporting, meeting clients/committees etc. So there can be a lot going on even when the eventual decision is to make no change to the portfolio.

Hope that helps and happy to expand on any of these!

Haha I can see why you’d think that. I’m naturally pretty structured when I write, especially with finance stuff but it’s definitely me.