How much a gap is there between tier 1 managers (D&C, RCG, Wellington, Capital, Select) and tier 3 managers (MFS, Putnam, Lord Abbett, Alger, Brandes, etc.)? Thinking mainly in terms of prestige / exit opps -- I know directionally which group is better, but I don't know by how much.
I'm sure some of you will disagree with this characterization, which I welcome!
| +38 | Strategy to asset allocation | 10 | 1w |
| +28 | Q&A | Research Associate, Long-Only | (0 years in DCM/IB/consulting) | 6 | 4d |
| +15 | Working for Endowment? | 10 | 1d |
| +14 | Early career insurance AM - should I just thug it out? | 3 | 1d |
| +9 | WAMCO - Ken Leech | 2 | 3w |
| +8 | Bridgepoint Acq Kayne Anderson RE | 2 | 1w |
| +6 | Family office - analyst role test | 3 | 3w |
| +6 | MBB to Banking Career | 1 | 1w |
| +6 | Goldman Sachs Operations? | 1 | 1w |
| +4 | CPP Early Investor Program (Summer 2027) Check | 3 | 1w |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
In terms of prestige, there's probably a moderate gap between the two groups, with Wellington, Capital, T Rowe, and Fidelity being the household names. But since people rarely move around on the long-only side it doesn't have too much of a practical implication for your exit opps.
For the industry as a whole, you're generally seeing a lot of consolidation with greater share of active money flowing towards either the large asset managers (T1) or smaller boutiques with more specialized strategies. Since the pool of active money is shrinking with the shift to passive, the medium-sized asset managers tend to get squeezed out (or potentially acquired). Unit economics and comp therefore tends to be better at the large players, but it's very performance dependent (both individual and fund performance, with the latter leading to greater inflows).
Out of curiosity, what would you consider a "tier 2" asset manager?
Interesting. Do you think the answer changes at all for someone coming in right out of undergrad? Does prestige matter more then?
In terms of tier 2 -- I was thinking of Fidelity, T Rowe, Artisan, Harris, etc.
Obviously all outstanding firms, just a tiny bit below the legendary status of the t1 places I listed. Fidelity is great, but people talk about wellington and capital as their dream jobs, not fidelity. Think artisan and harris are really strong but fly under the radar a bit.
Don't think my answer changes much... most people who go into AM stay in the industry. All the shops you mentioned definitely know of each other and are great places to start a career.
Additionally, most shops don't hire straight from undergrad since few have the scale to be able to train juniors on basic financial modeling, etc. The ones that do are usually your large household names and hire from their internship programs.
The only scenario where I could see prestige mattering is b-school apps, but an MBA isn't worth it if you plan on staying in the industry.
you have a very subjective notion of T1 T2 T3. i would definitely not put Fido and Trow into T2 they are T1
You should be grateful if you can land an internship or full-time role at any of these shops. That's all I will say.
Yeah it's hilarious seeing this intern rank the AMs here as if he has any clue. Ranking isn't a particularly useful exercise here, esp when there are so many errors in where he's put stuff
What specifically do you think is incorrect?
I am not claiming that this ranking is 100% definitive or accurate, so am always happy to have feedback.
Must work at one of the T2/T3s lol!
Everyone gets so annoyed at the ranking posts lol. It’s funny, I agree with everyone, including OP. Yes, prestige/exit opps definitely matter less in investment management. Yes, you would be lucky to work at any of these firms. But did OP pretty much get the rankings right if you actually had to force rank them? Also yes. The difference between the tiers mostly comes down to senior level comp though so if you’re very junior I wouldn’t waste your energy
Anyone have a summary of the different styles that each of these T1/2/3 managers are known for?
Some of these have products across styles (value, growth, etc)
Off top of my mind:
- D&G is value
- RCG is wide moat, compounder
- Select Equity is also wide moat-ish
- Alger is growth
- Brandes is known for international deep value
would add that both D&C and Ruane Cunniff have abnormally long time horizons and consequently deeper research processes
Helpful, thanks!
T. Rowe historically growth oriented, Wellington historically value oriented, but these places get so big and are incentivized to offer every strategy under the sun that those lines get blurred
LOL this list. I guarantee you no institutional investor or capital allocator sees any of your T3 listed places as actually T3...other than Brandes as I've never heard of them. What more exit ops do you want than a T1 asset manager?
Sapiente nemo perspiciatis nemo sed excepturi harum. Asperiores animi pariatur suscipit et possimus. Reiciendis optio enim aspernatur et rerum. Quis optio optio nesciunt possimus. Quia earum cumque suscipit quos eos aut beatae.
Sequi similique harum eum molestiae id. Quo et sit quis consequuntur labore. Repudiandae voluptatibus pariatur a repudiandae tenetur exercitationem. Labore voluptas eaque nostrum totam.
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...