Do you think the industry gets more and more specialized over time across both MM and SM space?
Do you think the trend of increasing specialization will only get worse from here? Why? It feel like not too too long ago, there were good generalist SM seats, longer-term biased or long-only. Now, it seems that everyone has to be more and more specialized even within spaces (e.g. guy/girl who only does semis within TMT, someone who only does restaurants in consumer, etc.etc.). Anyone got thoughts here and has anyone ever had success switching sectors? Did you enjoy it and why?
Agree that generalists are dying but it’s actually been more important to be a sector generalist eg. In TMT More important than ever to have a firm grasp across what’s happening at the apps, model, infrastructure, chip, and compute layers
The trend of increasing specialization in both MM (multi-manager) and SM (single-manager) spaces is indeed a noticeable shift in the industry. Based on the most helpful WSO content, here are some insights:
Increasing Specialization:
Why Specialization is Growing:
Challenges of Generalist Roles:
Switching Sectors:
Future Outlook:
Ultimately, while specialization offers clear advantages, it also comes with trade-offs, such as reduced flexibility and potential challenges in adapting to broader market shifts.
Sources: MM to SM is it possible, Why do MM IB shops get trashed on so much?, Q&A: HF Analyst @ $5bn+ Fund - Breaking In and Transition to Risk-Taking Role
I'm a generalist and what I like is the opportunity set is always changing and you swim towards wherever the opportunity set is. I.e., if you were a consumer or healthcare analyst over the past several years ... well you've had a tough time with headwinds in both. Vice versa if you're a hardware or commodities analyst where you've had strong tailwinds. Markets are so extreme and swing massively that having a specialized skillset can actually be a detractor, and themes / mental models from a generalist background can carry into different sectors. And getting the macro is much harder than getting the micro right, but I would argue the macro carries more weight in an investment thesis. I have not seen specialized, bottoms-up funds do well over a long period of time.
why would the industry specific tailwind or headwinds matter if you do both long and short?
You can be long a sub and short a sub and some teams can take directional bets
To your very last sentence, funds like Citadel and MLP are poster boys of specialization, and they've been crushing it. You might not like specialization, but it's worked very well for its best practitioners.
If the entire industry has been moving in that direction, surely it's for a reason?
swimming towards "the opportunity set" usually means you are buying stuff down a lot that is perm-impaired and value traps vs. riding estimate revisions down (e.g. payments, software etc)
Quia nisi qui et omnis vitae recusandae. Porro vero facilis occaecati aut. Velit autem voluptatem nihil. Ad commodi dolores consequatur accusantium ex sequi quas maxime.
In rem autem provident hic sapiente sunt. Fugit earum quas aut molestiae amet harum eligendi. Molestiae quod officia iure eum deserunt iure enim. Et laboriosam eos sed esse voluptatum.
Provident eius libero esse amet. Quo odit delectus saepe minima nulla unde qui. Minima deserunt tempora dicta perspiciatis.
Perspiciatis pariatur dolor aut voluptas adipisci vitae. Possimus enim culpa quia molestias quam quia aut velit. Rerum qui ipsa unde.
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...