Is merger arb the right place to be in?

I’ve seen so many L/S funds struggling and the news on TWTR has cast some light on looking at these event driven funds. I’ve only spoken to 1 or 2 people in industry about this but it seems like a pretty well performing strategy. Why don’t more banking people explore this route? Am currently a l/s analyst musing whether the transition is possible or am I missing something? 

42 Comments
 

Thanks. Feels like the argument against it is based primarily on 1) probably won’t be able to raise a fund on the strategy alone which I agree and 2) it becoming more passive because you can argue that it’s largely risk  premium. Is that entirely true though? I thought the idea was that many of these situations are all unique so it’s hard to automate because you need human judgement to select which deals you want to participate in since the amount you can lose if you get it wrong is immense

On another point - don’t you think the repeatability and risk premium nature of it makes the strategy ‘easier’ since there is a very straightforward way of making money? I’m guessing you left merger arb for l/s?

 

It's a really delicate balance they like to walk. Almost all of the old heads you'll meet in the trade 100% made their gains back in the late 90s and early 00s on insider info. The execs back then just weren't trained by lawyers to keep their mouth shut, and investment bankers were much more loose lipped as well. Over the past 15 or so years things have really tightened up. So instead of insider info, they try to pressure box people into just giving a vague indication. I remember watching like 10 arbs corner some minor government employee in one of the state health departments that was reviewing an insurance merger, and just trying to sweat them out for an expected timeline or the potential for divestitures. You could have spit in those arbs faces and told them to fuck off but they would've kept saying shit like "My PM is worried this could last until next year, do you think that's a fair concern?"

 

Merger arb certainly is not easy, but the way I thought about it is that you're basically doing the work that a lot of other people either get wrong and/or don't really do. 

For example, I programmed a screener for merger-arb risk. A ton of the data we were getting from either FactSet or Bloomberg was just blatantly wrong or missing because other people don't read documents correctly. It's amazing how often things like this occurs and how just having knowledge like that in a centralized place can give you an information advantage. This is work that very few others are realistically doing, and although it's easy to say that "any new alpha opportunity gets crowded away super easily," I think there are generally ways to get alpha that very few are genuinely considering since many of them require a lot of person-hours and involve gathering information that may or may not be wrong or may or may not be centrally organized. 

I won't disagree with the idea that new ideas for alpha quickly get crowded: this is more true than ever and only going to become more true as the years continue. But at the same time, I think that there are a lot of crevices and parts of the market in which people are not simply doing really mundane basic work since it's boring and takes a lot of time. 

 

There are 2000 stocks to look at doing regular L/S on the Russell 2000. 500 stocks in the SP500.

If you are doing merger arb, you have what, half a dozen sitiations at a time where EVERYONE that focuses on the strategy is looking into. 

I'm really hard pressed to think of any strategy/asset class as crowded as this one. By definition, the oppotunity set is extremely limited, and it has billions of dollars chasing after it.

 

Err. Equity L/S? Let’s be real. In many places, you’re a sector specialist covering large cap names. And you’re probably not covering more than 30 names in depth at a time. Everyone is looking at these names too.

At least with merger arb there seems to be a defined path and process showing you how you can make money. With L/S - you can pretend you have a process but people are all doing the same shit anyway too. And this time you don’t have that clear path to profit. it’s probably easier to blow up in merger arb though because  if a deal breaks, you’re probably done

 

The screener I was building looked back at pretty much every deal we could find historically. Getting that information for previous deals that closed was useful for our process rather than just being a means to pick among the existing opportunities. 

Err. Equity L/S? Let's be real. In many places, you're a sector specialist covering large cap names. And you're probably not covering more than 30 names in depth at a time. Everyone is looking at these names too.

At least with merger arb there seems to be a defined path and process showing you how you can make money. With L/S - you can pretend you have a process but people are all doing the same shit anyway too. And this time you don't have that clear path to profit. it's probably easier to blow up in merger arb though because  if a deal breaks, you're probably done

This above basically hits the nail on the head. You have to have something that is defined and build consistently on that. And that's what that screener is a part of. At my shop, we have basically a series of specialists looking at large cap names, and they are not going to realistically be able to generate something that is meaningfully to different from what others in the market are thinking.

My job in part with another analyst who specifically works on merger arb was to build something that would work through that process and build further on what had been done before. It's not just ~20 deals we're looking at here, it's thousands and that's where you can get that information edge by looking through old DMAs. 

 

Quo praesentium corrupti ab accusantium non qui quod. Voluptate aliquid officia est quisquam ullam temporibus assumenda. Pariatur ab fugit nam exercitationem sit blanditiis.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Hedge Fund

  • Point72 99.0%
  • D.E. Shaw 98.1%
  • Citadel Investment Group 97.1%
  • AQR Capital Management 96.2%
  • Magnetar Capital 95.2%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Hedge Fund

  • Magnetar Capital 99.0%
  • D.E. Shaw 98.0%
  • Blackstone Group 97.1%
  • Citadel Investment Group 96.1%
  • Millennium Partners 95.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Hedge Fund

  • AQR Capital Management 99.0%
  • Point72 98.1%
  • D.E. Shaw 97.1%
  • Citadel Investment Group 96.2%
  • Magnetar Capital 95.2%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Hedge Fund

  • Portfolio Manager (9) $1,648
  • Vice President (27) $464
  • Director/MD (12) $423
  • NA (9) $320
  • Engineer/Quant (86) $288
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (26) $284
  • Manager (4) $282
  • 2nd Year Associate (32) $253
  • 1st Year Associate (77) $191
  • Analysts (242) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (29) $145
  • Junior Trader (5) $102
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (282) $96
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”