Joining a small HF....
Currently at one of the top BBs (GS/MS/JP) and have been thinking of joining a smaller HF. I know the pay is very variable but do people have an idea of what type pay to expect vs other top HFs esp in London at an 2YOE Analyst level?
I imagine I'll have to take a cut to my base which I am fine with, but is the bonus structure/scaling as high as the bigger funds? Not sure what to expect so please let me know!
Based on the most helpful WSO content, here are some insights regarding compensation at smaller hedge funds compared to larger ones, especially in London:
Base Salary and Bonus Expectations:
Comparison with Larger Hedge Funds:
General Advice:
In summary, while you might expect a lower base salary at a smaller hedge fund compared to a top BB, the bonus structure can still be attractive, especially if the fund performs well. However, the variability in pay is higher, and it's crucial to have a clear understanding of the compensation structure before making a move.
Sources: base/bonus 1st year analyst at HF, Q&A: 2nd Year Equities L/S HF Analyst in Hong Kong, Q&A: 2nd Year Equities L/S HF Analyst in Hong Kong, Q&A: Equity Analyst at a Sovereign Wealth/Pension Fund, Q&A - HY/Special Situations Analyst at $30bn+ HF in London
bump
The bigger funds - assuming you mean SMs like AKO, Egerton - already have pretty mediocre bonuses, wouldn’t recommend you even consider joining a fund $1bn
Whatever you do, do not join a small fund ( $1bn AUM) early in your career ( 30 years old). This is terrible myth that somehow perpetuates itself on WSO like it's a decent option. It's not. In 95% of cases, it's far better to stay on the sell-side rather than become a junior analyst at a no name firm.
Early in your career, you need to spend your time apprenticing to a good PM who is willing to teach you a replicable process for making money. Going to a small fund only makes sense when you're more experience and have a lot to bring to the table (i.e., you're coming in as a day 1 partner). Otherwise, you will be paid terribly, have very little chance for career progression at your small fund, build very little in the way of transferable skills, and stunt your career development/network.
I did this and it took a lot of effort to recover. Most never do and eventually wind up washing out of the industry after a few years of mediocre earnings and/or when their fund closes up shop.
This is the answer you need. I'll second it! Don't join a small fund. Fund brand name/prestige/AUM in 20s matter will matter for rest of life.
Want to add that I also interned at a small fixed income HF in London and to be completely honest, didn’t learn as much as I would have wanted to. My boss was the PM and I’d try to take advantage of the very flat structure at the firm but the guy simply didn’t have time to teach me much.
I've always been curious...what do these HF industry washouts end up doing with the rest of their careers?
Hi
Ik this is an old comment but I was wondering how you'd think of the opportunity I made a post about: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/hedge-fund/long-only-opportunity-straight-from-college
I already spent a summer there and loved the work. They actually gave me space on the book, invested heavily in my learnjng and are overall great people. I didn't get a FT offer from the T1 LO I did my junior summer at. I'd really appreciate any advice/thoughts
Currently preparing to join a SM hf (AUM $1bn) in Hong Kong, but I have some of the concerns that have been mentioned here. As a new grad, I thought joining a buy-side research firm would be a great opportunity, especially since I’m really interested in the fundamental side of research, and right now, I don’t have a better offer. The fund’s PM seems to have a solid track record, with past investment experience in pan-asia at GS and TPG-Axon Capital.
I’m sincerely seeking advice on whether joining a small fund like this is a decent move, especially at the start of my career. Would you be able to share/pm your insights or experiences in transitioning from a small fund to a larger one? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
What’s your background? Quant? or qualitative
qualitative
(Started off at SM)
Honestly, I think it depends on the PM. A good PM with1Bn AUM might just be on his way there. Getting in might give you a solid career as the firm grows because you grow along. In terms of growth you could be looking at growing into a significant position and maybe ultimately a partner, co-CIO and such.
I forget his name but one of the co-CIOs of Bridgwater came in as an intern when Ray was still building. PTJ econ's guy went on to work for the treasury and those are the few that immediately come to mind.
Ultimately it comes down to you, your efforts and how you position yourself and the right PM. That’s if you’re ambitious and actually want to do something. If you’re just looking for a job and salary/ hope for a nice cut and want to be spoon fed and “trained” whatever that means to you. It’s most likely not the right shop for you.
As someone who spent a good chunk of their junior years in a startup fund right out of school, I agree with the other poster who said it depends on the PM and the risk you are willing to take. You need to do a good amount of diligence and decide what is important to you. Here are some positives/negatives (or a range of outcomes) that I wish someone would have laid out for me when I started my career and had to make this choice. I'm just rambling my thoughts here, so ignore grammar/succinctness, etc. Hopefully helpful for someone down the line.
Training - I had no structured program for modelling, analysis, or whatever they give you in banking. All the basics I had to learn on my own. The training I received from my PM was more geared towards shaping my thought process on how to view a business, refining my valuation framework, teaching me how to structure a trade, etc. This is highly dependent on the PM, though. I have heard of some PMs viewing juniors as nothing but cheap resources and model monkeys, and I don't think that helps you develop as an investor. I do know that some people want a structured program, though.
Developing a network - highly dependent on the PM. My PM wanted me to get out and show my face to everyone in his network - sell-side guys, other buy-side guys, advisors, etc. Some PMs won't trust you to handle relationships until you are more senior - this is also a big negative. Having a reliable network of guys early on in your network that you can hit up is helpful personally and even professionally
Involvement in investments - as a junior, you might be a model monkey in your early years in some places, but others might let you actively get involved from day 1 - I had complete ownership of my names from start to finish as soon as I proved competency to my PM very early in my career. If you gain your PM's trust, you will get to this place at any fund you join; however, some startup funds might help you get to that stage quicker.
Recruiting - definitely a negative for me as I had to make an active effort to reach out to HHs. However, once I reached out to all HHs, I saw opportunities regularly. A couple of PE-heavy HHs didn't work with me for whatever reason (they ignored me), but 90% of the major HHs for HF/PE mentioned on this site did. I was told that some funds wouldn't consider me at all because of my non-IB/2+2 background, but I got shown opportunities (and received interviews) over the years at a wide range of funds, including some pretty big brand name funds mentioned on the site. I do feel like there is a higher bar set for you to show your skills on a case/technicals because you likely received no structured training at a startup fund. Edit - I did go to a target, majored in a stem subject, and had non-startup, brand-name internships in school.. so maybe that helped as a junior recruiting for new roles, i.e., I was able to shape my story on why I joined a startup and why I wanted to leave.
Pay - also a negative for me as I think my PM could have paid me better and was the biggest driver for me wanting to leave. Mathematically you will almost always make more at a large fund. Lower AUM = lower management fees (and lower base for performance), so your fund really needs to perform well to drive your bonus higher. Pay will be variable no matter where you go. However, at a large fund, there might be a higher floor for total comp even in an ok year. Startup PMs also take a big risk themselves, so they view great performance as a way to pay themselves handsomely, and it might come at your expense, e.g. my friend's total comp in a down year at a large fund was almost 2x my total comp in a relatively great year (his fund had a down year, mine was up the same year)
Quia quod cumque molestias quam earum minima. Quia rem et quisquam dicta voluptas hic. Autem inventore non quasi ullam velit officia. Omnis ad ipsum quos.
Et facilis nihil inventore velit nobis expedita. Ut et aut in dignissimos. Eius maxime et qui et iusto. Iste consequatur aut sapiente repellat. Laudantium ipsa sit qui excepturi et. Velit id reiciendis molestiae aliquam.
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...