MM to SM is it possible
Curious to hear if the jump is ever made. I understand investment styles are different and the way you think about business might clash but in the case one wants to do this, can they?
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
April 30, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
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.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
Doesn’t happen too often, unless you have SM experience already prior. Even then, its tough. Everybody wants good SM seats and MM are constantly hiring, so there are a ton of applicants for every decent to strong SM seat.
Got it, appreciate the response. How come SM’s then take candidates that came from a PE Fund or IB program over MM candidates who have the L/S equity experience? I can’t wrap my head around it
Have no idea personally but I suspect that they’re hiring from a particular kind of PE fund. One that is not too operational but does do a lot of analysis around things like end-market trends, pricing power, value-chain positioning etc. in addition to long term modelling and thinking about investments as long-term holds.
Definitely doable. Becoming much more common. Would suggest looking at Brett Crauvign’s stuff on Twitter Brett @ Fundamental Edge. He has xp with talking to SM funds wanting to hire pod shop analysts.
times are changing… this isn’t 10 years ago when a quality SM wouldn’t look at a MM analyst as a potential hire worth interviewing…
in general the MM guys get much deeper on names and are excellent at building variant thesis’ with strong research and alternative data which is a strong skillset to have. If you’re not in an overly bullish market it’s probably more useful than whatever PE XP will hammer into you.
Employability is per person at this level. There’s a huge talent divide at this stage and it’s clear to see who can’t hack the transition from either PE to SM or market neutral to a beta-investing mindset. It’s up to the individuals but as an MM analyst you will definitely get looks from SM funds. Can’t really standardise outcomes though. Some people just don’t have what it takes to work at a hedge fund, and that’s ok.
“in general the MM guys get much deeper on names and are excellent at building variant thesis' with strong research and alternative data which is a strong skillset to have. If you're not in an overly bullish market it's probably more useful than whatever PE XP will hammer into you”
I vigorously disagree with this statement. I don’t think 90% of people at MMs are deep and a vast majority of them are shooting from the hip turning over their entire book every month. I know PMs that turnover 20% of their book a day. Of course some MM PMs are very deep but that’s the exception not the rule.
True it’s case by case, but there is a reason for the stigma and frankly the 2+2 guy will mostly get the role unless you know your stuff much better than them (which is the case sometimes).
Always exceptions and it’s possible to do, it’s just harder than going from PE/Banking and it is that way for a valid reason (in general).
Edit: I worked at a pod for years. Most trades we did were something along the lines of reading the CRC note on X before everyone else at 7am and shorting for a bad Q trying to make like 5%. Or going long Y because 10 teams are short it internally and the checks have been bad but we think the data is okay and it probably will rip in the 7 days following the print. Or going long Z because they have a very promotional management team and a good macro background for the last 2 months and the CEO/CFO are talking at a conference and will be promotional.
Almost everyone I know who still works at platforms will admit this is how they work 90% of the time. Yes there are like 10% of teams with 3-6 month holding periods or real views but it’s more an exception than a rule.
I'm talking about analysts on single names. The entire job is to be deep on specific names so I'm naturally talking about the people actually doing their job properly. i.e the top 10% or whatever (p sure its more than this though).
And my statements are forward-looking; there is a material shift in how SM is viewing MM analysts of which Brett is at the forefront by connecting them.
this post is pure cope, MM analysts are far better analysts than PE analysts. the next few years will prove this out
the entire job is to know companies deeply and know exactly what drives day to day and hour to hour stock prices - the "first principles" "private investing in public markets" guy will get absolutely demolished like they have been the past few months because your capital is no longer durable enough to let you spend 10 years playing long QQQ this time around
I’m surprised you worked at a pod for years and are equating turnover with depth of research / horizon of thesis. Surely you know most of the turnover is rebalancing/sizing/risk not flipping your longs to shorts and back overall. Most pods I know had a couple longs and shorts that were on for years.
Ex. XYZ is my favorite LT thesis and upside name, it’s a great biz with great mgmt and whatever other navel-gazing qualitative special insightz that only reside with generalist-George who did 20 expert calls and even a super special site visit armed with special goggles from 4 years of hallowed MBA+PE sacred knowledge. Basically this thing is a compounder and itz got the moatz man, winner take all. Everyone loves it but we love it the MOST! Because duration.
If it’s actually accurate, MM and SM could both be long for 3 years and MM on this name could turn it over 3x a year while being long the whole time. Double size into catalyst and when valuation / technical setup is good, cut size in half when valuation is stretched and no catalysts, exudes it’s more a mkt/factor bet there. Trim/add a little weekly on factor rebalance or forcerankings.
So both agreed it’s a great LT idea and biz. If they were right guess who probably made more PL as a % of Avg Size? If they were wrong, guess who probably lost less as a % of avg size?
In many sectors, especially less secular-growth sectors MM absolutely go deeper on most names and know them better, esp because some names work in MM model (relative value) while not having the setup for being a crowded SM hotel because it’s not an absolute long. And this is coming from an SM analyst btw.
Brett I appreciate the help you are looking to add to the community, but if you are going to keep promoting your business on these forums then you should at least do it unblinded.
I'm not Brett you clown
Veritatis dolor quae eaque possimus. Sed fugiat neque soluta iusto. Sit aut eos alias nihil maxime ex expedita. Consequatur velit commodi et aliquam consequatur qui tempora. Perspiciatis autem id qui. Rerum ad voluptatum molestiae quae deleniti aut modi.
Molestiae modi sequi ut eum deserunt minima. Voluptas optio reprehenderit delectus neque et rerum occaecati. Qui in veniam nemo reiciendis cum et. Error sint laudantium et beatae adipisci excepturi. Facilis voluptatibus tenetur aspernatur ad ipsam quis at ea. Facilis beatae rerum nobis eius.
Sint dolorem tempore sapiente beatae. Dignissimos mollitia dolores iste dolorem voluptate occaecati. Incidunt est id aut. Ad ut quis illum magni veritatis voluptatem.
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...