No women at hedge funds?
Current PE associate in NYC starting to recruit for L/S equity HF roles at single managers. I'm a woman and it would be very helpful to speak to women in the industry and learn about their experiences. Looking through LinkedIn, the industry seems to be FAR more male dominated than IB and PE which has been disheartening to see. I'm trying to better understand why.
In my experience, getting promoted in PE can often be very political and relationships based, and at the more male dominated firms this can sometimes be disadvantageous for women. My understanding is that hedge fund career growth is generally more meritocratic which appeals to me a lot as someone who hates work politics (I'd think many other women feel the same).
I understand it's a path with significant risk, and people tend to think women are more risk averse, but I find it hard to believe that this is the driving factor. I also don't buy that women don't have the temperament for the industry - the successful women I've worked with in finance are extremely level-headed and make good judgement calls in difficult situations.
So, what am I missing? Is the environment at the average hedge fund so brutal that no women want to subject themselves to it/leave? Do women self-select out because they see no other women in the industry? Is it impossible to stay in the industry if you want to have kids down the line, so no one bothers?
Not going to engage with any discriminatory/inappropriate remarks here, thank you.
There are a lot of factors at play. On average, women have higher agreeableness than men so they gravitate towards careers where that quality is a plus (not hedge funds). On average, women have lower risk tolerance than men (or certainly lower dispersion) whereas hedge funds demand a high degree of risk tolerance. On average women are more relationally-oriented whereas the hedge fund job tends to be quite solitary. Family preference probably cuts both ways; while hours are shorter and more predictable than IB or PE, when you're on you're on and there's less flexibility which is hard, and you also often see an obsessive, myopic quality to a lot of public markets people that I'm not sure appeals to most women.
There definitely are women at hedge funds out there, just fewer (all the things I mentioned are statistical facts about population psychology - they definitely are not meant to say there aren't women out there who are fantastic public markets investors). I do think the meritocracy part is accurate - hedge funds tend to care far more about results than anything else unlike other careers where politics, personality, etc come in - which is also why I tend to think the pattern you observe is not discrimination-related since funds would be shooting themselves in the foot to not hire the best talent and rather comes down to average preferences. Good luck!
lol
I think this is pretty misguided. It’s not really that women are less suited for the work. More that women face more structural barriers to do the work / be recognized for their talent when they do perform well.
Greater male variability hypothesis provides ample evidence that there are inevitably going to be more men in the upper rungs of most highly competitive merit-based hierarchies. The ONLY structural gate in hedge funds is performance (apparently it needs to be highlighted that just because some people are assholes does not make the problems they cause "structural" to the industry). If you can perform and are likeable (hell, some people don't even need the latter), then barring bad luck you will succeed/promote. Period. GTFO with this weak ass university drivel about the "structural barriers" preventing women from being able to succeed in HFs. This isn't a YA book-turned-movie, nobody is overlooking "latent talent" purely because the candidate has a uterus. To make that argument is to completely disregard and asterisk the track records of portfolio managers/CIOs like Mala Gaonkar, Dawn Fitzpatrick, Genevieve Kahr, etc. 90%+ of the MEN who go into this industry get washed out or burn out at some point, and that doesn't address the biological realities women do with respect to having/raising kids or that there simply are not as many women that are interested in ANY kind of finance as there are men. So no shit there's going to be less of them when the starting pool itself is smaller. This has nothing to do with the industry, it's quite literally the challenge presented by life itself.
Cant believe people are downvoting you like you said something controversial
Are you tring to say a woman did a sharpe of 2, lost her bonus to a man with sharpe of 0.8, and doesn't get recognized?
Have zero clue what you are implying or how it can be done... if you delivered... you delivered... your bonus / your AUM / your everything carries what you delivered, that's how HF is set up.
if there were no SSN issue, if an ape could deliver sharpe of 3 consistently, the ape would be given one of the largest book and largest bonus, zero questions asked LOL
proof that you can be a complete retard and still work in PE
lol
I’m a woman in hf and I can give you my opinion honestly. In hf career, you will meet a lot of big ego personalities who are more triggered by a woman who is knowledgeable and successful. Some men who can not generate alpha will find all ways they can to push you down. I’ve personally had to hire a lawyer due to work place harassment, and many of my peers in the same “vintage” have done so too. Men who are insecure will have more emotional triggers to block your advancement. A peer can badmouth about you - I’ve been told I steal people’s ideas, I don’t do my work, I cover too few things, despite being the top alpha generator in my fund. Sadly, as you get more experienced, you learn more and more about these stories and women who had to battle through the legal channel to be treated fairly. Ironically, men who can generate alpha do not target women negatively- because they feel secure, and have better things to do to have to put others down. It’s always the guys who are not good at their own jobs who feel like they have to be at least better than a woman.
So there’s alpha in starting a woman only HF? Why not do that.
That is another misguided thought. If women are pushed out of industry not due to ability but due to environment, they will have fewer years of experience/ reps. They have the ability to, but they have to be able to grow in the work environment. It’s like a black kid and a white kid, if black kid leaves school due to discriminatory environment earlier than white kid, it’s not going to work to start a PhD program all from black kids
I think most people also forget that 90% of the PMs (if not more) are “average or insecure and like to project their failures onto their analysts (see the “toxic PM” discussion)… that behavior would not fly with a woman and would result in a big liability for the firm / PM so it wouldn’t surprise me if the male PMs that fit this bill prefer hiring men… and that plays a big part than people are willing to admit.
Wait... so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding. But I'm reading your assertion here as 90% of PMs are average/insecure and thus expect to abuse their analysts and blame them for failures. But they know they can't do that to a woman and get away with it without her going to HR/media and there being blowback, so they preferentially hire men to abuse instead? So women aren't being hired because... PMs know they can't treat them as badly as the men?
So unironically, the solution to there being more women in the field would be abusing them equally as much as men? That's hysterical.
I think this is only valid on larger platforms where these PMs have competition for differentiated treatment. On a single PM platform, no one is gonna care about behavioral escalation. If you go to the media or try to sue, that will have consequences for your career
---
From a practical perspective, I think it becomes very hard post motherhood, thus why many women drop out in their mid-30s or struggle to make it to PM.
If you want to excel at this job, you need to be at your desk and fully focused by 7.30AM or earlier. For moms, that means by the time their kids wake up, she is already gone to work. This is tough for many moms, who feel guilt about not being with their kids in a way that men usually don't. So many moms drop out around that point due to the lack of flexibility to look after their family.
I've seen many women very focused on their careers pre-motherhood and then when they have kids their priorities clearly change and they're not willing to sacrifice family for career success. It's not all cases, it's not good or bad, it just plays out that way most of the time.
I’ve noticed that when women reach their early thirties or late twenties, interviewers - whether female headhunters or male members of the investment team - often indirectly probe about relationship status or whether you have children during early conversations. It often feels as though a narrative has already been formed that the candidate may soon prioritize settling down or taking on fewer professional commitments, even when that may not be the case.
So yes, there are structural challenges for women before the conversation even truly begins.
I remember reaching out to someone for a networking conversation who works in L/S while I was interviewing in the space. One of the first things he said - without really knowing much about me besides the fact that we went to the same university - was that I seemed “too nice” to work in L/S because the industry is very cutthroat. I’ve had similar experiences when I was in school, before I entered finance where it felt as though I was being subtly dissuaded from pursuing the field without knowing anything about me, even though I ended up entering the industry. In one case, someone I networked with tried to dissuade me from entering investing and tried to steer me towards marketing (lol) or ESG when that had literally nothing to do with my area of study.
I also believe that there is less mentorship for women than for men once you are in these industries which tends to compound the existing structural challenges.
Also, many men are not super competent parents, but that’s changing in the younger generations. It’s well documented that women do more at home than men.
The problem isn’t the women, it’s the system - it makes it harder for women to succeed. It doesn’t mean she can’t, just means she needs to be much better than the men for the same outcome.
I also wish headhunters and interviewers would avoid bringing up their children or babies during interviews in an attempt to “humanize” the conversation, particularly when speaking with female candidates by default. Personally, I find it unprofessional and not particularly relevant to the discussion. One particular experience I found cringe was when I was interviewing for an investing role in a smaller city and the interviewer tried to position the role as attractive because it would allow flexibility for picking up children. This became the main selling point that was emphasized but at that stage I was simply trying to have an introductory conversation about the role itself.
I think headhunters / interviewers (unless new to industry) are experiened and smart enough to say what likely appeals to people. That is their entire job after all, making the role attractive to interviewees, knowing the most-likely-right things to say in limited time span.
so it could be that many moms they spoke with, cared most (at least showed high interest) on that aspecst, otherwise they'd be idiots and just spew nonsense with no data points. I'd lean towards they're not idiots.
That wasn’t really the context here. It was a small team that is entirely white male, and I never mentioned kids in my intro - the only thing I said was that I grew up in the area. So the explanation that “maybe a lot of moms were asking about flexibility” doesn’t really make sense.
More generally, I’ve noticed an interesting double standard in interviews. When men mention family ties to a city, it’s often interpreted as stability or being rooted in the area. When women mention the same thing, it can be interpreted as baggage or a constraint.
You can almost see the shift in the interviewer’s reaction - the smug assumption becomes that you’re obligated to be there rather than simply familiar with the market. This is not the first time that this has happened so it's enough that I recognized a pattern.
And this is not hypothetical. Once, someone asked me point blank if I had a baby during an interview. These assumptions and prejudices make it harder for a woman to relocate for a job than for a man.
People in this industry often default to snap judgments and the status quo, and those judgments are often shaped by stereotypes whether we acknowledge it or not. For an industry that prides itself on second-level thinking, the irony is that many judgements are still driven by quick heuristics rather than careful evaluation.
I had to involve an employment lawyer on persistent harassment despite being a top producer. I found the lawyer through Google review - not knowing who his clients have been and only know that he has a lot of experience with finance. The first thing he told me was he laughed when he saw my email, because hes dealt with my firm 3-4 times. That’s how persistent this type of behavior in investing / hf is. This is not a no name firm.
Sorry to hear. Have you been able to stay at the same hf given the lawsuits?
Which law firm did you use?
I chose to leave but they had to pay for it. The fund was not doing well for a variety of other reasons so a sinking ship any way. I documented everything well. If you work in nyc, remember it’s a single consent state so you can record any instate conversations.
Can you DM me? working through something similar
By the way, in every asset class there are probably a few funds to avoid. I know the list for my asset class. Worth checking with more experienced women in your industry to know where to not waste time. Always avoid the mediocre male from a chip on the shoulder background- I’ve found that guys who both can’t produce pnl and also come from a background in which culturally they have to be the bigger men to be the most intolerable. Had a guy who makes one investment per year, sitting on piles of losers, years older than others his level consistently target me bc he was the most insecure on the team. Ppl who can actually make money don’t do that and provide better work experience/ fund trajectory anyways. Avoid the mediocrity as much as you can
If you want numbers - I know about 10 women who do what I do, in investing in a specific hf niche. Of the 10, 4 have involved employment lawyers at some point for things similar to what I described. Thats a pretty high ratio for one to think that there’s nothing wrong with the environment
My take on why there's far more women in PE than HF is more structural (although the stories above are very real and those situations do happen). About 20-30 years ago, girls started to get the same opportunities as boys. As many of the efforts to make the starting age of kindergarden for boys be 1 year later show, the average 5 year old boy is significantly less mature and able to learn than the average 5 year old girl. Now, that gap has persisted and the individuals have grown older. That same 5 year old pair turns 21, and the same set of "prestigous" white collar jobs is now available to both of them: IBD, consulting, law, medicine.
And so we end up with IBD (and the immediate downstream, PE) have nearly equal amounts of women in Associate and VP roles if not more, as the ratio of men to women pursuing "top" jobs has normalized.
However, HF jobs are not actually included in that "should I do IB or consulting or PE" conversation. Most people are not falling over themselves for a trading role at a young age; they are just pursing whatever the larger flock of obedient sheep is running toward. There is (I think) a pipeline phenomenon there: far more men (boys at that point) are salivating over "trading stocks" than girls/women are. This is somewhat similar to the persistent bias in the STEM pipeline. Some of this bias is, I think, inherently genetic (ie due to natural gender differences) , and some is due to structural barriers that reinforce stereotypes (lots of women could do well trading, but they never even considered it).
Unfortunately, after the kids come into the equation around 35 (which is when the huge drop-off happens), then it's more of a choice imho. Nobody forces women to have one, and there are only so many hours in the day. It's odd to me that it should be considering shocking or wrong that the firm has moved on after someone effectively checks out - but expects everything to cater to them, and it's bias if it does not work like that.
I cannot believe there are people who actually believe that line "nobody forces women to leave, they just check out", especially in this day and age. That argument gets repeated on WSO almost like a mantra at this point. Women in associate and VP roles are not close to half - not even close. Maybe close to half at the analyst level back in 2021-2022 and only at BB banks. I personally knew female friends in trading who studied STEM, who left in their twenties bc of the negative experiences/sexism they've experienced. One female friend confided that her boss would call her into his office and nitpick things he did not like about her until she started crying - that seems abusive.
The drop off happens way before 35 because firms already start stereotyping that women will check out and start popping out babies by the late 20s/early thirties stage. Even if that is not true, the narrative was already made for them - that in itself is a bias.
"One female friend confided that her boss would call her into his office and nitpick things he did not like about her until she started crying - that seems abusive."
Bosses in finance are often abusive, rude, and nitpicking to men and women alike. There is a very high standard and it's a high pressure environment, and it attracts some malevolent personalities. Sometimes it's trying to get a junior person to improve. I am a man and had absolutely brutal bosses in banking who said and did things to haze analysts purely because they enjoyed power tripping. I had bosses tell me I need to change my wardrobe in PE, and pick apart everything I did (tone of voice, way of speaking, I was too awkward in x situation, etc). Imagine a partner telling a woman she needed to change her wardrobe or give those other types of feedback.
If anything in my experience, women are treated significantly more gingerly than men - feedback is less direct and delivered with less anger / abuse, because people don't want to get sued or labeled in the WSJ, and because of social norms about interacting with women. Often, they just won't even give real feedback to women because they dont want to step on a land mine - the fact in your example the woman started crying is illuminating. I have seen several women cry in the workplace in finance and have never seen a man cry.
Again, as someone above pointed out - all of this is statistical and referring to averages - there are women who absolutely operate at a top decile level and men who aren't cut out. I'm sure there are weak men who cry in the workplace (and I've also met extremely competent women in finance who are stone cold). There are some women who prioritize work over family, but it is not as common as with men. There are some women who I'm sure have autistic fixations on trading from a young age - but again you have to be pretty indoctrinated to not perceive what is the mode or average behavior.
Btw the headhunters who do the initial screens are mainly women. I bet you if they shared their spreadsheets on candidates, there is probably a 20:1 ratio of men to women even seeking employment in hedge funds. That is not discrimination at work
I’ll be blunt. Very few women choose to stay on the job for a while. Some who do are incredible, have launched their own funds and all the rest.
But most higher income women want flexibility with the ability to work with a reasonable lifestyle that is conducive for family.
You cannot say you are family first or that you care most about your children if you are in this business. That’s true if you are a man or a woman. That’s the trade off — there is no free lunch in the labor market. The massive upside convexity in this job has a cost.
So all told, many women decide to do something else.
Finally, to add to all of this women have n this business are often married to successful guys — pe hf doctor etc. assistive mating. So they don’t need to work.
How many of you men or women would work if you had 10/20/30/50/100 million liquid? Or if you could live that lifestyle without trudging to work and just be free to trade your pa?
Where performance is actually important, actually generating money, there is no room for diversity BS.
Yes and everyone smart is a white man eh? How dumb do you have to be to believe that?
This, my friend, is the kind of guy you should avoid in this industry. Statistically, anyone is more likely to not be able to outperform the market than being able to. Yet he has a superiority complex and believe that he can perform. So when he inevitably finds out he can’t, he will take it out on others who he thinks don’t deserve it as much as he does
Time after time there is a report showing that on average, female money managers outperform male money managers. Obviously the top dogs are male (for various reasons), and it’s not that women make better money managers by nature but more like bias means only seriously committed women who are smarter than the average guy, get in
For the guys who are so sure that environment is not worse for women - why don’t I give you a few examples and you can see if it’s something that happens routinely in this industry: 1) receive phone calls on weekends from peers detailing why you are not qualified to do your work, 2) being monitored on how many questions you submit to a research subscription service (not by firm, by random peer), 3) being monitored on printing documents (why do you print this, why do you print that), 4) being cut off on explaining your own investments by peers who have no knowledge of the investments. I’m not including more regular way pests like being excluded from discussions regarding your own investments or projects you lead. You want to try talk to HR? They’ll just tell you that’s just this guys personality- why can’t you get used to it. A pretty atrocious personality… no wonder those people generally don’t succeed in work or life, but still a headache if you meet one at work.
It’s the same in PE.
And anyways, we even haven’t got into all the harassment yet.
There are male colleagues who have too much free time (because who needs to work if you can just chat with the boss on inappropriate topics) and will stand persistently by your desk to ask you to go out drinking at clubs with them. They literally only give up when another male colleague can’t take the noise pollution and asks them to F off.
Or the 101 questions about your sex life when you’re just trying to build your model and go home.
It’s sometimes stressful to think about how many non-harassment hours a day that I’ll get to do my work. It’s also stressful for anyone who has actually been actually groped / touched by a male colleague / senior at work. You just never know when this particular dude is going to try.
There are also usually women oriented groups in each sub-asset class of HF. May not be a NGO but could just be a group of people who peer. You should join those to get your intel on your asset class if you are a woman in investing.
Actually by the responses on this post, @willow7 should have a pretty good sense of what’s the source of the problem….
No private market long investment cycles to hide behind so it's actually a meritocracy.
If it were a meritocracy it won’t be only one kind of people.
I agree that the long investment cycles in private markets hide a highly inefficient and un meritocratic system. But the vast majority of top guys in PE, all the way down to VPs tend are male. Clubby boys club typa guys. You’re not really proving the point that you think you are
Social skills and office politics are also meritocratic.
Why post a question asking for people's opinions if you are just going to downvote and argue with any of them that don't agree with the answer you were clearly looking for
Who’s doing that????
OP here. I have not responded/engaged with any comments thus far so not sure what this is about. I’m not looking for a certain answer and would prefer the truth even if I don’t like it so I know what to expect/can make career decisions accordingly.
Happy intl womens day
I’m going to re bring up this thread. If any men here claim they also get stalked and screenshotted for 1 year at work, then maybe you can claim the environment is fair.
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/hedge-fund/harassment-at-work
Yeah I also want to know how many guys get stalked on their social media by their soon-to-be colleague who’s trying to find out if they’re “hot”.
Or have their new boss grinning and saying “don’t mind the boys, they’re just shy”, when introducing them for the first time.
People twisting their minds into a pretzel with all these factors, when the truth is simple.
Initial talent pool (college kids looking to enter IB) is extremely male-dominated. Let's say 5% female. And let's assume the males and females in that talent pool are equally strong on average. I honestly believe they are.
That talent pool then gets shifted in the female direction because IBs want more women. So let's say the incoming analyst class ends up 15% female, compared to the initial 5% of women in the talent pool. And this could imply differences in average preparedness based on hiring dynamics, if hiring targets influence selection criteria to get the disproportionately higher % of women.
Then after the analyst program, people go into different paths. As OP notes, some of these paths (like HF) are more meritocratic than others. The more meritocratic paths will have a male/female makeup that looks more like the initial talent pool that was 95% male.
All these other things people are saying (men are more risk-taking, less agreeableness) are possibly relevant but pale in comparison to the simple math that HF makeup is just going to look like the original talent pool.
Read The Story of Testosterone (written by a Harvard female scientist who investigated this) -- there are biological differences between genders driven by Testosterone which drive more men towards this profession initially as well as staying passionate about this profession.
Women as a category (there are absolutely exceptions) generally under-index to what makes one a great investor. It's genetics, as much as the left would like to pretend otherwise
Edit: Bring on the MS losers. At least read the book and understand before casting stones (if you have a brain, if not then continue throwing MS like the double-digit IQ chimps you are)
People are very dedicated to not believing the science on this.
How dedicated? WSO mods edited my post to make it more PC. I just noticed now while reading yours.
Woman in AM (not HF here), I work in the firm with the most WLB you can probably find on the street and still we have significantly less women PMs than men PMs here.
I think some of the comments above that characterize women as taking less risks could actually be considered “accurate” in the sense that some female PMs that left in the past 3-5 years did so to get more career stability or essentially saw the NPV of the job as negative if you adjust for time and commitment.
One thing that has not been brought up is the base pay + bonus comp structure. If you are at a firm that highly penalizes you for a drawdown for the following 3-5 years and you just had a baby (most of the childcare is still on you), at that point IR or doing literally anything else starts making sense because without the high bonus component, you would just optimize for flexibility. I saw similar dynamics for colleagues that didn’t like the work itself and decided to pivot more towards ESG-related roles. These women often have partners who are also in finance and decide to take a “step back” in terms of stress and they can afford to do so financially as their partner is also a high earner. Maternity leave policies in your company matter a lot - what happens to your book when you are gone? If your firm penalizes you for that, once again you might have to look at your options.
Again these are the examples I have seen personally. As a woman I also hate politics and also seen a bunch in AM unfortunately. HF is probably much better but less job stability and sharp elbows, so good to keep in mind.
I work at a firm where repeat gender discrimination and harassment offenders are just swept under the roof like nothing happened. What do you plan to do? Sue?
From my observation as a woman, it’s not that there’s this idea that women don’t have the temperament. If anything, if you show that you’re cool under stress and competent, that makes you stand out even more to senior leadership because they’re all dying to have a woman they can point to as having succeeded on their team if anyone scrutinizes why there isn’t enough women.
It’s more an issue of self selection at the top. Let’s be real - no one wants to freeze their eggs at the age of 25-30, work 7-7 M-F while also tuning into the portfolio should anything big markets wise happens, and then decide to have kids at 45 with the help of surrogates and full time nannies. You also physically have less energy to keep up with babies and toddlers by that age.
If you’re working at a HF, you probably also want a partner who is of similar caliber to you. So they might work in finance as well or law/medicine/tech. Let’s say their income ranges from 80-300% of yours. When you hit your 30s, you then decide to have kids. But somebody needs to take a seat back when kids come into the equation (ex: daycare calls you and says your kid is sick and they need someone to pick them up at 11am. Nanny calls in sick or says they have to leave early due to an emergency on their end). Most women (again speaking from experience) want to be there for their kids when they’re young, and at a certain point, you ask yourself if making $600-800k is worth it but you never see them when your kids are young. Then there’s also the fact that the seat to PM is tough, so if you know you’re good but not genius level good and you’re not on the path to becoming a PM by your mid 30s, then it’s not worth it grinding around jumping from being senior analyst to senior analyst to maybe junior PM while missing out on your kids’ childhoods.
An executive recruiter for C-suite roles for women came to my business school to talk, and she was upfront when telling us that as women, we can only have 2 out of the 3 - “great career, great marriage, great relationship with your kids”.
I’m not sure it’s fair to speak for all women here - people make different trade-offs and have different priorities. Also, from your earlier post it looks like you’re on the sell-side structured derivatives side, which tends to have different hours and career trajectories than many hedge fund roles, so experiences can vary quite a bit across different areas of finance.
On the family point, plenty of people in finance start families earlier and manage it in different ways, often with support from partners or extended family.
I recently finished brining a lawyer to a firm after 2 years of long term, well documented harassment by a peer. I let a social group know that if anyone needs an employment lawyer, I have a good one I can recommend. Within 10 minutes, someone emailed me ask for that lawyers name because they are going through the same thing. This is not a women-only group, just a random social group that skews professional services / finance.
I would look at the former Pequot, Lone Pine PM that did the Wall Street skinny podcast she is open to hearing and offering advice better than the losers in the comments. Also feel free to reach out to women in the industry we will help :)
I think OP should reach out to women in the industry on LinkedIn and pretty sure they will be open to connect. From the look of this threads, the guys don’t know much
For better or worse, I think the job inherently rewards personality traits that are often associated with men.
I’m a real cowboy. Barely graduated high school because I refused to do homework despite having the highest standardized test scores in my class. Literally got put into Mensa as a teen after correctly answering 100% of questions on an IQ test, but also a three-year starter at strong side linebacker with multiple suspensions for misbehavior, legal trouble, etc. I didn’t even apply to any colleges (2.3 HS GPA lol) and didn’t want to go. But I took an economics course at junior college the summer after graduation and it was night and day different—no more graded homework, no more mandatory lecture attendance, no more bullshit rules. So I did great in college.
I made it to the buy side public markets without doing IB or PE. I would’ve been fired from either due to disorganization and a refusal to tolerate disrespect from seniors.
But I’m really gifted when it comes to analysis of lines of reasoning and patterns, at predicting second-order and third-order effects, etc.
I’m not disagreeable for no reason. Usually, I agree with the market consensus on this or that. But when I don’t agree, I am perfectly willing to stand in an NFL stadium full of other intelligent humans and declare: “I think you’re all wrong about this, and I refuse to yield to anything other than a well reasoned argument that legitimately changes my mind. In absence of that, you’ll have to present a strong argument to change my mind. No one muscles me, and I won’t back down from pressure.”
Intelligence is a given. Everyone in this industry is smart. But my temperament and brain wiring are well suited for confidently betting large amounts of money when I believe the consensus is wrong. And I believe that sort of behavior is generally often associated with more risk-tolerant personalities; mine is 99th percentile for my age.
I wish I were more organized. I wish I were better at understanding peoples feelings or knowing what to say when someone is sad. But I’m not. I’m good at predicting the future, and I’m extremely good at refusing to back down from pressure, whether it’s coming from the market consensus or individual people who disagree with me.
*Anyone throwing monkey shit was not cool in high school. They had overbearing striver parents who monitored their schoolwork and enrolled them in violin lessons.
This is a sound investment thesis, and I will operate under the assumption it’s true until someone convices me otherwise. 😁
Living up to your own thesis about yourself haha. Love it.
**Also, monomaniacal obsession with abstract ideas is often associated with men. And this is especially true at the extreme tail of the distribution, which is what extreme jobs reward.
To be clear, all men and all women are both social and analytical. But most people you know with amazing social lives are probably women, and most people you know who will sit alone at a desk for hours on end researching some esoteric idea or trying to solve some puzzle are men.
We see this with chess champions, video gamers, hunters, etc.
When I get a big idea about a potential investment or market inefficiency, it gnaws at my brain until I have answers. I disappear from dating apps and group chats, stop returning non-urgent texts, etc. I find myself sitting at my desk in my home office at night or on a weekend, simply not wanting to do or think about anything else until I’ve determined whether there’s something to the idea that the market is missing or if it was just another wild goose chase.
When Ray Dalio dropped his magnum opus—“Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises”—back in the Late 2010’s, I was enthralled. I stopped all social activity until I’d read all ≈600 pages. Nobody assigned that to me. My PM had no idea I was doing that on nights and weekends. It wasn’t mandatory. It was just really, really interesting. So interesting that nothing else seemed to matter until I finished reading it.
I’m sure there are women like that. But in my experience, more people like that have been men.
I am not arguing whether this is ideal or healthy or good or bad or anything. I’m arguing that it is a helpful personality trait for anyone seeking to outperform markets, and that it is more commonly seen in men, for reasons mostly possibly influenced by a mix of biological and social factors.
Women run circles around me at many important tasks. But I personally haven’t seen many women pause her entire social life to frantically read a 600 page economic text simply because it was fascinating.
Yeah look, I’m pretty similar. I have ADHD (late diagnosed, I’ve never needed meds), and IQ of >140 (tested during the diagnosis) and a close to perfect academic record (highest scores possible on standardized tests / degree classifications) despite being a shit student.
The IQ test showed that my academic record is likely because of high pattern recognition skills and processing speed as well. Raven’s APM was very easy for me. I finished studying for a quant fin module in 3 days.
While I’m not a genius, those should’ve been decent enough stats to get into a HF, maybe they still will be as I’m now trying to switch.
But I’m a woman. I kept getting pushed into sales roles rather than trading roles. I try to network my way in and have been told to my face by multiple men (probably well intentioned) to not bother because it’s a boy’s club and if I can just get married to someone high earning, just do that and have babies.
It’s majority a pipeline and disposition problem (said by a woman). Finance is full of abrasive individuals who berate men too, however, many women make this about “gender harassment” rather than temperament of the individuals involved. One data point supporting this is the feedback Lloyd Blankfein shared in recent interviews for his memoir - he was told his behavior was abrasive but he was still “allowed” to climb the ladder because he performed financially. Fewer women may be willing or choose to remain in such environments (depending on how much choice you assign) of handling abrasive personalities without being churning from the system.
Someone earlier in the thread also mentioned differences in exposure to IB/consulting/PE and public equities investing roles and I suspect there’s something here too. Even at the campus that I went to, which feeds heavily into IB, there’s orders students the join the general finance club than the investing clubs and while the finance clubs aren’t anywhere near parity in gender representation, there’s more women in those clubs. And that means, more students are “trained” to feel comfortable with the material of/to pass entry level IB interviews then public investing ones. I don’t believe IB is a meritocratic processes as the interview process is “are you disciplined enough to memorize answers to M&I’s 200 question interview guide,” but in non-PE investing roles, there’s a deeper level of financial understanding expected at a more junior level. So, if you hold the assumption that the investment clubs produce a higher rigor of candidates than finance clubs or the general recruiting population on all college campuses feeding into IB, then that pool does have a 95/5% male/female split but difference in quality that isn’t innate ability but demonstrated/learned competency. You can apply similar logic to gender distribution of whose investing in stocks or following the stock market at 14 years old and how that exposure compounds by the time someone is 22 years old.
Is there bias in the process, sure, but I think two things on that topic . First, much of the bias isn’t hand wavy “bias” but well reasoned conclusions that people have about the pipeline (eg career breaks (e.g., parental leave) can be a consideration in some role to the working environment in hfs, what people believe to be the strongest pipelines have a stronger gender split, etc.) that they choose to consciously action. Second, bias is a much smaller contributing factor to the overall outcome. There’s systematic issues that shape the pipeline, which I think most reasonable men would agree with, but whether those factors are “bias” is where some men and some women will stop short. There’s a difference between statistical discrimination and implicit bias, imo, Is statistical discrimination unfair, yes, but to be fair many sides of these debates are arguing positions that boil down to statistics.
Just some quick off the cuff thoughts.
But do you think that if women behaved abrasively in finance they would not face a greater social penalty than men? In the well-known “Heidi vs. Howard” case study, MBA students evaluated identical profiles of a venture capitalist where the only difference was the name. Both were rated as equally competent, but the female version was viewed as significantly less likable and more aggressive
Keep in mind that Lloyd Blankfein rose through finance during a very different era of the industry, when it was far more male-dominated and aggressive, combative behavior among men in the office was often socially accepted or even normalized.
And yes, I agree that part of the issue is pipeline - women should absolutely be encouraged and socialized earlier to pursue finance and investing. It’s unfortunate that women are often stereotyped and socialized to behave differently, when the underlying competency is clearly there.
I think women being evasive, indirect, and deferential hurts them far more in finance than being abrasive. I also think being well-liked by peers and being seen as competent are two separate evaluations. Can competent women be less liked by peers (and to a greater degree than their male counterparts), yes, but what are you as the evaluated party and evaluator optimizing for should be the question. Do you want to be invited to drinks all the time or do you want to be promoted? Do you think someone who is nice has proven abilities to own a book of business? If you're asking me: does it suck that men who are competent are also well liked to a greater degree, yes, but that's life. I don't think any amount of "bringing awareness to the point" through case studies, research, or discussions is going to change the behaviors of enough people that the outcome changes. I think each person has to decide for themselves what are the tradeoffs they want to make to survive/thrive in the role/industry they want to be in (e.g. personal agency).
On the Lloyd Blankfein point, I don't think finance has changed all that much. I think finance feels less abrasive in IB than S&T because the economic cost of mistakes is significantly lower so people have less scenarios for explosiveness. The abrasiveness faced in S&T and HFs is functionally different from IB, which leads to different attrition patterns.
Part of what I'm arguing is also many women in finance don't have an accurate model of what's actually penalizing them (misattributing abrasive culture to gender targeting, not recognizing that deference reads as low conviction/low leadership, etc.). I think much of the literature on these issues circulates misdiagnoses of the actual problems so awareness, as we've seen with these campaigns for at least 10-20 years, produces negligible changes in outcomes. And this applies even beyond finance.
Where in this picture do all the incompetent men who continue to have jobs in the investment industry fit?
I generally take issue with all discussions around "incompetent" and "merit" because those words are seldomly used with a static definition that can be applied to two people or two groups. So, my starter question here, would factors makes these men incompetent?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the process for securing a PE role is clearing a hurdle on a modeling test and case study discussion so, by that floor defined by the process, isn't everyone in the seat "qualified" or "competent?" Is that not the only definition the process itself endorses? Of do you take issue with how performance and advancement get evaluated once people are in these roles, where the definitions get even murkier.
Any claim that someone "doesn't deserve to be there" is importing a different, unstated definition of merit or competence beyond the definition the process implements (and that's worth surfacing explicitly). Either the process is sufficient or flawed, but you cannot have it both ways. Also can you define incompetent in terms the process itself would recognize?
Negative PnL
I’ve worked with PE seniors who did not understand concepts that you’d expect anyone with an internet connection to understand. I think even a 16 year old would get it. Like, really really struggled to understand it and clearly did not understand simple mechanics despite me and other people explaining it to him multiple times. Ofc he was a (useless) nepo and an absolute asshat. And ofc he did stupid shit that cost the firm money.
Another one was good technically (the bare minimum) but struggled as an investor because he could not think commercially. Which is really where you’re really supposed to add value beyond junior years. It got so bad that our MD would unknowingly repeat the exact same points that I told him before our presentation, which ofc led to him raging and feeling humiliated by me (even though I just told him in private).
I wasn’t at some no name small fund but a specialist fund that’s still actively being talked about on WSO. And at the point that I joined, it wasn’t a bad choice to pick them over a MF’s generalist team
This thread raised a lot of great points about working the way up in a hedge fund portfolio manager career track for both men and women. I agree that there are many ways a bad career experience can impede us from reaching the portfolio manager role, where quantitiative performance matters more than perceived performance and you get a bit more meritocratic competition. I think the most important factors to get the PM job are 1) confidence to have conviction in what you're taking risk in and 2) someone in power to give you the chance to run a sleeve or have real ownership for an extended period of time to prove your performance.
I ran a thought experiment with chatgpt on this to see how AI might characterize the experience for women in hf. Based on the sequence of events provided by chatgpt (below), which really resonated with me as I've observed this pattern of behavior in HF environments and business school, I can see how incompetent male colleagues collude to destroy both 1) a woman's confidence in her investment acumen and abilities and 2) chances of being given authority and responsibilities to prove herself. The hf workload is challenging enough on its own but now add low confidence and a lack of optimism in career progression (or even human nature) and it leads to burnout. This is where women in hf get "pushed out" to pursue other opportunities with psychologically healthier colleagues, or they choose family.
Based on the points raised in this thread, the only input I defined for chatgpt were:
1. In this environment, male colleagues follow a common pattern seen in many high-ambition leadership and corporate settings: Their drive for money and power often turns toxic. They demand control at all costs and develop oversized egos as a compensatory mechanism. When they aren’t actually exceptional in intelligence or achievements, the ego inflates to mask the gap, enabling toxic behaviors. They chase surface-level status symbols (impressive title, prestige, appearance) without the underlying substance. True high performance requires emotional intelligence, adaptability, and innovation — qualities their ego actively blocks. Their ego creates flattering, self-serving narratives about how the world works, and they then make decisions and treat people based on those distorted stories.
2. A smart, highly intelligent, charismatic young woman who has demonstrated in her team she is capable of producing strong quantitative results and has a proven ability to get investment theses right.
Then I asked chatgpt to describe what this young woman's experience working in this role would be like. Here is what chatgpt provided:
A woman like the one you described—highly intelligent, quantitatively strong, charismatic, and able to produce correct investment theses—often has a very specific experience in environments dominated by the type of male ego culture you outlined. It tends to unfold in several predictable dynamics.
1. Initial Fascination Followed by Threat Perception
At first, many of the men in the environment will be drawn to her presence.
Her intelligence, charisma, and ability to articulate investment ideas clearly make her stand out quickly. In the early phase, she may receive:
However, once her competence becomes undeniable, the dynamic frequently shifts.
Men whose identity is built around being the smartest person in the room begin to experience her as a status threat rather than an asset.
Instead of competing on merit, they often protect their hierarchy.
2. Subtle Credibility Undermining
Rather than openly challenging her analysis, the pushback tends to be indirect and narrative-based.
Examples include:
Because these tactics are subtle, they create plausible deniability while slowly weakening her perceived authority.
3. Idea Extraction Without Credit
A common pattern in competitive finance environments is idea appropriation.
When she proposes a strong thesis:
Over time she may notice that her thinking is used, but her authorship fades.
This can be extremely frustrating because her intellectual output is valued privately but diluted publicly.
4. Social Narrative Construction
In ego-driven cultures, reputation often matters more than performance.
If she outperforms expectations, some colleagues may unconsciously try to explain it away in ways that preserve the existing hierarchy.
Typical narratives might be:
These narratives help others maintain their self-image without confronting the reality that she may be outperforming them.
5. Double-Bind Expectations
She is likely to experience a behavioral double bind:
If she is confident and assertive:
If she is collaborative and diplomatic:
Male colleagues in the same environment are rarely forced into this trade-off.
6. Isolation at Higher Performance Levels
As her track record grows stronger, she may notice a paradox:
The better she performs, the more socially isolated she becomes.
High performers who threaten fragile hierarchies often experience:
The environment rewards loyalty to hierarchy, not necessarily independent brilliance.
7. Psychological Impact
For someone genuinely talented and intellectually driven, this environment can produce a mix of emotions:
At the same time, if she is resilient and perceptive, she may become extremely skilled at reading power dynamics.
8. The Strategic Choice Point
Eventually, women in this situation typically face a strategic decision:
Adapt to the system
Or leave for environments that reward actual performance
The Paradox
Ironically, environments dominated by fragile ego hierarchies often fail to retain exactly the type of talent that generates alpha.
The very qualities that make her valuable—clear thinking, independence, strong conviction—are the same qualities that destabilize insecure power structures.
What you're describing here is "tall poppy syndrome," which isn't unique to hedge fund contexts and men aren't the sole perpetrators of it. High performing women being isolated is common across all industries or areas of life (and it sucks).
TPS is bad for any high achiever, but in hedge fund PM track / roles it’s particularly punishing for women because the industry’s performance visibility (track record), competitiveness, and male norms turn female success into a greenlight for punishment for challenging industry norms (that the PM job is a man’s job), stereotypes that deter sponsorship, and other structural headwinds. Men can “grow tall” with fewer personal or professional penalties because they are allowed and expected to succeed in this space where as women are not. This explains persistent underrepresentation even as evidence shows women-led funds outperform male-led ones, especially in turbulent markets or long-term. Yet the few women who make it to PM start with smaller AUM, get screened out by (mostly male) institutional allocators, and struggle to raise capital. On the PE side, I think women are allowed to succeed more because the growth of women-founded companies creates room for these large funds to hire women to represent them as investment principals and engage women founders to sell. Relatability creates trust that turn into deals.
I’ll add two explanations that haven’t been argued already.
I think the reality is that the majority of women aren’t interested in investing to nearly the same extent. There are exceptions to this, I know several women who work in L/S and they live and breath the work just as much as a guy does. But most women are not investing hardos. The easiest litmus test for this is there are many guys who do L/S, their friends also do it, they get together and talk about it all the time. On Twitter, the most active L/S anon accounts are all guys. On the other hand, my friends sister is a senior PE investor, most of her friend also work in PE but they don’t seem to get together and talk about deals / investments / etc. This goes back all the way to the investment clubs in college. The clubs will have at least a few women in them but the kids cranking out pitches, networking on the phone with alums to get new ideas, submitting pitches to stock pitch competitions are usually all dudes. I know this as someone in the industry, I get hit up by kids from my alma mater who want to do L/S. 100% of them since I started doing L/S have been male. When I was in PE, more younger women in banking / undergrad would reach out about analyst or associate recruiting at my MF. I give every younger person who emails me at least an hour on the phone regardless of their gender.
I’m sure there are amazing investors who are good about WLB, but most HF people I’ve come across are all obsessed with it regardless of whether they end up being good or not. The obsession is a trait that I think many people look for when hiring. It’s easier to show obsession by showing examples of interest in investing starting in college. So maybe it’s a pipeline problem but maybe it’s also a self-selection issue.
The other argument: PE is more of a sales job & a bad comparison to make to L/S. You aren’t measured on performance for a long time, you are measured on perception (management presence, coordination skills, communication). Most women who self-select into finance to begin with are far more presentable than male counterparts. I know it’s a lot of work / time to get ready & look nice / presentable every morning. It’s partly a little unfair because a woman is probably going to get judged harder for not being put together. Whereas you’ll see guys who are fat, don’t shave regularly, wear sneakers to management meetings, and don’t dress well. This is true in both PE & HFs but since PE values those put togetherness traits more than HFs it’s natural that women will find more success in that career.
Good contribution. Agree with you on most the Twitter L/S accounts being mostly men. I’m actually shocked my Substack (face account and anonymous) point didn’t land.
.
If this isn’t clear, I’m happy to explain further.
-
I think the motherhood dynamic is a common barrier to seeing more female PMs, but the gender disparity already exists at the analyst level, thus I wouldn't attribute most of the difference to this.
Presupposing that to be a hedge fund PM or analyst you need to be highly intelligent and moreso than in PE/IB (certainly debatable), many studies show higher variance in intelligence in men than women, which at the far right (and left!) side of the bell curve leads to multiples more men than women. I suspect this is the main driver.
Yes, it is a high-ability job, but unless the role requires fields like pure mathematics, theoretical physics, or similar disciplines, it’s a hard stretch to justify describing it as “far-right tail intelligence.” Most hedge fund analysts come from economics, finance, or business backgrounds, which, forgive me, are hardly fields that select heavily for extreme cognitive outliers.
Even many well-known investors have argued that investing success is more about temperament, judgment, and discipline than raw IQ once a baseline level of intelligence is met.
Also, the study you described showed very small variance at the extreme ends, and this result showed inconsistency across time and regions, which imply that environment played a factor.
There is something called systematic gender discrimination - this also exists in a lot of other industries, like politics, engineering etc.Any industries which provide higher pay or have higher social status prefer males. Positions which offer low or 0 pay but require great labor prefer females, like housewives. You have to accept this harsh reality, and are expected to work much harder than males to enter the industry and get promoted. Life is unfair but it is what it is. Also what is the point of asking this question in a male-dominated forum? 😅 maybe spend more of your time networking with females in hedge fund and understand more about their path and challenges.
Yes also don’t see the point of asking this to guys. They have no clue.
Exactly, glad we're aligned
Also kind of hard to understand people who don’t work in the industry spending so much time commenting on how there doesn’t seem to be gender discrimination when women who work in the industry tell them there is. One of the above is credible…
-
Edit: they put it back
FYI, three comments of mine were also deleted by the “WSO Monkey Mod.” I got DM’s about it. Not surprisingly, they were the three comments that contained my most convincing counterarguments and data points against the Identitarian Marxist worldview. They were deemed “vulgar.” They most certainly were not.
So either the moderation is being done by an AI bot trained on Reddit threads, or WSO has an intern who’s gone rogue and needs to be corrected.
Most people don’t want to be on a forum where argument are only allowed from the far left side of the ideological spectrum.
Why don't you post the comments you wrote verbatim that were deleted then so people can make their own judgements - why re-post someone else's in reference instead.
Pretty sure the mod is a human, not AI. From what I’ve seen, posts that get removed usually have tone issues (insults, toxicity, etc.), never politics.
Well they put it back so... guess that was just a waste of time.
Read The Story of Testosterone (written by a Harvard female scientist who investigated this) -- there are biological differences between genders driven by Testosterone which drive more men towards this profession initially as well as staying passionate about this profession.
Women as a category (there are absolutely exceptions) generally under-index to what makes one a great investor. It's genetics, as much as the left would like to pretend otherwise
Hedge Funds are quite arguably the most meritocratic jobs in the world. If you are good, you get paid. If you suck, there is the door.
Hedge funds are better protected against DEI because they can argue more credibly on meritocratic grounds = less women
....
---
.....
This kind of toxicity is why (recent Q&A thread for women in finance designed to denigrate males because she thinks it's 'alpha / high T' and thinks it'll make her real cool!)
lol, you sure sound happily living to me...
Jesus christ, this is the most sociopathic thing I've ever seen. This chick (or maybe some dude living in his parent's basement who's getting his kicks off this) internalized the 48 laws of power...should end well
that is... a bit much
I see. You make 350k, that's why you are unhappy... but then you also think women will prefer dating finance guys at 350k salary.... okay, not sure if you are good at dating (or if your wife is happy for that matter) but seem like you are not good at math.
I think people usually go in through public markets or PE.
Idk if anything has changed, but when I was starting out, women were usually pushed towards sales roles rather than trading roles in public markets. I didn’t want that, so I opted for IB.
my personal observation is that people in public markets have to be literally obsessed with the markets, it’s not a place where you can be middling or have a middling level of interest. I tend to find more men than women like that: it applies to both your ridiculously smart PMs and that WSB / crypto guy. Most women have a wider range of interests.
Finally, they’re pretty damn sexist. I’ve heard that from men, not women. One of my male friends quit because he hated what he called a “toxic, sexist, culture”. I also gather that at times you might have to really defend view, and even in IB / PE, men do not like it when women make them feel they got it wrong.
Agreed on the women being pushed towards more "traditionally feminine jobs" like sales-related or more ESG focused type of roles - personally experienced this as well and chose otherwise. For some men, acknowledging sexism exists often doesn’t serve their interests, so they choose to ignore it or rally behind other narratives. Some of the messages on this forum are pretty tone deaf and lack self-awareness, which honestly reinforces the point about how these biases show up in real-world settings.
Yeah I think it’s more or less invisible to men unless someone that they care about goes through it. Or they have daughters and worry about the future that their kid is going to have.
I also can’t with the whole “women are better with people and networking, men just perform” part when empirically it isn’t true (look at PE), and it ignores that men network heavily in public markets too.
Blanditiis ipsa ab iste nobis quia error hic. Non et enim sed expedita molestiae aut. Odio occaecati perferendis eius et harum.
Est ex consequatur earum iusto debitis et. Doloremque qui doloremque provident sit consequuntur et. Qui officiis architecto illum vero debitis vel. Fuga earum neque consequatur reprehenderit. Sint impedit laborum mollitia aut ipsam. Libero qui enim ratione qui iusto non. Neque praesentium dolore sint quia.
Voluptates perferendis laborum natus qui. Officiis consectetur quia quasi placeat. Dolor et soluta ea minima. Deleniti qui dolores atque quia perferendis et. Vel sed perferendis eos id.
Expedita ut et mollitia possimus voluptatem reprehenderit. Sunt voluptas aliquid sit eum nisi illo officiis et. Eum consequuntur aliquam officia recusandae velit nemo. Libero quia magnam alias sequi. Laborum quo minus dolores iure ut nobis.
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...
Recusandae exercitationem sequi tempora consequuntur. Aperiam quisquam inventore aliquam dicta natus saepe. Assumenda itaque eos expedita possimus suscipit dolore. Non perferendis corporis expedita dignissimos. Eos inventore vero aliquid sunt et ut. Eligendi qui fugiat perspiciatis molestiae ut. Eligendi quaerat delectus quia.
Consequatur necessitatibus possimus et. Aut quia ut maxime magnam enim ea nostrum. Vel eaque repudiandae quam possimus ducimus molestiae sint sed. Autem error at nihil sed. Quas et minus ad veniam.
Expedita consectetur voluptas ipsam accusamus quo veritatis ullam. Sunt est et saepe facilis. Aut earum sed nesciunt minima. Quia saepe non magnam consequatur. Aut doloremque doloremque mollitia aut sequi doloribus.
Accusamus tempore at exercitationem fugit perspiciatis tempore consequatur. Eveniet voluptas labore minus eaque. Vel magni aspernatur ut perferendis fugiat. Beatae aut accusantium deleniti cumque a doloribus.
Ipsa hic quibusdam libero excepturi. Voluptate quia et necessitatibus et eos debitis.
Sit accusantium facere voluptas asperiores dolores. Laudantium molestias iste veniam natus optio blanditiis voluptatem. Natus libero ab quis dolores. Sint est incidunt reiciendis odit praesentium sint officiis. In occaecati beatae nesciunt adipisci optio. Laborum voluptates sequi delectus eaque debitis saepe temporibus.
Nemo numquam sunt maiores non sit earum ut. Repellendus cupiditate velit consequatur soluta dolorem tenetur. Quod quia quod saepe alias tenetur. Esse in suscipit et.
Aliquid dolorem iusto omnis voluptatem odit. Quasi beatae et quia aliquid aut nihil quisquam quaerat. Adipisci qui ipsa veniam accusantium.
Nostrum cumque natus nemo ut inventore suscipit itaque. Corporis qui et optio fugiat modi tempora. Dolorem soluta saepe adipisci sed dolorem esse voluptate. Aut in quia nobis reiciendis commodi quibusdam. Quia vero ut qui accusamus. Expedita qui sunt reiciendis fugit. Itaque hic minus qui tempore.
Eius sunt omnis non a alias velit qui occaecati. In aut dolorum ut et ad doloribus vel. Amet corporis cupiditate vel voluptatem labore ut asperiores. At et eligendi enim ducimus.
Perferendis dicta non beatae veniam aspernatur velit. Ut est ut et doloribus cum accusantium facere maxime. Fugiat blanditiis quia qui est consequatur corporis aut.