How many pods at C/M/P are making 100m+ pnl consistently? A handful per shop/top 1%? Top 5%? Top 10%? What’s the average GMV they’re running?
How much better is a seat on a team with consistent 9 figure pnl versus an average pod seat at C/M/P from both a comp/learning angle?
| +23 | % of pods making 9 figures consistently? | 29 | 15h |
| +12 | Fastest Way to MMHF? | 6 | 19m |
| +6 | Average single manager slope | 1 | 9h |
| +6 | Bad PM | 1 | 1d |
| +6 | Credit HF Guys: How much do you think abt "value" | 7 | 1d |
| +4 | Amakor Capital - Who are these guys? | 2 | 4d |
| +3 | culture at citadel macro | 1 | 6d |
| +3 | 4 YOE in ER & 30 years old | 5 | 1d |
| +2 | Walleye SA 2027 | 3 | 2d |
Career Resources
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.
Work for one, but my pod and others like this tend to be large scaled teams with a senior PM who runs a big book and multiple sub PMs/senior analysts running mid sized books. Depends on structure but generally you’re more levered to the sub pm or senior analyst you’re working for from a learning and comp POV.
With that being said I’m quite fortunate that my sr PM has a v good track and is interested in trading my coverage so I’ve been interfacing with them more lately…
Thank you for the insight!
So what would you say the total gmv for your team is? 5bn overall with like 2bn senior and then like 3 1bn sub PMs? Is each sub pm team covering its own sector? And when thinking about risk limits does the senior pm manage it for the whole team or is it on a sleeve by sleeve basis?
Think closer to 7/8bn for us. Some risk takers are running 500-800m, some PMs running 1-2bn. PM book is around 2-3bn but not too sure. Generally everyone manages their own limits but as a team we have looser drawdown limits than the firm
Biggest team I have seen is 50bn GMV across a lot of PMs.
What was your path to join your team now? Did you join as an UG or experienced hire?
And how would you say being on one of the sub pm teams for a super pod is different/better than being on a standalone pod of similar size? Are some central resources/analysts shared by all the teams within your group?
I joined out of UG, was placed with this team and I’ve been here for 3 years now.
Is it better? Varies I’d imagine. I know a senior PM who’s done 16 years running risk across MLP/citadel, never lost money as is probably a top 1% pod in his sector, people have worked under him and learnt a ton and become a pm at other shops in a handful of years out of banking…and he runs a team of 3 on probably around 1.5-1.8bn GMV.
AUM/head is very good but absolute scale is much lower than what truly scaled teams run, and so you see that reflected in infrastructure costs…but it’s still one of the best seats out there
What was sold to me on my team was the track record was very good, team scale helps because we have more data and extra help (yes we have central resources too, our team is ~20 people including non IPs) and that they don’t trade short term and have a good relationship with management. Clear development path for me, if not slightly slow burn, but the strategy relies on my understanding the companies very well, and worrying about earnings set ups/how the stocks trade maybe 2 years in. They can afford to invest in that timeline for me because of their track and process, of which team size is an output but increasingly an input.
I’d avoid small teams which are genuinely sub scale as your first seat if possible.
is this a certain commodities team? (the 50bn one)
I did my undergrad at a top school and earned an MBA from a target M7 b-school (Harvard)
I am joining one like this in the following months, so I can comment on the due diligence I did before accepting the offer. I would say it's top 5-10%. Average GMV in my case around 4-5bi. Feel free to ask more questions.
I'd say is a much better seat vs the average seat given it is usually a fully scaled team (>10 people) and tends to have much lower turnover. Comp of course depends on the SPM and your deal, but the consistent PNL means there is enough money to pay and invest in people, so that's something I guess. In my case, I had 2-3YOE in a SM previously, so comp is already set for Y1 (with some upside) and for Y2 totally PNL linked.
In terms of learning, fully scaled teams usually spend more time teaching the jrs, so much better vs the average seat I'd say. Chances of a blow-up are lower given there are usually multiple sectors, so thats helpful as well. That's all based on talking to the team and other people from MMs before joining.
One thing I will say is make sure there is a clear development path for you (what sector you will be covering, what is your future on the team, will you be responding to a sr analyst, a pm, a spm etc).
Thank you! Coming from an SM seat what made you want to join MM? Would you have joined any MM seat or were you only interested in a top team?
I had a very good SM seat, good comp, stable and also really liked the PM and senior analyst above me. So I wasn't really looking to leave, the MM PM insisted that I did the interviews because we already knew each other and it seemed like a good fit. In the end the decision of leaving was more of a way of accelerating my carreer and getting to a "senior" position sooner with formulaic pay in a very good team with long track record and tenured-PM. In my old SM I had to answer to a senior analyst and there was no visibility on me to have my own independence.
For sure I would not have joined any MM seat. The long track record, good PM and sector independence (sole analyst in the sector) made a huge difference. Comp upside also played a factor of course. The expected comp in a good year in the MM given the GMV the PM wants to have in my coverage on the formulaic pay is something I would only have 10y down the road in the SM.
All that to say that if you like the PM on the big pod, it could be an amazing opportunity. I hope I am right, let's see in a couple of years :)
I did my undergrad at a top school and earned an MBA from a target M7 b-school (Harvard)
Might be silly question but how many teams across the big 4 would you say are running $7-8bn+ GMV?
Nobody here will be able to give you an answer realistically. You’d be surprised how little some of the top PMs know/care about the size of other pods lol.
Only biz management will know this I imagine
I did my undergrad at a top school and earned an MBA from a target M7 b-school (Harvard)
This is so cool. Literally nobody cares and it doesn’t mean anything for your returns
Just keep below in minds, when you make the comparison, you really need to account for the turnover/blowup probability at C/M (not quite P). There isn't much learning if your pod blows up in 1~2 years. Although "average pod" doesn't blow up, avg t/o at some shops are 1yr, but obviously in WSO most ppl tend to belive they're the right tails.
with above said, go for C/M/P for sure, if the teams have long enough track records, stable team structure, appropriate risk styles of trading, that you think can survive for at least 3+ years.
From number-only standpoint, CONSISTENT 9-digit pnl > AVERAGE pods
Rerum incidunt aliquid incidunt. Autem praesentium saepe accusantium qui rerum. Labore facilis aut quo qui.
Velit et aut consequatur quidem at. Sed unde enim sint ut voluptas nihil omnis. Voluptatem fuga qui itaque. Id tenetur alias cupiditate modi tempora.
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...