Path to wealth.
In the HF space, we know that there are different types of firms, but what is the Path To Wealth?
Is it joining a sub 100 million or small single manager fund as an analyst and then become a PM in a few years and get carry for your ideas? Or should one join big shops (Tiger, Baupost, Elliott) and slowly grind for years to make it onto the management side?
What is the way to riches? Personal stories and anecdotes welcome!
2nd option (large-scale fund) is much more probable, lower risk, and richer in exit opps (easier to lateralling given fund reputation). That`s why it`s so difficult to get in those funds.
Especially if the comparison is vs. you *joining* and not *founding* a small HF, which means your cut has a natural limit even if you print a lot of alpha (say 20-30% earned carry at best case top 0.000centile.it usually it is 10-15% for a deputy PM / right arm to the founder that does well).
Higher risk-adjusted returns in this biz IMO is joining a $2B+ renowned fund at a good seat, lean enough team, doing well, getting your LSD-HSD carry for 10-15yrs and THEN trying to home run with your OWN fund.
Agreed. Tough path, never gonna be smooth, and there’s a million other guys who want to take it, but this seems to be the best way risk-adjusted as you mentioned.
So you would say that joining this new HFs with only the co-founders is too much risk with little upside? Even if the guys founding it are actually really outperformers in their expertise?
What does LSD-HSD mean in this context?
Low single digit, high single digit
Main ways I've seen outside having your own fund:
1 - MM PM: 15-30% carry on $500mm-$2B avg. AUM per PM
2 - SM HF/LO senior analyst with carry or sub PM: 2-10pp carry on fees @ $1bn+ AUMs
3 - PM @ FO: 5-25pp carry on low opex AUMs fees
4 - Senior analyst @ Large LO (T Rowe, Wellington etc.): low-risk $500k-$3MM comp over many years (as opposed to MM analyst comp in general which is subject to high turnover)
does a quantitative background help for any of these?
what's FO?
Family office
Even a 15% carry on 750mm is insane, unless you're talking about the very senior PMs/partners.
Meant carry from the fees, not AUM itself
I've the same doubts as you do. I'm working in a BB IBD role, and have the possibility to join a HF startup (c.$200m from both the PM's + 1 inst investor) where I'd be the 1st analyst hired (currently only 2 PMs + back-office). I think given that I've 0 previous experience in HF (they focus on Fixed-Income, but on a macro level), I think I've 0 possibilities to go to a Soros or any other big name in the HF world, without getting prior experience in these funds. Also, there is a lot of upside of joining early in a new fund with previous outstanding track record of the PMs. But you will miss the "prestige" or brand signaling of not being in a Citadel/Tiger/ etc.
Would love some thoughts!
Pros/Cons of joining a HF Startup:
Pros: Great learning curve, ability to gain equity/become PM in +5 years (if good?), becoming the first analyst means being able to negotiate pay and possible carry based on performance (?), long-term bet of being a fund that could increase AuMs by a lot (they expect to raise c.$1Bn in the next years), and thus having the possibility of actually creating long-term wealth in the fund, and also being able to pitch trade ideas more sooner rather than later (if you are good). Culture seems to be good also, they are very nice and humble people (at the moment)
Cons: No signaling/brand (even if PM's had previous good track record in the prior HF stint), fund might blow up easily (for any reason), investor might pull out in 2-3 years (?), other things I might be missing?
Bump
How hard is it to start your own fund and how do you show a track record if you've only been an analyst for a year? Would you have to reach PM or at least senior analyst to gain credibility?
Reach PM
This is based on my experience over the past decade in finance, others may have different views but this path usually ends up as a pretty safe way to make a ton of money.
I'd stay away from <$250MM funds without locked up structures. The economics aren't there and there is too much risk with that small size (unless the founders are really good at what they do and have locked up 5+ year private equity style capital). Bigger funds = bigger payouts, it's that simple as there is more money to go around.
Here are more resources I've written over the years if interested on building a net worth in finance:
TLDR - investment banking to buyside at a decent size/good fund with managers who are very hard working and good at what they do. Stay there for a long time, build a reputation, get more % of the P&L/carry over time. Most quit after 2-4 years on the buyside. The real money comes over time in stages, not every year.
Sit alias consectetur iure qui suscipit doloremque. Quasi molestias voluptas possimus et perferendis. Vero et et atque eius qui debitis sit.
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...