Q&A: PE Associate to MBA to HF Analyst
Hi all - I'm a 1st year analyst at a concentrated, $1bn+ HF.
My background:
- Semi-target = > MM IB = > MM, Nichey PE (~$1bn AUM) => Top non-H/S MBA (think Columbia, Chicago, Wharton, NYU) => $1bn+ concentrated HF
- Throughout my career, I have doubled down on sector expertise in an industry that is both growing yet difficult for generalists to invest in (think HC services, software, fintech)
Questions I can answer:
- Hour and lifestyle at a concentrated HF
- General compensation at each level (with IB being 2015-2017 timeframe, PE being 2017-2020 timeframe) including my rough trajectory, as communicated to me by my bosses and told to me by older HF analysts in similar seats
- Why I think I've been successful (*cringe*)
- How MBA HF recruiting works
- What story I told during PE and HF recruiting that seemed to resonate
- Why I think concentrated HF is a good career bet to make and general outlook on the active investment management industry
Questions I won't answer:
- Anything more specific about my background
- Anything more specific about my fund
- Anything highly specific about my investment process
First of all, thanks for doing this. Would love to hear more about how the lifestyle is at your current fund, and how it compares to your time in PE. Also curious about your decision to pursue an MBA instead of direct to HF after PE - any insight on your thought process would be greatly appreciated.
Lifetsyle:
MBA Decision:
Thanks for doing this. I will just ask this then:
Why you think concentrated HF is a good career bet to make and what's your general outlook on the active investment management industry?
Thanks.
My take is that money is generally flowing into the antipodes of the investing world i.e. low cost, completely passive on one end and niche, unscalable strategies on the other. The guys in the middle (mutual funds charging 70bps to underperform their index 8 out of 10 years, massive long short funds that charge 2 & 20 for levered beta with 30%+ of their long book comprising FAMGA stocks) seem to be offering products that don't have a place in the allocations of LPs, whose decisions are increasingly based on modern portfolio theory. We've had LPs apply disaggregations of our returns backing into our alpha based on Citadel-like multi factor risk models, to prove that we can actually persistently generate alpha. The limited scalability of funds like mine means that we actually can produce alpha in our little corner of the market year in year out. Funds like Tiger and Coatue would not look good under such a lens.
In addition, funds like mine that take $100mm+ positions in mid cap and relatively illiquid large caps will do well because we're not actually dependent on any net new capital. We'd rather just keep the investor base we have while compounding our assets. Our investor base has been with us for decades. The redemption rates we see are far, far less than fundraising dependent long/shorts and inertia dependent mutual funds.
how old r u and how much do you make?
Also, what is the square footage of your home? lol