Someone please explain to me how Tiger Global continues to get top talent
First off, the last thing I want people to think is that this is one of those monthly "Update on Tiger Global" or "Tiger Cub Comp" posts that you constantly see on here. I guess these are just some of my thoughts and like the title states, I do not understand why top talent continues going to that place.
It is worth mentioning, Tiger had a hell of a run. That fund is literally straight out of a Hollywood movie. Coleman was 36 years old and worth hundreds of millions. At one point, they had like $70b AUM and a lean amount of investment professionals. After 2020, everyone thought that place was the most prestigious and best hedge fund of all time. Founder made $3b in a year, partners were leaving and easily raising $1b+ for their own funds, and you even saw a 35 year old partner buy a $15m mansion in Malibu.
Of course, like almost every other tiger cub, this all came crashing down as rates began to rise and their strategy of just going long tech names became exposed. At one point, they were down almost 70% and their head of PE retired cuz why tf not (he's already made his money and bought a sick house in Palm Beach).
Fast forward to today, the tiger cubs are under intense scrutiny, as LP's do not see the point of investing in them when they can choose MM's and some MM spin-outs that provide uncorrelated returns with extremely low vol (L/s mkt neutral), which is a strategy that currently faces extremely high demand.
So this leads me to my question. This forum defines top talent as those who go through one of the "golden paths". There are a variety of these paths, but the most common ones include:
- BX analyst program
- 2 years at EVR/PJT RSSG/GS FIG or TMT --> 2 years at MF PE (KKR, APO, BX, etc)
Like I said, there are variations of this path but it is undeniable that the <1% of people that do one of the above paths are extremely talented and can pretty much land a seat at any HF that is hiring.
That being said, why the hell do these kids continue going to Tiger? Their strategy has been exposed, their investment process/analysis has been described on this forum as being something similar to that of a college freshman, and they have pretty much proven that they are unable to compete with the big 3 MM's. I do not get it. These kids could go anywhere, but they choose a shop that lost almost 70% of their AUM in less than a year. I refuse to believe Tiger is paying their investors well enough for them to willingly forego the potential to earn millions after 5-7 years at a pod shop. Yes, the career stability at the top 3 MM's is awful, but they have already built the resume to do almost anything else in finance if they get canned.
Why do these people continue to go to Tiger? Why are they not choosing the MM's, MM spinouts, or funds that take a unique approach and are extremely good at what they do (Elliott)?
I will definitely receive a lot of shit for this post, so please someone prove me wrong and tell me why I have no idea what I am talking about. All insights are appreciated, thanks fellas.
very well written post - following.
Put yourself in the shoes of a 23 year old (if you aren’t one). Chain of events that unfold
1. Discover WSO in college
2. IB and MF or bust
3. Life is miserable, peruse WSO endlessly in free time
4. Read about people doing IB to PE to HF. Damn Tiger sounds so sick and prestigious. Julian Robertson?? What if I become a Tiger grand grand grand grand cub! Rawr :) Damn everyone saying analysts at TGM gets PAID. Look at this guy that’s 30 and bought a 10m house and raised a yard after leaving. Damn fuck PE, I want to do private markets in public markets. Fuck mark to market, I’m a genius and a LT investor and everyone else are monkeys. My older friend’s friend gets paid 3 bucks a year for pitching FAANG. People just don’t get it. Market is so short sighted. They don’t realize that GOOGL is a high quality business trading at a reasonable multiple! The moat! It’s so under appreciated and I want to capitalize on this inefficiency. I deserve this. I’m GS APO summa cum laude. Pod boiz are losers and can’t get this job but I can.
5. Who cares about last few years, TGM going to bounce back. I get to work at one of the best funds, will get paid 7 figures and my downside is I can go anywhere I want after.
6. The real question is should I do TGM or Ruane Cuniff?
7. People shitting on these firms are morons. I’m smarter and more insightful and I want to do real deep research
Valid point but I will counter that by saying that isn't it highly unlikely, given that these people are very intelligent, that these guys don't take time to simply look at the numbers. How do they not see that Tiger almost lost everything in less than a year or look at their holdings and see names that your uncle gives to you for 15th birthday and think to themselves "huh, you know what, maybe these guys aren't that sharp afterall". What your saying makes sense. And I am a college student and to be completely honest with you, I am currently under the "GS/PJT/EVR --> MF PE or bust" mentality rn, but not for the reasons you mentioned. I am very interested in RX because it offers a unique skillset that is highly valued, and yes, my dream is to do 2 years at Apollo (despite how shit the culture is) because the complexity of their deals combined with their focus on credit seems like it makes for a great experience and teaches you to become a solid investor.
You will be absolutely shocked by how some people are very book smart but completely lack common sense and commerciality irl. That’s what separates people that can make money over time by those who can’t.
For the love of god, if you want to work in L/S equity, don't waste time doing RX and Apollo. RX and credit-like PE has zero translation to public markets investing. Zero. It's cool to have interests - go pick up Caesars Palace. Don't waste 4 years of your life as a junior doing shit like that when you could just work at a HF getting actual experience instead. If you actually do RX and Apollo, I promise you, in 4 years you'll look back and say holy shit I just wasted 4 years of my life and now I'm starting a brand new life (L/S), where NOTHING I did in the past 4 years has ANY relevance.
I may or may not have worked at Apollo before HF. Dont.
Rawr :)
😂🤣
had to bring in ruane cuniff - hats off to you!
We still calling IB -> PE top talent?
Pendulum doth swing towards HF out of undergrad I fear.
There is also the consideration that some people will intrinsically prefer the SM setup/strategy to the pod shop grind.
I think so. I've been beyond impressed with the graduates in Citadel's program. A few of my analyst friends over there have associates that joined straight from undergrad - the one's I've met are excellent.
I'd find it very, very hard to believe that the historical top talent definition (IB -> XYZ MF) is better than those starting at HFs out of school.
Meh, I think as a grouping we should be included in the definition of “top talent” at least out of school.
Probably wouldn’t say it’s just those breaking into pod shops out of school though.
Setting everything aside, what if I just don’t want to work at a pod take views on all the names in my coverage universe every quarter and go to sell side conferences every other week? Should I just curl up into a ball and give up on investing b/c SM HFs don’t know anything?
I did the IB -> MF -> SM -> MM path
The answer is that these kids are extremely risk-averse, type-A people. They see WSO, LinkedIn, upperclassmen in their Wharton club doing the exact same path and assume that must be the best path. They see these kids jumping from hoop to hoop and figure they should pursue the same path. Many of them aren't even interested in investing, and many don't have the skills/personality to last in public markets. They're just obsessed with prestige and think they need to go from IB -> MF -> HF. They don't have a clue what the best seats in the industry are, and just assume it must be TGM or Lone Pine because some tool from Apollo exited there. Some of them are insane (I do get inbound from a lot of them). For example, they put significantly more weight on their friend joining Coatue than the myriad of data points suggesting maybe that's not the best seat.
This was fine in the 2010s when the handful of SMs were the best seats. But I feel bad for this post-2022 cohort of 2+2+2 kids. These kids are stubborn (don't get me wrong I was too), obsessed with prestige, and have zero idea what the best seats are in this biz/what they're ACTUALLY solving for in a public markets career. They're just hopping from seat to seat because they don't know any better. It's sad because despite these seats no longer being even close to the top/desirable, there's a handful of kids that are still going to recruit for them, who will inevitably learn the hard way and end up at the pods anyway in 5-10 years. It will take 5+ MF associates to join top pods / pod-spinouts for prestige kids to change their minds. They have no opinions of their own, they read posts on this forum from 2019/2020 SM heyday, and assume they should just continue down the same route, with zero consideration/thought around the fact that there has a been a pretty significant change in which seats are most desirable. I think people need to realize tiger cubs won't train you, will pay you decently well but put a ceiling on your pay, and force you to pick up bad habits. This is not a 5 year career. If you're pursuing a career in public markets, you're goal should be to be a PM / in a risk-taking seat where you can have uncapepd upside.
Watch in 5 years, you see majority of these IB->MF kids recruiting for the top pods out of PE. It is starting btw...
Secondarily, I have an issue with "This forum defines top talent as those who go through one of the "golden paths". Maybe other HF folks who worked in PE previously can also chime in, but I found 75% of the people I've met who did IB->PE->HF to be insufferable, prestige obsessed, and just untalented. I think you're conflating kids who interview well with banks/PE firms ("shmoozers") with kids who have raw intellectual horsepower / traits that can't be taught in an investment banking interview guide.
Good post, but now you have a bunch of MM associates that shit on people that have built legit careers / businesses just b/c they think their investing style is the only way to invest. All of these things cycle and I’m sure this market neutral pod shop obsession will fade too (as with all things as capital flows in and out of certain strategies).
Idk man I feel like we’re not considering that people simply prefer other styles of investing. It’s not that crazy to believe that people pursue what they are genuinely interested in rather than just chasing whatever is hot at the moment
💯 We spoke about this exact dynamic in office today. Absolutely real
Because its easier to follow a path laid out for you with golden bricks for those with “prestigious backgrounds” and justify their existence than having real independent thoughts and pursuing something they would actually enjoy / gain purpose from. Spend enough time on this forum and realize how strong the herd mentality is in this industry.
The issue is the trend of tiger cub et al being the best seats where you accrue golden bricks is starting to unravel, so there's a bolus of BX/APO kids slated to feel the brunt end of herd mentality over the next few years without reaping the benefits that accrued to those same BX/APO exits that are 5-10+ years older than them
I’ll take the other side of this as someone who’s been in the industry:
My view is that as a junior person joining any of these big SM platform is generally a good place to start a career in publics (barring edge cases where your boss is an idiot or you get a spot at the best pod at Citadel). It de risks you from a comp and brand perspective. Alternatively once you’re more senior then having a sleeve at a Citadel starts to make a ton of sense. But if you’re an entry level person life at the pods is very unforgiving and your options if you’re canned are limited outside of other pods
I think we’re a few more BBG articles of PMs getting guaranteed $150m or Citadel analysts making $12m from the recruiting pendulum officially swinging from top tiger cub to top pod.
The people on this path just want to go wherever they can make the most. There are 2 types of people: those who sign a SM offer for maybe an extra $200-300k for years 1-3, but then get capped out in the $1-3m range (optimize for near term pay at expense of long term), and those who recruit well, maybe make 70% of what TGM would pay a 25 year old, and find a seat where they can work their way into a risk-taking seat with no $ ceiling (optimize for long term pay at slight expense of near term)
You tell me which is more compelling. And no, it’s no longer $1m minimum…
Sir I think we have a Citadel TMT friend in common re: 12 :)
The example I had in mind was actually a consumer guy but I think I know who you’re referring too as well ha ha
I’m 1000% positive on the $1m minimum.
For which funds specifically. I’m pretty sure Viking/D1 is 500-750k
Assuming Tiger pays $1mm would somone entering a pod at the same level of experience really make 70% of that (~$700k)? That seems high?
A broader point is this. The industry has evolved quite a bit in the last 10-15 years. I say that as someone who also did IB PE HF (tiger cub if that matters). My main advice to prospectives is this. Please think about why you want to do this career. The reality is public markets is not an easy cushy career. Don’t get me wrong, it really is a wonderful career for the right person. But the problem is it’s not for everyone and the margin of safety on the decision is less than in other financial services industries. And often I think people do it with the wrong assumptions (I like investing, don’t like deal processes, can work at a SM and clip 7-8 figures easily)
If you just want to invest and buy and hold stocks, there’s nothing wrong with that. Think about whether you can scratch this itch through your PA or if you really need to do it as a career.
I personally think if you do this career, you need to have the long term ambition of being a risk taker. That doesn’t mean you have to be a HF founder. The reality is not everyone has what it takes to be the top dog. But then where does that leave you? If you want to be a sector head at a scaled SM and have trading authority, realize that those seats are extremely rare these days. And by the time you get there in your career, probably even less so.
if you really still want to just be in a role where you research and pick stocks and write memos and pitch them to someone else, and do that for the next 20 years, then you are really better off going to a scaled LO. a HF is fine for a few years to learn and get some training but don’t be under the delusion that you can ride your career out there and get the upside you think you deserve
-
-
the only answer is herd mentality / stupidity. It’s going to change in the next few years
10 years ago, the seats that people fantasized about are not great seats today…or out of business…
-
It's because Tiger offers exceptionally strong compensation in the form of salary + bonus (partly because there is no carry to speak of).
If this thread and the 10 other threads below it aren’t an indication that the consensus view today is that MM is the end it be all of all finance careers, I don’t know what is. Literally the majority of WSO for the last 2 years has been shitting on SM HF so I don’t know why you all think it’s the exact opposite lol. Maybe you guys aren’t seeing the 19th BB article on the guarantees that BAM is giving out and how the tiger cubs are dead
"Of course, like almost every other tiger cub, this all came crashing down as rates began to rise and their strategy of just going long tech names became exposed."
I think the reality that people aren’t addressing is you get an incredibly valuable name (whether they are actually good or not) that is almost looked at as equivalent to another formal training, similar to IB, while getting paid just as well people to take the leap to an mm sooner. Some people want to jump into the higher risk/reward end goal sooner, some people would rather get paid the same or more and have a longer amount of time on a formal well protected and well respected path. Both options make sense for difference personalities.
Great discussion here.
I did a similar path (IB --> MF PE --> "Prestigious" SM HF). One thing people haven't mentioned here is the lifestyle at pods is notably worse than the right SM seats.
I'm in my late 20s pulling high 6 / low 7 figures and I average probably 50 hours a week with great flexibility. I won't make 8 figures maybe ever, and I won't ever have "fuck you" money. But I don't need that - I find the job rewarding and fun, I work with people I like, have a great family life, and have time to pursue my hobbies outside of work.
Not everyone is solving for becoming a risk taker early on and maximizing $.
The point is - I’m not here to rehash the MM vs SM debate. Im not here to endorse the pod life. I’m not saying going to a tiger cub is a bad job. In fact, it’s a great job. I understand that people have different investing style preferences and I’m not here to be prescriptive on which is better. My point is that, as someone who is at least a decade older than you and has been around the block, has done the Tiger cub thing etc, is (1) there’s a difference between good for now vs a long term career and (2) because of that, I don’t think people should romanticize the SM life into something it’s not. Yes it’s fine for a few years but the mistake is to think it’s the long term move. This is relevant because you don’t HAVE to think about this for IB/PE/LO. You can ride those careers and there’s a defined path to move up. At a SM, yes it’s a fun job for a few years but don’t mistake a good job for a few years vs an actual career outcome. If you lose sight of that, you will regret it.
p.s. yes I know there are exceptions - if you are the tail outcome this doesn’t apply to you. If you are not, then you are being incredibly short sighted if you think otherwise. I’ve been doing publics for over 10 years and have seen many friends careers play out. So you can huff and puff all you want about how much you like your SM experience, but feel free to bookmark this and prove me wrong in 10 years. You think it’s cool to work 50 hrs a week and make 700k-1m a year right now as a 27 year old and that money isn’t the end all be all of, which in theory all sounds nice. But if have a personality type like the middle of the bell curve of finance professionals, give it another 5-10 years and let’s see how happy you are with where you’re at
+SB'd and thanks for the insightful response - I'll give this much more thought.
Couple questions:
1. Is it fair to argue pods set someone up for a long-term career? My impression is the "median" pod outcome is the same, if not worse, than that of SMs - that being you end up in your late 30s without transferable skills, and you're too expensive to hire... so you hop around as a lifer analyst.
2. Do you have anecdotes of friends clipping high 6 figures with a good lifestyle that are unsatisfied? This is still more money than 99% of people will see in their lifetimes. My naive framework was if I am pushed out in my mid-30s, I can end up at a LO / family office set up, make decent money and have a great lifestyle. Doesn't seem like a bad life - but to your point, I could be overly naive here.
Would also say that sounds great but makes it incredibly hard to have a family/kids on that trajectory in NYC. Many on that path move out of NY in 30s for that reason
The public markets really has a way of attracting people that believe anyone who thinks differently than them is a moron…
Careers in PE, big SMs, MMs, LOs, and everything else makes sense for different people solving for different things.
After 2+2+2 I have an offer to go back to PE as a VP making $5-600k cash plus a $4-5M carry grant with a steady up and to the right trajectory. There may be bumps, a bad fund, etc. but overall I have reached the point where I have de-risked my career.
But I want to try the public markets. I want to do so without blowing up the career floor I’ve worked my ass off for. I want to do interesting investing work with potential for cash comp quicker than PE with a reasonably good WLB.
Tiger is still offering 7 figure minimum guarantees. I know this for a fact. I also know of at least two other funds doing the same. I know of many more offering high 000s with a steady up and to the right trajectory for 2-4 years. You can argue all you want about this persons worth and value-add, etc. but as with investing this is about what is and will be, not what should be. These firms value my experience and pay me for it.
Less so Tiger, but others (like a D1 thread I saw the other day) are back close to their HWM. The upside case is the fund rips, my picks do well, and I get paid a ton. The partners at my PE firm help me pick a HF who their friends tell them is a good and fair boss.
The downside case is I clip a very good paycheck for a few years and it doesn’t work out for whatever reason. Maybe another HF will pay me for the brand name. Maybe I’ll get a MM guarantee. Maybe not. Maybe a big LO will take me on (look at how many ex-cubs are running money at capital group, etc.). Or, if I want to go back to eating deal shit to get my nut, my PE firm would bring me back on as a VP. I’ve seen multiple peers go 2+2+2, try a big SM and come back as a VP 2. My former bosses say oh Chad is great you probably learned a lot and so I even get credit for one of the two years. I talk with my former boss about it as I evaluate funds while at school. Argue Chase is a moron if you want, but all that matters if I want to make this move is what the PE partner thinks.
No other type of public markets seat allows me to do all of this. If I join a MM I’ve seen friends get 400-600 guarantees for one year and then you can get axed or donut bonus. My former PE boss would not bring me back after this. The other exits I mentioned are lower probability as well.
You can call this not betting on myself or a non “risk-taker” decision. I’d argue it’s just the right choice. The public markets are unique in that you don’t know how good you will be until you do it. You can be good at the job and put up bad numbers for a year (or more). If I had a guarantee that I would be someone that puts up #s every year, I’d go to a MM and max my odds of making 8 figs annually.
But with the options I have it’s simply irrational to jump to a MM over a true scaled SM. If you look at my forward career path options as if they were stocks, this is simply the better payoff based on my personal criteria.
Maybe the underrated aspect of this post is that everyone that goes to a SM HF gets the benefit of the doubt that they are learning a similar style of investing as PE (whether it’s true or not) so the carer is more de-risked. All the partners in PE have a preconceived notion of Citadel, Point72, Millennium, etc. as short-term investing. I would argue a lot of the people in the latter seats have just as good of investing intuition knowledge, but that’s just not how the world works….
PE-style investing in Publics just doesn't really work
You can look at LO funds to see that's the case
I wouldn't necessarily call it investing intuition persay, it's just a different game that's being played
I would argue investing intuition is overrated in PE as well, you make outsized returns by being contrarian, but that's not how the business model works anymore given the financialization of the space and the number of players
Can I DM you
There are literally none except for a couple of guys who moved from pretty senior positions? The most common HF -> AM is MM -> Welly L/S lmao.
"The upside case is the fund rips, my picks do well, and I get paid a ton.". No these funds don't pay you formualically like a partner. They cap you out. That's half the argument being made in this thread, scroll up
Just wanted to say it's awesome that after 18 years running WSO I can still learn to something by reading threads like this. Thanks for the really interesting discussion.
Many people don't do their own research and buy into the idea of 'safety' from the brand name of TGM/similar funds. Have a look on Linkedin and see for yourself - I actually think a higher % of juniors leaving tiger cubs end up in no-name funds/out of the industry than juniors leaving MMs. And the median tenure between the two is like a 1 year difference tops.
Don't want to dox anyone but TGM itself is a great example of this: have a look yourself where juniors (call it 5y publics experience) who have left that fund recently have gone on to.
There’s a lot of weird cope in these comments. The answer is simple, the AUM per head is still quite high, TGM still gets a performance fee (reduced) on the way back up to HWM, it is prestigious (this thread wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t) & some care about that, and it still pays really well b/c there’s so much money to go around.
I’ve never seen anyone go from TGM back into MF PE so what a PE partner thinks is a stretch.
High AUM per head doesn’t always translate into high pay, and TGM put a pay cup on their senior analysts like the other tiger cubs. Also I heard they don’t give $1m guarantees anymore (more like mid/high 6 figures)
Not sure about the other cubs but I don't think TGM puts any cap on Sr analyst pay. In their heydays the good Sr analysts routinely made 20-30m there from what I've heard.
The fact that TGM is still below HWM in this environment really makes me question the long-term durability of the platform
What % below?
Will take a stab at one of the above posts discussing comp and Tiger paying out massive guarantees. Fwiw there are pretty insane guarantees going around almost ANYWHERE but I'll focus solely on pods... you can also get a 7-figure guarantee as a more seasoned analyst at any MM.... but to address the pt specifically obviously being 26 and getting offered 7-figures is great... and TGM probably one of the few places that can MAYBE still do that....
I think the downside case anywhere and i've written about this at length is job security... Third Pt for example will never get back above HWM, Tiger likely won't, and their ability to raise capital has stalled.... I mean the amount of groupthink that goes into this debate of SM vs. MM and what have you entirely depends on the year. 2021 D1 was the best fund to work for, 2022 no one would touch it, and 2023/2024 perhaps we're thinking it's a good spot to work again... all AFTER the fact around their returns... rather than trying to sniff out who are good investors, good comp generally, and where can I build a career? I don't want to opine on the SM vs. MM debate but as someone in a smaller SM role I just enjoy my day to day, feel well paid, and our returns are great.... that's really all I need to be solving for and eventually if/when I do well enough I'd love to go become a sr analyst/PM somewhere that I can manage risk.... simply put.
I don't think it's a guarantee that TGM will always exist or even exist for another 5+ years.... not a perfect comparison but Melvin also paid extraordinarily well and had great returns.... people forget that existential risk is probably higher, although this is better appreciated at MMs b/c the threshold for underperformance is tighter vs. Tiger/D1 having enormous capital bases with extensive lock-ups ensuring they can pay the bulk of folks that do stick around...
The allure of Tiger is a myth imo -- no hedge fund incinerating > 50% of your capital should probably exist to raise another $ of capital... that's an insane amount of risk an LP has to stomach (it's almost inverse Taleb who loses $ every yr until a black swan event).... I'll echo the above posters who point out that the bulk of their hires are guys who followed the path laid before them... not b/c they have some real passion for public mkts... it is increasingly evident if you meet most of these analysts. Not saying they aren't smart or intelligent or capable, but it's just an epidemic that ppl get into these seats for the wrong reasons...
The only additional pushback I'd offer is that to make real real $ at these scaled SMs you need to be vying to make partner/snr MD or whatever the titles might be... Viking has a handful of PM/sector head type folks... those guys are the next in-line to be CIO and are true decision makers. They're the ones making well north of 7-figs.... but again as noted in other posts if Tiger employs 30-40 investment professionals they likely have 5-7 true partner/decision maker type folks... this leaves 20-25 analysts or more all vying for those seats and seldom will an analyst stick around for 10-15 yrs especially if they're risking not getting paid the $ that everyone hears about at Tiger, or God forbid they have another atrocious yr, can't raise capital, or both... idea being there's a true limited upward mobility that exists regardless of how good your stock picking is or how well the fund ends up doing... just not enough seats at SMs to funnel the talent upwards and pay them the $ everyone thinks of
I'll end on the note that prestige is truly irrelevant... Chase was down 60% and has the MOST prestigious resume in public mkts... Plotkin did as well. The LT Capital guys did too. It truly does not matter and there's a reason ppl seem to like MMs or push for them, they are entirely meritocratic and your pay is a formula. It does not matter if you went to Hofstra or Harvard if you are making PNL you will get paid. The idea that brand name matters quite literally only bridges you back to PE where it may matter more... your returns and performance matter entirely and those in the long-run will dictate where people end up on the tails of the comp distribution curve. Sure you can try and clip your % of the mgmt fee at Tiger/D1 but until you are well above HWM and making > 30% per yr it's not going to be like that... point being that top talent in public mkts /= prestige or IB + BX PE
What are the places that still have large guarantees for said 26 y/o analysts? D1 / Viking / Tiger / Coatue?
Frankly not a clue... my bet would be a handful of those are all north of $500k guaranteed. Not too dis-similar from the C/M/Baly guarantees I've heard from analysts and then for sr analysts it's likely > $1m
brother had to bring in hofstra cause bobby axelrod
1. It's still a better r/r for a 26 year old. Can always find a pod seat, so relative scarcity is pretty different.
2. they have a modified HWM, so are making carry. economics are just fine given relatively small team.
100% this. People on this site are so overindexed to this MM rules all argument that it ignores a bunch of practical considerations. These are hard seats to come by and despite everything their name is still very strong and will open up a lot of doors, whether that’s at a pod, LO, other SMs, or even VC/growth.
Have still yet to see any candidate get an offer from a place like this and choose to go to a pod across all nearly all levels of seniority. Maybe they exist but I don’t know any.
there's so much cope from people working at marginal pods throwing monkey shit lol
drink the cool aid i guess
citadel is a better product for LPs = / = it's a better seat for you.
imo, much more career stability + responsibility + better hours + better perks + capital managed per head + better exit opportunities, with a more tight-knit culture from a smaller team being a cherry on top, in comparison to mm hf pod shops.
most of tiger's investment team comes from the sweatiest groups at eb/bb + multiple years at mfpe (apollo being a popular prerequisite shop), and at this point in their careers, they likely want to have better hours, while continuing to have a vibrant and dynamic career, and to prepare the next generations to do the same on their own terms.
thanks to their time being put through the absolute wringer in the toughest groups of eb/bb + mfpe, they are usually well-trained and bred to be high performers.
furthermore, the low turnover rate at tiger will definitely mean that you can make good on the skills built from a long career while being able to enjoy the little things in life, such as friends and family, in a way that mm hf pod shops can never allow.
tiger aside, the best tiger cubs are lone pine, maverick (stocks only, but you can go straight to here from ibd if you are top bucket in a top group), and d1, among others, with an up-and-coming one being alua (former viking cio and a former lone pine md, who have both trained some of the top SM HF analysts on the street today). viking and coatue have good returns, but turnover is v high, with coatue's culture needing no intro on this site and viking not being the same since purcell and sundheim left to start alua and d1.
all the best with everything and i hope you have an exciting and fun career that you can be proud of!
Can you elaborate (on a relative basis) what greater responsibility you have; how your hours are better; what better perks you get, and most importantly, how capital managed per head is relevant to you specifically? Also if you don't mind me asking, what better exit opportunities do you have?
For our benefit, let's put assertions formed from the outside aside and lets act with similar diligence like we do on the job and formulate our views with specifics.
People are not mentioning that is often the kids who come from poorer backgrounds and make it into top schools that follow the same conservative 2+2 path. They're risk averse for a good reason and when they see chance to make 7 figs they'll do anything ot make it there. Also applies for the other end of the spectrum with the super rich who have no agency.
This is an unbelievably retarded take.
Why’s that? If you know you have a safety net it’s so much easier to take a risk and go to a pod to shoot your shot.
If you don’t have a safety net, better to follow a predefined path
I haven’t read this whole thread, but some 25 year old coming from KKR or Blackstone is not “top talent.”
Any idea what they pay now? Friend getting pinged at kkr/bx about opportunity.
Depends if publics or privates team. Can DM if preferred
Necessitatibus sint soluta veniam optio cum. In ut voluptatem tempore asperiores vero est incidunt soluta. Quibusdam hic omnis eligendi quia officiis. Explicabo eligendi quia enim sunt saepe.
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...
Quod nihil dicta porro qui quis. Modi aperiam aut consectetur ea. Adipisci voluptatem qui sit dolorum aut aut fugit. Dolores sequi modi mollitia assumenda iure quibusdam itaque aut. Rem ut et animi quibusdam laudantium explicabo eaque. Aut amet accusamus praesentium occaecati non omnis.
Non quaerat iure at officia quasi quia amet. Odio tempora doloremque similique soluta voluptatem. Et hic facilis inventore harum. Odit hic quod voluptatem tempore amet asperiores. Doloribus porro ducimus in expedita.
Id qui impedit rerum maxime laboriosam. Qui repellat fugit voluptatibus magnam perspiciatis debitis tenetur. Quaerat praesentium voluptatem aspernatur eum beatae. Fuga iure debitis sed ducimus ut totam doloremque.
Aliquam ipsa quis qui tenetur perspiciatis. Vel quis quia veritatis repellat necessitatibus. Ullam iure iure dolores harum reprehenderit. Voluptate ea nulla est reprehenderit consequatur unde odit dolore. Quidem dolorem sit maxime necessitatibus illo id et. Vel cum maxime nam explicabo autem aspernatur. Officia vel et aperiam eos.
Adipisci sit praesentium qui quam eos quam. Distinctio maxime et nam aliquam. Sunt ut ea vero corrupti. Sunt nobis beatae sint ut aliquid a.
Commodi tempore eos explicabo quibusdam sequi ea magnam. Vel quia vel quibusdam harum. Recusandae voluptas eveniet ut et rerum. Ut et fuga porro sed accusantium. Nam sint et quas neque doloribus. Quia magni amet id autem possimus.
Tenetur incidunt ea sint sapiente. Eos soluta et rem exercitationem. Illum eligendi atque repellat non amet ea quo id. Omnis enim amet mollitia ut quam distinctio.