The Culture of Bridgewater

More than once, I have read the culture of Bridgewater Associates as being "unusual", or the like, but always without explanation. My question is, what exactly is "unusual" about the culture of Bridgewater? Ray Dalio would seem in many ways to be a type of guy similar in background to me: blue collar "ethnic" American, and so assumedly familiar in type to myself. I have read his "Principles, etc.", and not found anything that I would describe as extreme or "unusual" therein. What, then, could be so "unusual" about a company that must surely reflect his personality and ethos? Has anybody on here worked there, and so can explain this?

 

not sure either.. always kept reading about their cultish culture, and how the turnover is bad. went for an interview for a first round with HR, did not find anything too weird except that the questions tended to get a bit deeper? like they probed me into why this why that, what do you feel about this/that...just felt like they tryna screen you for bs

 

I've gleaned from another thread, that what is described as "radical transparency" is one of the valued characteristics of Bridgewater, so that must be part of the distinction. Not sure how such "transparency" might be expressed in other than corporate correspondence, though. I also read that there are rumours about group interviews, possibly antagonistic. This seems an extraordinarily unprofessional activity for such a large and well established fund to be engaging in. Any thoughts on this?

 

I watched the first part of his youtube video that came out last week, and it was clear he's a china shill. I'd love to know whats going on in the background regarding his relationships / ties with china.

Is it worth listening to that podcast at all? Lex is great, I even though the Zuckerberg interview was decent. Zuck seemed human in it, came across as a tech nerd with that just wants to build cool shit but is tasked with revolution/transformation of the human race lol.

Go all the way
 

Had a friend who worked there. Basically just super cutthroat (that transparency point someone else mentioned can be very toxic if you’re under performing). Tons of pressure and the like. For example, all meetings of any kind are recorded, so some senior person might randomly choose to listen to something you thought was just you and another junior person to evaluate you.

 

Spoke to a guy there within the last year. In regard to the "transparency" that people talk about, they have meetings to assess performance, where individuals including those higher up are given feedback from others on their team. So a younger analyst could be giving feedback to someone higher up. They would apparently not accept just positive feedback, and so juniors would have to give someone higher up a lot of criticism. So they basically wanted feedback to be 50/50 positive to negative

 

Very controversial culture.  Most of the people that like it (or are just fine with it) are the ones who have very thick skin and would probably have gone into brokerages or trading otherwise.  Many hate it because they've always won in life (top uni, top bank, etc) and everyone has always told them how great they are.   

While I dislike artificiality, Bridgewater is another extreme.

 

I had a boss who had spent a lot of time with Dalio and was even on Bridgewater’s advisory council for a while. Anyways, he decided to bring some of Dalio’s principles to his fund and one of those was radical transparency. While it wasn’t nearly as stark as the way that Bridgewater practices it, it was a more open (read: critical) environment than most jobs. There were real examples of success but most of the time it was just an excuse for someone to be an asshole towards somebody else.

 
Most Helpful

I worked there for many years, but grew to hate the culture and left for that reason. Some examples of things Bridgewater did that most would find inconceivable at my current firm: 

  • Annual performance reviews are public. Everyone across the firm is assigned a score of 1-5 for their bonus, and a score of 1-10 to determine their future trajectory in the firm. Each of these scores throughout each person's history in the firm are public, and anyone can see how everyone performed every year, along with comments by their manager (it is also there for all of posterity to view).    
  • New analysts are put through a class in their first year, and are evaluated via a series of exams. After the first year, analysts are regularly tested to make sure their investment knowledge is at the bar. The scores each person receives on each exam is public. They used to publish these ordered by rank from top to bottom. They made a big deal about changing their policy to release the scores spreadsheet ordered alphabetically by name instead of by rank. The first thing everyone does is sort by rank anyways, and it creates a toxic level of competition, where most are motivated by the fear of being shamed for being at the bottom. 
  • A majority of the important meetings are recorded (unless they are "secure"), and are put in a database of videos that anyone in the firm can scroll through. Particularly embarrassing moments where someone slips up and says something incorrect is often turned into a "case", that everyone in the firm is required to view and learn from.  
  • Every once in a while, at least a few times a year, someone commits a serious offense. This includes lying about anything, including what many would consider to be small white lies, violating one of the firm's security policies, or behaving in a way inconsistent with the firm's principles. This results in a "town hall", where the full investment community meets to talk about the person and discuss their actions. Everyone from the CIOs to new analysts attend and participate in the judgement. Oftentimes in the town hall, we are shown tapes of the person being interrogated (I do not use the word interrogation lightly - some of the people conducting said interrogations are ex-military / intelligence officers) and the community collectively assigns a sentence to the person. The typical sentence is the person is fired, or loses the majority of their compensation for at least a year. In the Scarlett Letter sense, the person being judged is required to be present throughout the town hall (if they haven't already been fired), and the community judges if they sound remorseful enough (many sobbing apologies are seen to be as "faking it" and the person is fired anyways). 

Through my time at Bridgewater, I really came to value the rights of privacy and individual liberty that many in this country take for granted, an appreciation that is hard to garner when you haven't lived in a place that is the exact opposite. At times, I felt Ray used money to create an authoritarian regime inside of America, where the only way to get your rights back was to leave the paycheck behind. I don't mean for this to be a bash fest on Bridgewater, there is plenty that is great about the firm and I am a fan of their approach to investing (which is what kept me there for so long). But it should be made crystal clear the principles are not for everyone, and only true believers of a regime like that will have a good time there.

 

at the bar

Yup, you definitely worked there haha.

Only spent a summer at the firm but would second everything said -- it's a pretty suffocating environment to be in if you don't 100% buy into the culture of the firm.

 
[Comment removed by mod team]
 

I worked there for many years, but grew to hate the culture and left for that reason. Some examples of things Bridgewater did that most would find inconceivable at my current firm: 

  • Annual performance reviews are public. Everyone across the firm is assigned a score of 1-5 for their bonus, and a score of 1-10 to determine their future trajectory in the firm. Each of these scores throughout each person's history in the firm are public, and anyone can see how everyone performed every year, along with comments by their manager (it is also there for all of posterity to view).    
  • New analysts are put through a class in their first year, and are evaluated via a series of exams. After the first year, analysts are regularly tested to make sure their investment knowledge is at the bar. The scores each person receives on each exam is public. They used to publish these ordered by rank from top to bottom. They made a big deal about changing their policy to release the scores spreadsheet ordered alphabetically by name instead of by rank. The first thing everyone does is sort by rank anyways, and it creates a toxic level of competition, where most are motivated by the fear of being shamed for being at the bottom. 
  • A majority of the important meetings are recorded (unless they are "secure"), and are put in a database of videos that anyone in the firm can scroll through. Particularly embarrassing moments where someone slips up and says something incorrect is often turned into a "case", that everyone in the firm is required to view and learn from.  
  • Every once in a while, at least a few times a year, someone commits a serious offense. This includes lying about anything, including what many would consider to be small white lies, violating one of the firm's security policies, or behaving in a way inconsistent with the firm's principles. This results in a "town hall", where the full investment community meets to talk about the person and discuss their actions. Everyone from the CIOs to new analysts attend and participate in the judgement. Oftentimes in the town hall, we are shown tapes of the person being interrogated (I do not use the word interrogation lightly - some of the people conducting said interrogations are ex-military / intelligence officers) and the community collectively assigns a sentence to the person. The typical sentence is the person is fired, or loses the majority of their compensation for at least a year. In the Scarlett Letter sense, the person being judged is required to be present throughout the town hall (if they haven't already been fired), and the community judges if they sound remorseful enough (many sobbing apologies are seen to be as "faking it" and the person is fired anyways). 

Through my time at Bridgewater, I really came to value the rights of privacy and individual liberty that many in this country take for granted, an appreciation that is hard to garner when you haven't lived in a place that is the exact opposite. At times, I felt Ray used money to create an authoritarian regime inside of America, where the only way to get your rights back was to leave the paycheck behind. I don't mean for this to be a bash fest on Bridgewater, there is plenty that is great about the firm and I am a fan of their approach to investing (which is what kept me there for so long). But it should be made crystal clear the principles are not for everyone, and only true believers of a regime like that will have a good time there.

No wonder Ray has such a hard on for China this sounds straight out of the Communist struggle sessions for fuck's sake. No amount of comp sounds worth tolerating this type of culture. 

 

This thread had some interesting comments. I used to work with two senior people (20+ yrs exp) who had been there for a while. One was really nice, smart, and taught me a lot. I liked how he handled different situations. The other was hired to optimize/scale the firm ($5bn+ AUM HF). But instead, was pretty much useless. He used a ton of buzzwords and just wasted time in pointless meetings asking ridiculous questions, just to justify his job. In the end, he got fired within a year.

 

The latter sounds like a consultant. BW does love their consultants, though from the few I know there they aren’t really good LOL.

(Ignore tag, haven’t updated in a long while)

 

Ea dolorem quos et explicabo. Fuga esse perferendis minus ut consequuntur eveniet voluptatem. Qui nesciunt fuga eos exercitationem numquam est.

Aut omnis aliquam esse aut voluptatum minus et illo. Consequuntur eum placeat qui tenetur nesciunt. Eos optio explicabo quia cupiditate. Natus pariatur nemo molestiae perspiciatis.

Career Advancement Opportunities

May 2024 Hedge Fund

  • Point72 98.9%
  • D.E. Shaw 97.9%
  • Citadel Investment Group 96.8%
  • Magnetar Capital 95.8%
  • AQR Capital Management 94.7%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

May 2024 Hedge Fund

  • Magnetar Capital 98.9%
  • D.E. Shaw 97.8%
  • Blackstone Group 96.8%
  • Two Sigma Investments 95.7%
  • Citadel Investment Group 94.6%

Professional Growth Opportunities

May 2024 Hedge Fund

  • AQR Capital Management 99.0%
  • Point72 97.9%
  • D.E. Shaw 96.9%
  • Magnetar Capital 95.8%
  • Citadel Investment Group 94.8%

Total Avg Compensation

May 2024 Hedge Fund

  • Portfolio Manager (9) $1,648
  • Vice President (23) $474
  • Director/MD (12) $423
  • NA (6) $322
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (24) $287
  • Manager (4) $282
  • Engineer/Quant (71) $274
  • 2nd Year Associate (30) $251
  • 1st Year Associate (73) $190
  • Analysts (225) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (22) $131
  • Junior Trader (5) $102
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (250) $85
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
Kenny_Powers_CFA's picture
Kenny_Powers_CFA
98.8
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”