Hey guys,
I'm looking for advice on which mutual funds should I also be considering if I want to move to the buyside.
My original goal was to put in ~2-years in SS ER and make a switch to the best HF I can sneak in too. Well my 2-year anniversary is coming up in a few months, I'm getting a little bored being a cheerleader for the management teams, and my bonus didn't give me much incentive to stay either. I want to be in a position where my research directly impacts the P/L. Long-term goal is to be a PM.
With the industry in poor shape, I thought it would be prudent to consider moving to a reputable mutual fund, especially if such a move doesn't trap you in the "relative-value world" and discourage future employers.
My ideal position would be at a fundamentally focused shop in Chicago or NY. I now cover growth companies but I love all the value guys (Klarman, Einhorn, Ackman, etc..). At all costs I'd love to avoid being a situation where I learn little while working for a closet indexer.
My current priorities (in order) are
1) Learning opportunities
2) Exit opportunities
3) Pay
My background is
1) Honors program at Big 10 undergrad with 3.7+ GPA
2) ~2-year in SS ER
3) CFA Level II candidate
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and advice. Thanks in advance.
KB
The obvious one is Fidelity. I can name quite a few people who have moved from Fidelity to top equity long/short shops. I would imagine that other reputable mutual funds would yield solid results as well. What sector do you cover?
The people you're talking about, did they go from fidelity to a top MBA and then long-short equity hedge funds? From what i've heard, top long-short shops (perry, och-ziff, bain capital brookside, baupost, greenlight, etc.) heavily prefer those from banking or private equity.
Directly from Fidelity. It is true that long/shorts generally like ex-banking and private equity folks but long-only backgrounds have a shot as well. Also, hedge funds are pretty variant in the way they recruit, based on the backgrounds of the decision makers and their past experiences with various kinds of recruits.
Brady,
Speaking with some big-shot guys and your average MF analyst, they like bankers because those guys have basic modeling skills and their experience is so homogenous they know what to expect if they are hired. In ER we learn similar modeling skills but the number of students that get hired straight out of undergrad to ER is MUCH smaller (maybe by a factor of 10?) and our experiences can vary.
Once we get our foot in the door, its a fair game against the bankers since the buy-side assumes we both know nothing.
I think all of the big guys, such as Fidelity, Wellington, T.Rowe would work, but I don't think most of those are an option for me since they tend to only recruit 5-10 ivy-league and ivy-level MBAs per year.
I also heard that Fido tends to only recruit career switches (former electrical engineers as technology analysts).
I cover industrials. I don't want to be specific on the sector for privacy reasons.
Has anyone heard of names such as ICAP (http://www.nylim.com/portal/site/institutionalcapital) or Calamos (http://www.calamos.com/)?
MF Global? Someone had to say this
Also, as far as I know, Perry is more of a distressed credit shop than straight long/short equity.
Within the high-yield space you see people from the insurance company AM arms though not as often as banking. Tough to say if that's because of sample size as much as skill-set though. I know two more-senior people (one macro/rates and one IG credit) who started at insurance cos as well.
Do you guys think that a HH would be a viable option for me or does my profile not fit the mold?
Who are the big 3 I keep hearing about? Do the big 3 vary by region?
To be honest I think it is a little strange for you to be prioritizing exit options when evaluating potential buy-side opportunities. In my opinion, you should not make the initial transition to the buy-side unless you are very confident that 1) the investment strategy is one you want to follow for the rest of your career, and 2) you can see yourself spending your entire career there.
It is much more difficult to change firms in the IM industry than on the sell-side due to the inherent investment strategy specialization required, the relatively lean nature of investment teams, and the lower turnover (shops like Citadel aside).
Again, just my 2 cents, but if I were you I would spend some time thinking about exactly what type of firm you want to work for and then focus directly on firms that fit that vision.
Bowser,
Thanks for your input- I think you bring up a good point. I have been told in the past that I try to think to many steps ahead, but when I said exit opps, I was referring to opportunities within a strategies. For instance, I'd expect an analyst focusing on growth companies at Wellington to be competitive for a job at Fidelity.
In that context, does your comment that changing firms in the IM industry is difficult still hold true?
The types of firms/strategies that interest me most are concentrated long/short value funds a la Greenlight/Pershing Square. Advice I've received in the past, maybe it was Ravenous, was to see what other funds have made similar investments by tracking filing. What are your thoughts on this?
What do you think would be the best way to approach this funds? If I'm cold emailing these funds, should I include a short write-up (1-page) or a few slide PowerPoint of my current best idea?
Wellington > Fidelity.
http://bucultureshock.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mind-blown-11.jpeg
Changing jobs even within the same strategy is still difficult because of how small the investment community is, but of course it still happens all the time. The point I was trying to get across is to not go into a buy-side job with the goal of using it as a stepping stone to another firm or strategy because it may not materialize. Fortunately it doesn't sound like that's what you were implying.
Agree with your advice on tracking funds you'd be interested in by looking at past and present holdings. Websites like Seeking Alpha and Guru Focus typically update 13-F holdings for the top firms, and you can use this data to look for other firms that also hold those stocks through Bloomberg or Thomson Reuters.
I think sending a cold email with an investment idea will certainly help show interest and provide an initial talking point if a phone interview arises, but make sure 1) the pitch fits the firm's strategy (i.e. don't pitch a hyper-growth company like ATHN to Baupost, LOL), and 2) be 100% sure the pitch is excellent and error-free. If the pitch sucks then no one will bother responding to you even if your resume is very good.
My mind is blown because you're entirely missing the point of the thread and that particular comment.
I was using those two great firms as an example of movement within a strategy and you jump in claiming one is much better/more prestigious than the other.
Your comment is a childish distraction.
Hey dipshit, I was addressing this:
You then go on to ask if you could move from Wellington to Fidelity. Of course you can idiot, why wouldn't you be able to? But if the goal (as stated in the title of the thread) is to move to a HF then you shouldn't be concerned about moving from Wellington (which is one of the largest HF managers on earth) to Fidelity especially since you are at the point where you are cold calling mutual funds with little-to-no hope of ever seeing the inside of one of their front offices.
You're right, your logic is clear and flawless. I'm not going to get into an e-argument with you.
That's the first intelligent thing you've said in this thread so far.
Thanks again Bowser.
Does anyone have any insight on this?
Molestiae rerum molestiae optio reiciendis. Hic qui quos neque occaecati qui commodi repudiandae. Ducimus cum et qui itaque libero mollitia molestias.
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...