Why do we consider C/M top pods (as opposed to just C)?

There's no secret formula. Just different approach to the process. Different processes fits different people. 

At MLP the firm will underwrite a PM's process to deliver alpha and they try to hone you with their internal capabilities - like the best positioning data sourced from the most numbers of prime books, risk tools etc. But end of the day you're left to your own devices to do what you do. But if you're good, they'll push you to scale GMV. You'll see more variety of pods at MLP then C. I.e. some running sub 1bn books with 2-3 analysts with niche coverage / strategies. Others with multi-bn books, half a dozen sub-pms, which basically means you're running your own business inside MLP.

At C you're wedded to a very rigorous process-driven template of how you do things. PM's have certain sector coverage criterias and limited ability to flex GMV (relative to MLP).  At analyst level, C emphasises granularity in modelling and information processing across fewer names. Your accuracy is tracked, your models need to be updated quickly as your numbers are uploaded to a cloud platform every night and aggregated firmwide for firm use (how it's used exactly I don't know). But what I do know is that some adjacent strategies leverages this data to compare street vs C/buyside figures. You'll have a detailed framework for pre and post earnings reviews. Let's say you're on vacation and name in your ticker list reports -> that sounds like a you problem! Your coverage = your responsibility. This means two things. One, people with limited experience (e.g. 2 yrs IBD -> HF) get taught a trialled-and-tested process of the craft and learn not just to take responsibility, but how, with emphasis on formling relative views on incremental information. This is labor intensive and there are no shortcuts. It gets dull, mechanical and repetitive very quickly, but you need to deliver in accordance to the process. Two; from an outsider's perspective you sometimes you wish you could put yourself in to a medically induced coma when you're in a CFO meeting and you're unlucky enough to be accompanied by 7 Citadel juniors across Ashler, Surveyor, GE asking retarded questions like "on a 2 yr stack your incremental EBIT is down 25 bps sequentially" or how much $M of the revolver has been drawn and how does that impact your interest expense and cash taxes (rarely, if ever does this even matter for a stock). I get why they ask it, even if it's stupid and a total waste a every other investor and the CFO's time.

I find that this process focuses on developing solid junior equities analysts', but can fail in the real incremental nuances in expectations investing that makes a good PM. But that can be said for most institutional places with rigorous processes.

Side note: Gotta give credit where credit is due. P72's academy has done a great job at scaling useful insights for junior development! For all the headwinds they had a decade ago, they've pulled off a great comeback.

So... What does this all mean? MLP will give you flexibility and the most generous pay outs. This is great if you're a tried-and-tested investor. At C they'll take your n00b-y WSO spamming butt and tell you what to do and your job is to deliver on that. Arguably (and this is my personal opinion) sometimes on the expense of critical thinking. Needless to say, C has some of the best talent development in the hedge fund space. But equally, some teams have horrendous culture and you're viewed as a temporary information processing resource as the bar to running risk is very high, and you're expected to find a new home. This is true for all coveted positions in high finance, not just C and MLP.

So does any of the hallmarks of MLP or C drive a sustainable edge? Hell no... End of the day it comes down to the PM's ability to deploy capital, develop talent, risk manage and read the market. But it does set a bar for what's expected by the bare minimum, and helps mitigate process decay. Does these two firms manage to attract the best people ? On average yes, if you can deliver under a rule-based, factor constrained model... if you double click on that --> the C spread to MLP has arguably narrowed so much that MLP has now surpassed C assuming you're solving for maximum payout. So you'll see more C -> MLP moves then the other way around in the last 2-3 years.

I don't perceive MLP as trying to hire C trained PMs to run things like C. They buy the track and the process which they can capitalise on (GMV x Platform Leverage - Cost of hiring and Scaling) in a more flexible manner. The angle is usually that it allows the PM to flex dollar vol and sharpe that is better suited to their process without the C overlay. You'll also hear C -> MLP type moves to be motivated by freedom to "build a business" under the platform umbrella franchise (way more encouraged at MLP then C). For non-PMs, it's not as much of a "junior analyst bootcamp" as it would be at C. MLP analysts will (again, on average) have a more varied experience then the streamlined way C develops their juniors. At MLP, it will be heavily PM-dependent relative to C. At MLP, if you're a non-risk taker, you're hired to "enable" the PM's to make money, which, for better or for worse, is all that matters end of the day.

Off topic: Having read posts in this forum sporadically over the past decade an interesting observation is that the tiger cub obsession has now been replaced by a pod obsession - judging by the frequency of topics on this and type of questions asked. WSO posts are similar to a ST MoMo factor of what's currently "in vogue". It provides validity to the assertions around the "peak pod" narrative. I do wonder what strategies people will be buzzing about in 2034. If I was to bet, it wouldn't be that it'll still be the pod shops.
 

/My 2 c