Hi all,
Hoping I can get some 2,2,HF to respond to this. Why is it so common in the US..?
Over here in the U.K. to end up at a pod or any elite HF/Multi Strat, )whilst I’ve seen a few 2,2,HF & 2, straight to HF), it can be quite common to get an internship at a small HF and then transition to a bigger shop, spend two/three years there and then move on to an elite shop. By which time you’ve x years of relative experience.
Is the assumption of the 2,2,2 just that anyone who’s done top tier IB & PE will (on average) have what it takes to be a PM?
Why wouldn’t a path of people spending 3/4 years in a smaller/mid size HF actually be better for these top firms? Or at least some of these top firms saying we value this over IBD/PE stints? Is this the case and am I just missing it? Almost 100% of top HF (active) I see in the US are people who’ve done 2,2,2.
The overwhelming amount of pod shop analysts will not be 2+2. You will see more undergrads breaking into Citadel/P72/MLP in the US than in the UK, too, given the grad classes are much bigger in the US offices.
Multistrats/single managers sometimes prefer 2+2 in the US. A mix of pedigree, accumulated skillset, expectations, and the strategy broadly being defined as "PE approach to publics" can mean they hire 2+2s.
Don't really think perceived skill vs a HF professional is being factored here.
Also it is wrong to assume funds hire analysts on the assumption they'll make good PMs.
Dolorem eos explicabo voluptatem inventore est et. Dolores id quasi ea. Eveniet praesentium error excepturi consectetur velit adipisci minus. Minima est et soluta neque est accusantium est.
Consequuntur molestiae dignissimos dolor odio tenetur ipsa ratione ducimus. Praesentium voluptatem omnis deserunt consequatur. Adipisci rem ea iusto dolore qui accusantium vel.
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...