“My mentoring session with Andre was extremely valuable and gave me the clarity and direction I needed at an important stage of my application journey. He was kind, approachable, and generous with his time, creating an atmosphere in which I felt comfortable sharing my experiences, asking questions, and discussing my doubts openly.
One of the most helpful aspects of our conversation was his guidance on how to organize and communicate my personal story. Andre helped me understand how to connect different experiences into a coherent narrative, identify the elements that matter most, and explain their significance more clearly. His perspective was fundamental in helping me see how to present my background with greater confidence, purpose, and authenticity.
I particularly appreciated his advice on what to avoid. He helped me recognize that including every detail does not necessarily make a story stronger, and that being selective can make a message much more effective. Our discussion gave me a clearer understanding of how to avoid unnecessary repetition, keep my narrative focused, and ensure that each part contributes something meaningful to the overall application.
Andre also provided valuable guidance on how to organize the application process itself. He helped me think more clearly about priorities, how to approach the different components, and how to make the work feel more manageable. Having a clearer structure has made a difference to my mindset: instead of seeing the applications as one overwhelming task, I now feel better equipped to approach them through specific, achievable steps.
Another important takeaway was his advice on how to use the coming days effectively. Our conversation helped me understand where to focus my energy, which tasks deserve immediate attention, and how to establish a realistic plan. I left the session with a stronger sense of direction and a better understanding of how to balance thoughtful preparation with consistent progress.
What made the experience positive was the combination of practical guidance and encouragement. Andre offered suggestions in a considerate and constructive way, helping me reflect on my choices while also making me feel supported. His kindness made it easier to engage honestly with the process and to see areas for improvement as opportunities to strengthen my applications.
Overall, this session was fundamental in helping me understand both what I want to communicate and how to move forward. I now have a clearer approach to telling my story, organizing my applications, avoiding common mistakes, and planning the next few days with intention.
I am very grateful for Andre’s support and for the care he brought to our conversation. His advice gave me useful tools, renewed confidence, and a more focused approach to the work ahead. I would highly recommend a session with him to anyone seeking thoughtful guidance, practical direction, and a supportive space to develop their application narrative. The session helped me turn uncertainty into a clearer plan, and I feel much more prepared to make the most of the time ahead and present my experiences in a meaningful and convincing way.”
1) Nearly all quality SMs recruit from PE, not IB
2) MMs do recruit after IB, although being market neutral there's less space to ride market beta like SMs do so you have to be actually good to make it to PM. Anyone in PE who's at least somewhat smart can make it to VP/Principal level as long as they navigate office politics and survive the long hours.
It isn’t as common for hedge funds to make as much as they used to back in the 90s / 2000s also.
Edit: yes there are funds that still make very good money, but the market is notably more saturated than it was 20 years ago, and with regulations in the last 15 years they were more profitable before it’s just a fact lol you guys can downvote all you want.
I think the real reason is 1) kids just assume they want PE because all the other analysts are doing it 2) the head hunters push it and most of their jobs are usually PE and 3) it’s more reliable income in that a PE associate’s pay isn’t wildly subject to the volatility of stocks. Lastly, I think the hedge fund crowd is frankly more “brainy” than IB (having spent 4 years in IB myself).
If it’s a CREDIT (hedge) fund that is something banking analysts go to do after a 2 year stint more frequently, namely after restructuring. I know 5-6 who did.
because people in IB are naturally risk averse and are not creative (things you need to be to thrive in HF space). joining the crowd heading over to PE is a better fit
Very true. IB to PE takes average IQ while being in a hedge fund and excelling actually requires 130+ in order to think outside the box and ahead of what analyst expectations are for the mkts
I’ve never met someone not autistic talk about iq
yup, this is correct
Another reason is simply there are more pe spots.
Pe needs an army of monkey to run DD, go through vdrs and write investment memos.
Hfs don't need monkeys. They need people who think independently, have ideas, and can take risks.
Agree w the risk-averse point - you're not likely to lose your job or take huge losses in PE. In HF you will likely lose your job or take a decent loss at some point throughout your career
Quisquam vero atque molestiae modi deserunt culpa. Praesentium velit aut id sint exercitationem. Distinctio voluptatum ut quia ut.
Sit consequuntur libero modi sed molestiae. Aspernatur cum accusamus ex mollitia est consequatur. Excepturi hic vel asperiores et assumenda. Nesciunt autem exercitationem architecto doloribus ex. Explicabo minima vel enim eum.
Fuga tempora laboriosam quisquam nihil quia in. Aspernatur consequatur fugit molestiae necessitatibus. In beatae dicta veniam fugiat sunt dolorem dolor.
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...