Title says it all. I often see these titles in job postings, but they’re never specific and often use the same language. How would you describe them and is there one that is more “prestigious” than the other?
| +52 | Leave brokerage to be GP | 12 | 2d | |
| +49 | New Comp Database - Google Form (Now with Data Validation) | 24 | 2d | |
| +24 | Seeking Career Guidance in Real Estate Development Post-Graduation | 3 | 3d | |
| +23 | Going out on your own | 4 | 2d | |
| +23 | Spreads over SOFR/UST | 8 | 6h | |
| +22 | REPE/Development GPA | 15 | 5d | |
| +22 | Real Estate = complicated + underpaid | 15 | 2d | |
| +20 | High achiever that doesn’t want to work weekends | 12 | 15h | |
| +17 | Fisher Brothers | 6 | 2d | |
| +15 | Can you exit from Fund to Asset management or Investment in Real Estate ? | 22 | 20h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
It is pretty firm dependent, and also depends a lot on whether its a GP or LP role. Just look at job postings for Asset/Fund/Portfolio Management roles and you'll see a variety of job descriptions. For example at some places asset management is extremely hands-on with leasing and capex and expected to regularly conduct on-site visits, whereas other places asset management functions as more of an investor reporting role. Some places might call an AM role more geared towards reporting/high level analysis a portfolio or fund manager, or some places might consider fund manager an accounting role and lists CPA as a requirement. I'm too old to care enough to address the prestige question.... just apply for whatever looks interesting to you.
The key to understanding this is realizing the difference in businesses that various firms are engaged in... a few points....
- If a firm is an "owner/operator" (meaning direct control of physical real estate assets), then "asset management" will be direct oversight of properties... as in budgets, forecasting, leasing, capex planning, oversight of property management, as well as direct input if not control of re-capitalization/dispositions. AM probably works very very closely with Acq during acquisitions in this context as well (like build budgets, onboard property mngt, inspect the property, participate or even run DD, etc.).
- If for an indirect investment vehicle (like a closed-end fund that makes JV/LP style investments ala "private equity" style), then "asset management" is the oversight of the various investments and more limited to budgeting/forecasting and working with the asset managers on the owner/op side (i.e. the JV partner). You may also have a lot more reporting/working duties with fund/portfolio management or directly with the LPs (investor/clients of your fund). AM in this world has to "approve" a lot of what the sponsor recommends/wants to do, and is generally more "financially" involved than physically (like you don't need to jump on a plane and get to the asset if a major problem occurs, the AM for the owner would). AM also might work with Acq, but likely not as closely as in the above example given the difference in the investments, but they might.
If for a lending op/debt fund, then "asset management" will entail oversight of servicing and could be more akin to "portfolio management" (the pool/portfolio of loans) and a have a lot more responsibilities in the hedging, financing, and leveraging of the fund (like for a debt fund, or risk mngt for a bank).
So the bottom line "asset management" is very depending on what the "assets" are of the firm.... I know that seems obvious... but I don't think people get that so easily (tbh, from reading stuff on WSO, few have great understandings of the setups of all the various businesses out there, and this leads to confusion about job roles/titles like this).
For "portfolio management" and "fund management"... these titles are usually far more limited to the various investment management businesses (i.e. raising/managing capital and deploying directly and indirectly via various strategies) and far less common with traditional "owner/operators" (but I'm sure exceptions exist). Here, you have to really look at the "details" of the firm/fund/business.
- Generally "PM/FM" sits above "AM"... like in many multi-fund/strategy/manager businesses groups like acquisitions/asset management/capital markets/research are all "service" groups to the various "funds/clients" of the firm. So a "PM/FM" would make major decisions such as fund/portfolio strategy (i.e. what/where to buy or lend), make decisions on acquisitions opportunities (as presented by the acq team), make major AM decisions (as recommended by AM), be principally responsible for reporting/investor mngt, and likely have principal responsibilities for fund raising (likely with direct support from the capital raising team and research/strategy groups).
- If a firm is more single fund/strategy focused... "PM/FM" could just be top management over AM/Acq/etc. but this isn't as likely to create "PM/FM analyst" roles that generate this question, the structure above does (i.e. PM/FM are groups independent of the functional service groups, generally with some "firewall" for fiduciary and independence reasons).
- Overall... I'd think "PM" and "FM" are more or less interchangeable, but in very large funds (like the diversified open-end core funds for instance), it is possible that "PM" is a subset that reports to top level "FM". Like PM of the Office Portfolio that reports to the top FM for example. Or even a breakout of a PM group for "debt" and one for "equity". Again... all matters on firm structure and overall business setup.
- It is also possible that "FM" relates more to "product" meaning that the FM group is responsible for creating various funds/portfolios/strategies and then raising money for them. This is very "high level" to the business but may have a whole team with analysts and all (probably very closely tied to capital raising/markets and research/strategy).
Hope this all helps.... the TL:DR... it all depends on the structure and nature of the business being done... figure that out.. and these titles will all make sense.
As to "prestige" LOL..... I'll let the rest of WSO fight over that one....
Is comp different for each role as well?
At analyst/associate comp is probably about the same.
The difference is when you get to the top (if you ever make it).
PM/FM get paid more than pretty much everyone. They are setting the strategy and usually on IC approving deals. They are also usually helping fund raise and doing investor stuff. So they usually get the biggest portion of the fees/carry.
That said, getting to an actual PM/FM spot without having spent time in AM or Acquisitions is nearly impossible. There is no such thing as going from an analyst to a Senior PM in a straight line. You usually have to leave sometime in your associate years to lateral into an AM/Acq spot and then come back.
Autem dolor quo impedit corrupti ea ducimus. Numquam ipsa rem velit labore facere odit atque voluptatem.
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...