Can anyone suggest some macro funds that - like Bridgewater - are more academic in nature, encourage debates on fundamental macro, are concerned with intellectual enrichment/figuring out how stuff really works in addition to making money?
I very much like the philosophy of the place, but the alleged "reality" (from what you read online) seems quite different (heavy supervision, politics/bureaucracy, mandatory team bonding etc.)
I hear Soros is pretty into fundamental macro.
There are plenty of fundamental macro HFs out there. Bridgewater is the insane cult version.
I am sure there are...but do the majority share the traits I listed? I must admit I have been pretty "sold" on the good elements of the BW philosophy - was hoping some other funds out there implement them in a healthier environment.
Lol if you think you'll be "debating" fundamental macro (whatever the hell that means) at Bridgewater and doing anything meaningful outside of pushing paper and talking shit about other people pushing paper.
You'll have downtime and lunch time and meetings with external research analysts at most macro hedge funds. Those are times for intellectual discussions about fundamental macro. Most large shops will also have in-house economists. And all of your trading floor colleagues at a macro shop are hopefully interested in macro, so those are also people keen to debate macro topics.
Did not intend this to be a BW-bashing thread. I think the concerns about their culture/environment are well known by now.
ThinkMacro - that is a good point, but from my experience those types of interactions tend to be spontaneous/haphazard, whereas BW claims to have a more formalized and structured framework for working through these debates (more academic in style, as I said). From the various reviews it doesn't sound like BW lives up to the Platonic ideals it projects, but I can find nothing wrong with their stated intentions and was thus wondering if perhaps other funds had implemented them.
I think it's really going to be team-specific. Like if you're on a research team full of economists, you're much more likely to have a weekly review of trends, ideas, data. If you're on an analyst for a PM, the discussions are more haphazard. At my HF and specifically the team I'm on, we have a weekly review of views. I also notice groups of people that take a good 45min everyday to eat lunch and shoot the breeze. I think most of the best discussions are going to be spontaneous, when you're looking at something and notice something interesting, you discuss, and then another person investigates and you investigate further, and back and forth. I find formal meetings are more for conclusions/views and less for vigorous debates; opposing views can still be brought up but they're investigated further back at the desk.
I believe BW is unique in that most of the investment decisions are really made at the top and the vast majority of employees are really researchers and investment analysts, so everything is sourced up. Whereas at most other shops that have a multi-manager style to it, the environment is more collaborative and less formal.
Ipsam consequuntur modi maxime velit at doloremque doloremque est. Omnis incidunt reprehenderit impedit laudantium et consequatur 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...