What do rankings look like for the multi-manager shops? Are they more or less the same? Do some pay more than others for junior analysts? How do you compare them? I know it's team based but is there an overall consensus of this?
| +50 | Jane street suing MLP | 33 | 11h | |
| +43 | Investment principles | 11 | 5d | |
| +28 | How to Know if HF L/S industry is for me? Wealth Management instead? Feel lost | 7 | 17h | |
| +27 | Top Long Only vs Small SM HF | 5 | 4h | |
| +26 | Realistic HF Career Earnings | 22 | 1d | |
| +22 | How to move from prop to MM for quant? | 3 | 10m | |
| +21 | Advice for Incoming Structured / Securitized Credit HF Analyst | 4 | 5h | |
| +18 | Possible exits from BB role below | 1 | 6d | |
| +18 | Career Trajectory for Data Scientists in HF | 6 | 2h | |
| +18 | Analysts Launching Out of MM | 15 | 4h |
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.
I'd be interested in hearing what people that have worked at more than one platform think.
All-in pay unlikely varies across the big platforms for juniors as they are relative commodities. Until you can independently generate, analyze and execute differentiated ideas, you're replaceable (and often even if you can, you're replaceable).
As you pointed out, the group is key. Across platforms, PMs can negotiate different deals (risk, payout, etc.). That being said, my understanding is that with respect to risk, MLP has a reputation for being on the tighter end and SAC on the wider end of risk. Citadel could give you more capital, but the payouts could be lower. I think MLP has a reputation for having highest payouts (%) but seems like Citadel offers higher bases. Most of these guys tend to pass many expenses on to investors, which helps overall comp. Most are close to all-cash comp. Don't think the big platforms make groups bear netting.
Ultimately, again, this is group dependent. If your PM is a big dick, he/she can demand better terms: run looser risk, higher payouts, etc. at most platforms, because these platforms all realize that PM can take his balls and go play elsewhere. It's asymmetric for platforms to add a high quality PM that can generate an uncorrelated stream of P&L and the market is relatively efficient.
If you put a gun to my head, I'd say today Citadel is the most prestigious, given their performance, reputation for hiring / firing / paying, Ken's success, etc. But if you look around, you'll see people jump from Citadel to other platforms and vice versa, likely because of what I mentioned above re deals. At a certain point prestige doesn't pay the bills, money does.
Again, not based on experience but reputation, culturally MLP seems like it's more silo'd than the other platforms because it's more their business model (i.e., you don't want to deal with the administrative hassle of running your own fund, so you plug into MLP's system and run your own thing under their rules). I can't really speak to the collegiality of other platforms as I'm not aware of any having reputations for being moreso, but I'd say most are probably more open in terms of collaborating across strategies.
Don’t know why you got MS for this. It’s very spot on.
Comparing multi-managers at the "Junior Analyst" level is pointless. At the end of the day, working at any of these platforms would be an incredible career opportunity that isn't as easy to come by as some people on these forums like to suggest (don't get me started on the "single PM is superior" pandering by people who've never worked in the HF industry). For what it's worth I've worked in both MM and single-PM shops.
As a Junior Analyst the most important consideration is solely on the team and PM you'd be working for and learning from. At that stage you want to maximize your ability to learn about how to follow an investment process and generate consistent alpha since that's something you won't learn from books or reading interview guides and only experience can teach you. Most sell-side guys who enter the buy-side come in thinking they know everything and end up failing as Senior Analysts or PMs because they never took the time to build a foundation.
The decision should be incredibly simple - you choose the "platform" with the best PM and track record and which one has the best learning opportunity (even if that means less responsibility at first - don't rush into "investing" when you know jackshit). Nothing else like "prestige" matters and only those who don't work at HF even talk about dumb shit like that. Culture at multi-manager is irrelevant as again, it's 100% depedent on the PM. At any of these funds you spend 99% interacting with your team and no one else from the firm.
So, for anyone else on this forum, stop asking and comparing "platforms" and first try to get an interview at either one of these, and if you're lucky enough to interview at more than one, spend your time comparing the PM, the team, their investment process, and their track record.
.
Jesus, how daft are you and why do you sound like such a tool. I hope to god you don’t really work in the industry. Stop referring to me as “2nd year associate” - it’s not my actual title but a layover the WSO has tagged on my account that I haven’t used actively in years.
First, he’s asking about comparing the top multi managers. Everything you listed out - access to management, resources - is virtually the same at all the top MMs. The business is cliquey? What are you on about. By the time you’re in a position where the specific platform differences affects you - e.g. as a damn PM - no one gives a shit about some “clique” or what “lineage you’re from”. The only thing that matters is P&L performance and track record.
I have to believe this guy is posting anonymously because he’s a troll or simply retarded and I feel sorry for the team he works for. And no I did not work at a cutthroat platform fund nor do I currently. In fact I worked a fund you would call the most “prestigious”. The differences in platform funds has diminished considerably over the past several years. Yes, there are differences in risk limits and payouts. But otherwise they have become increasingly similar. And yes, that means places like Citadel have become more “cut-throat” and I know countless PM/teams let go as they would be let go any where else.
The only lineage that matters is the quality of the PM you work under and the training that you receive - and that only matters in terms of jumping to the next seat or getting a shot at PM. Once you’re in it is all about performance.
.
There is so much wrong with this comment that I don’t even know where to begin. But I think the folks on this forum are smart enough to realize it without me having to point it out.
This explains everything though. I hate to make early judgment calls but if I’m brutally honest I don’t think you’ll last more than 12 months. Hopefully that Analyst role is still open at your previous single PM fund that considers Citadel low quality seat. Good luck ;)
Just gonna shoot my shot here...are you down to have a coffee chat? Looking to join as an Analyst at a platform
There's only one reason that Citadel has become the go-to place in the past 2 years...and it's because of the multi-year signing guarantees. They have absolutely gone crazy with them to the extent that they can hire almost anybody they want, because in this business everybody has a reservation price, and it's not actually that big of a number for Citadel.
Is Citadel really the go-to place? I can think of 3-4 PMs that have opted to move from Citadel to MLP in the last few years, but none moving the reverse way.
In my sector and experience that's been the case (for fundamental L/S anyways), but your mileage may vary.
Yeah, I second xqtrack here. Citadel has been throwing around very large offers to young PMs and even mid/sr analysts. The numbers have been wild.
But there might be some really odd bias here; I have a suspicion I used to work with xqtrack, so we might just be thinking about the same people getting poached. It's a small world.
I disagree - I think MLP has become the go-to-place, at least for PMs which is the most important one anyways. MLP hands down offers much better terms than Citadel, higher payouts, no deferred comp, and less stringent factor risk limits which can significantly impede your investment strategy. They also don't require the same bullshit administrative and process work that Citadel requires (uploading earnings previews, etc.). I think Citadel used to be the top but I've noticed MLP significantly improving over the past 1-2 years with better management and leadership changes. They are also raising more permanent capital which I think will have a bigger impact than some on this forum realize.
They’re always hiring and firing. They are willing to outcompete other funds on comp. If you’re good they’ll find a place for you. I’ve always held them in extremely high regard. That said it’s a really, really tough place to work.
I turned down an offer from global equities and I regret it quite a bit.
Are there any meaningful differences among global equities, surveyor, and ashler?
Can I ask what you expect the turnover at Citadel is? I am currently working at a smaller hf with very good risk leeway (as an analyst) and I want to switch over to Citadel due to a very attractive comp but im worried about potentially getting cut if performance isn't good.
And why do you regret not taking the offer?
Can you tell me what's the highest you've seen the multi-year signing guarantees go? Do you know anyone that got cut after a few months due to bad performance who had a significant comp?
It depends on which stage of your career is at.
Is BAM making a comeback as a legitimate player or are they viewed as second tier shop. They have an anthem program similar to nines I've heard anecdotally good things about.
What have you heard about Anthem? I ask because I've interacted with a lot of PM's in Nines and know a decent amount about it but my exposure to Anthem is 0
Not a second tier shop more like tier 1.5 or 1A
May not be the right thread, but would it make sense for a MBB (consulting) manager to join one of these HFs at the associate level? Guessing total comp would be relatively similar to start.
Comp is likely to be 2x mbb...
There is the “does it make sense” and the comp piece which are pretty different.
Let’s hit the easy one; comp is higher at these places (significantly so if you prove your value). Honestly manager at MBB is closer to entry level (or less). Not trying to say anything bad about MBB it is just a completely different comp path (AND risk profile).
As for “does it make sense?” Well that depends a lot more on what you are looking for, what risk profile you want, what you enjoy doing, etc etc. Would it make sense for most MBB managers to move? No, it is a completely different job. Are there people in that position that would actually do great at a HF? Yes.
So if you are asking if it makes sense from comp, then it is really just a risk profile question. Aside from that would need to know more.
FWIW Ive worked at one and worked with several team members from all.
They seem to generally have a more positive view of P72 re: collegiality, somewhat looser risk, training and development for juniors and knowledge sharing. Between MLP and Citadel I think your mileage varies - Id say based on my limited network on average people think Global Equities>MLP>Surveyor.
My sense is that there is a lot more mothership BS at Citadel - sending them your earnings previews and call notes and perhaps some front running at P72 and Citadel but not meaningfully at MLP. This is just based on the suspicions and takes of limited participants. Also it seems the view is that Citadel is ahead in data/infrastructure modestly and dangles big pay numbers but that MLP is more entrepreneurial for a PM and more like having one, very demanding but well resources investor in your standalone fund rather than at Citadel more like working for a big fund, more visibility and competition between juniors who cover similar stocks.
As a PM I’d probably prefer MLP - because they seem more open to having your own office where you want it and having your own entity - if you want to feel like you run your own fund. but as a junior it’s all about PM and terms. You might get better training/development at Citadel vs P72 but might have more onerous claw backs and such. Also I get the sense equity L/S is less central for MLP than the other two.
There could be inaccuracies in my assessment, but it’s based on fairly consistent themes. For the most part everyone hates the one they worked at most recently (feeling they got screwed in term and claw backs.... anything other than self error right?)
Hahaha that last para is on point. Can't hear a single positive thing about them once people leave but that's usually because a lot of them end up getting fired. And obviously those who just leave for other shops are held to a crazy non-compete and thus very disgruntled.
Seems like Citadel has the best tech. MLP is starting to build out a good infra team, but that will take time.
Any thoughts on Centiva or Graham?
Not even in the same ballpark as the above
Dolorum accusantium sint autem dignissimos. Est quidem totam esse perspiciatis. Eos neque officia blanditiis vitae. Quisquam aut officiis voluptate et voluptatem provident illo quia.
Nulla libero quidem similique enim recusandae est dolores. Molestiae qui eveniet dolores sint voluptate odit quia. Aut vel beatae et rerum.
Fuga et est id iusto. Est dolorem voluptas facere commodi a. Perspiciatis modi vel dicta maxime odio. Ut in qui id. Ex eius est nemo qui placeat.
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...
Consequatur architecto non minima non. Modi ut nihil consequatur labore blanditiis. Est iusto magnam suscipit est. Sit earum libero laboriosam debitis ipsum quis quam. Voluptas est architecto voluptas enim nulla aut harum tempore. Minus in optio itaque non quo minus esse.