I was talking to some folks around the office and somehow Putnam or Wellington got brought up in the conversation. Someone immediately said that "asset managers don't count." Is this a common view in the hedge fund world?
Trending Content
| +46 | Jane street suing MLP | 32 | 13h | |
| +40 | Investment principles | 11 | 3d | |
| +27 | Realistic HF Career Earnings | 21 | 1d | |
| +20 | How to move from prop to MM for quant? | 2 | 18h | |
| +20 | Need urgent advice: How difficult is it to go from LO to L/S or MM fund? | 11 | 10h | |
| +18 | MM Hedge Fund vs Prop Trader | 15 | 2d | |
| +18 | Possible exits from BB role below | 1 | 4d | |
| +17 | $100m Hedge fund offer - what comp should I ask for? | 8 | 6h | |
| +14 | Do You Make Estimated Tax Payments? | 2 | 2d | |
| +12 | Rolling Futures Systematically | 1 | 12h |
Career Resources
There is some snobbery to be sure, but it varies a lot and generally anyone who's off-the-cuff dismissive of places like Putnam and Wellington is a bit of a 'bag.
Some of it comes from a kernel of truth-the reality is that traditional Asset Management (in general) has a different investor mandate and research structure that leads to a more diversified portfolio, more concern about relative/index/beta-driven performance, and analysts who do less work per name. There's also the reality that some mutual fund complexes are just too big to behave as nimbly hedge fund.
That said, a lot of the difference exists largely in the heads of jr/mid-level analysts (who then go buy all the same hedge fund hotel stocks).
For example Fairholme, DoubleLine, and Third Avenue all manage primarily mutual fund money, but how differently do they really behave than the average value fund (for Fairholme) or credit fund (Doubeline) or distressed shop (For Third Avenue)? Anyone want to tell Berkowitz or Gundlach they're "better" than them because their vehicle isn't registered under the 40 act?
You might enjoy this quote: http://blogs.reuters.com/unstructuredfinance/2014/12/15/jeffrey-gundlac…
Exactly. I'd only expect that kind of attitude coming from folks who are not on the buyside or are quite young and immature. And to dismiss Wellington is laughable in and of itself.
December 2010 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/21/uk-insider-wellington-idUSLNE…
November 2013 http://www.nj.gov/treasury/doinvest/pdf/AlternativeInvestments/HedgeFun…
Money is king. I've seen plenty of asset managers outperform hedge fund managers- with larger AUM's for that matter. As a hedge fund analyst, I have just as much respect for the asset managers out there.
At the junior level, probably-- because everyone is young, naive, and trying to maximize their paychecks. Anyone who disregards players like Wellington, Putnam, and Fidelity needs to open their eyes
Alright cool. I'll try not to pick up these attitudes at the office
Yes. And I don't know why. I don't even know how much those guys do (or don't?) get paid, or what type of pay structures they operate under. I've never entertained the thought of crossing over - always seen them as second tier frankly because the most preftigious people back when I was recruiting for the buyside chose HFs over AMs.
May be flawed and lack any basis in reality, but the game is the game. Preftige or bust.
Lifestyle matters as well. I think the larger AM firms should be respected by juniors as they can still provide a great learning experience and future exits.
But seriously, noticing AM investment team folks going for a pint before lunch is just a bit sickening. Worked for a HF and never did that or don't know anyone who did that really.
I can tell you in my experiance that among really junior level people (intern/1st year analyst), top asset managers with the exception of BlackRock are seen as much less prestigious than HF or banking.
Large asset managers offer a much more stable career progression. There are always exceptions but at hedge funds there is a quantum leap from being an analyst, even a very senior one, to somebody that has P/L for a book tied to your name.
Mutual funds have a lot of titles that probably don't add any value to the investment process but present a nice ladder. People are junior PMs on funds for a long time, work on multiple funds, head a sector fund, etc before being the lead PM on a book. For more risk averse people this is probably enviable.
Junior know-nothings working at other peoples' PE and HF firms tend to look down at all other professions, whether or not they're related to finance. It's a horrifying trait that is ill-founded and, fortunately, tends to get beaten out of people pretty quickly the minute they go from salary clippers to revenue generators. The Great Humbling tends to occur in years 3-10 in a buyside career, with many people not making it to/past associate, many others failing to get into the MBA of their choice or failing to get a gig of their choice post-MBA, and then even those who are successful get their face caved in on a few trades and wisen up to their own human shortcoming. Those who make it to a more senior level quickly learn that being an arrogant prick is not going to help build one's brand/business, and they also realize the extraordinarily tenuous nature of the alts GP as a business model, all of which tends to foster less nose-in-the-air behavior over an extended career.
The flip side of the coin is that, in reality, the top junior talent will gravitate to the 2/20 side of the world given the propensity for somewhat higher earnings (at often much higher risk). I know at leat 10 guys who I deeply respect with backgrounds in the PE/HF world, who probably had disparaging opinions towards mutual fund workers earlier in their careers, who have gone off to mutual funds to continue their careers post-MBA and post-household creation.
Good thread. To echo @"Kenny_Powers_CFA" and @"RLC1", it's just less experienced HF people being snobby. And it's not just limited to junior analysts, but more encompasses people who haven't been humbled yet and are full of insecurity. There are smart and mediocre folks on both sides of the aisle.
.
I disagree - it's not just people being snobby. There are real differences in the way long-only investors think and invest, and unsurprisingly, people who work at hedge funds think their own methods are superior (and vice versa for long-onlys; senior guys at long-onlys 100% look down on hedge funds who they often see as 'fast money traders' instead of real investors).
Just one example --> I've never heard any of my peers at hedge funds refer to a DCF. There are some long-onlys where that is a key input.
I'm not saying HFs are better / worse; but the idea that this mentality is held by junior know-nothings and nobody else is bs. I once had the head of healthcare at one of the largest / most prestigious long-shorts tell me that if his analysts didn't want to work 75 hours per week they should just go work at a 'sleepy long-only'.
As @"Going Concern" clarified, this is not necessarily limited to junior people (though that is certainly its maximum prevalence); there are also inexperienced and insecure people who make it somewhat up the foodchain. The fact that you've never heard a peer in the hedge fund world reference a DCF is laughable and suggests that you haven't been around long. Also, calling things "BS" and telling somebody that they are "full of shit" makes you sound childish. I know there's not a lot of EQ training for HF analysts, but you should try to develop it separately so that you'll have an easier go of it at such time as your present job ceases to exist.
With regards to EQ, I think certain hedge funds hire previous CIA interrogators to train their analysts to detect bullshit and deal with the emotional stuff lol
I haven't been around that long. I've been in the industry 3 years. My experience is what it is...that's the point of a message board.
I stand by the 'full of shit' part though -- there is a lot of just factually untrue stuff on this board, and childish or not, humoring it is worthless.
Thanks for the condescending advice though, I'll be sure to keep it in mind on bonus day.
Yo, you realize that aside from xtraq's anecdotal experiences, you pretty much agreed with his initial point?
^ Lol the first time I heard a colleague say fast money & real money, I asked if he was talking about Floyd Mayweather.
Once this PM interviewed a guy from a long only shop and was so pissed saying 'this analyst is10 years+ in the industry and still talks about valuation valuation valuation FFS! Who cares about his EV??? Seriously, he spent two minutes on EV even after I warned him valuation in this case didn't matter? Clearly the next results have downside risk.............pauses and sits down (probably thinking he said something a bit too blunt for his personality.....gets up again and yells 'no wonder he is still at a bloo*y Asset Management picking dog sh!t'. We don't give a sh!t about the next year I'm worried about the next few weeks when it will probably drop' We don't have time for experienced people who still live in a bubble.....'
I think it comes down to mandate and how sticky your money is. People are going to invest somewhere else if you have a couple of bad months but not necessarily the case with larger AM's.
There's no need to look down on anyone. AM folks can be a great resource since they have been following names for quite some time and may have access to insights that you just might not have the time, resources, or relationships to cost effectively procure on your own.
And frankly, a few of the players are getting more proactive around discussing capital allocation, strategy, and being more constructivist when engaging the management teams within their portfolios. They'll never be public about these things but the gears are moving and money can be made if you know what to look for and who to talk to.
Wait, so are people here thinking that the average HF investor is better than the average MF investor? I don't think that's in the data...
I will say that the HF guys do pretty consistently work more hours. But I'm pretty unconvinced that working more hours has anything to do with ability to generate alpha. The best investor I work with runs over $100B and is gone by 2:30/3p (pacific) most days.
Really? This...
I don't think it's fair to lump all hedge funds and large asset managers together. To me, the biggest issue with people who work in the AM industry is as you manage a diversified book it's tough to be an expert on your names. There are only so many hours in a day and if you're responsible for a large book it's very tough to know everything that's going on in your universe. I don't care if you're long-only or a HF - I don't look down on anybody that has a research driven, bottom-up strategy.
I think its just hard to compare the two because the strategies are so different. A large AM is essentially building a diversified portfolio. Each Analyst probably covers a lot of names - as pointed out above you only have so much time in the day and with the greater names there is incremental loss across the board in expertise. Where as HFs, some at least, run much more concentrated portfolios - like Greenlight or Pershing have only 10-15 investments at a given time. Its less about building a diversified portfolio so much as its being experts in the investments that you do make. HFs are also allowed to be much more creative in how investments are structured and can take on more risk than AMs. So to the extent that HFs don't think that a AM knows as much about their coverage or is more risk advise maybe there is some difference there but I don' think its lack of respect for people that work in AM so much as its to hard to compare the two so why try.
Greenlight has over forty equity positions - and that's only on the long side.
People who speak about hedge funds and asset managers as distinct, monolithic 'sub-sectors' are way off the mark - even if we were to only focus on fundamental driven shops. Some hedge funds have long term time horizons and are essentially long-only. Even within value funds, it's incredible how many ways there are to invest.
I respect Gabelli/Third Avenue more than I do most hedge funds.
Fair enough - I was using them as an example (I have read in the past they were that concentrated, looks like its expanded) of highlighting that some funds have a concentrated strategy.
Couldn't agree more about HFs. The umbrella is huge. I was only trying to bring up a few general examples as to why they could differ and why some people might harbor certain opinions. I wasn't trying to express a personal belief or bias of HF over AM.
As far as respect is concerned, I don't care either way. There are good HFs and bad ones. Good AMs and bad ones. Don't really feel the need to get caught up in all that nonsense.
I do not understand why people think large AMs are long-only investors. Large AMs don't simply only do the Long-only strategies. That is usually a relatively small part of their business. Large AMs have diversified investment products - long, long/short, quant, multi-asset, event drive, hedge funds, macro, smart beta, manager of managers, PE, Real-estate, commodity, etc. Look at any big AMs such as BlackRock, Wellington, PIMCO, GSAM, etc. Really only the long-only guys are pension funds or mom & pop shops (family offices) or small-time AMs.
Um...no. The long-only products are the vast majority of their businesses.
what you mean by "the vast majority"? By AUM? If so, I think it is very misleading - for instance, index products simply dominate AUMs but you just need one person to manage several billions whilst 20 event driven hedge fund managers within a large AM may manage $100m together. Also ETF is a different genre of music as that is an economies of scale business.
If you are talking about 'revenue', I certainly disagree with your comment.
Large AMs are simply large enough to buy successful hedge funds and other investment firms to expand their product line and meet their clients' needs. Hedge funds or other strategies became simply commodities whilst some boutiques always remain 'boutique'. Large AMs have moved on to become more of an supermarket to offer all investment products just like big investment banks are all supermarkets now, offering all kind of capital market services now (e.g., EQ-single stock, portfolio trading, electronic, FI,FX, exotics, synthetic, etc - simply endless products) whilst some boutique brokers will claim a competitive edge in some HY or EM small caps.
People at my current firm who make the most noise by stressing on the fact that they work for a HF when they meet outsiders, especially family, friends of their siblings or partners and professionals from larger AM's are the young ones from IT, marketing and sales and operations. Just a fact. They always find time for beer after work. I can but I don't because I'd rather go home and catch up on other stuff or spend time here during the day.
Moving on, this classmate of mine works as a analyst with one of the larger AM's and works insane hours. He has to please these PM's with ideas that make money; on a track to becoming a PM now. Point is that larger AM's are longer about deep value investing only. They care about quarterly results and all the volatility as much as hedge funds do.
This means you find all types of people everywhere. So having this idea of AM's are a lazy place is not always necessarily true.
Yeah, still doesn't explain what's with AM folks drinking beer in the afternoon. Is this only a London thing?
Agree with comment above. A significant proportion of their AUM is in indices and tracking products and ETF's with a single person enough to manage billions.
Below is from my personal network Hedge funds: 1. 100m global equities funds with 1 PM and 3 analysts working 6:30am to 7:30pm; usually a couple of people get in slightly later and stay past 9pm as they look at US markets as well.
$100m event driven and special sits equities (and some credit) fund with 1 PM and 1 analysts; working hours similar to above but some weekends as well.
Previous fund I worked, $1bn equities with 1 PM, 4 senior analysts and 3 juniors (3 years exp. and then buy-side) did 6:50am to 7pm and longer during results. 3 of us did weekends as well but only 10 hours or so on Saturdays.
Large asset managers 1. A well known AM globally with 300bn+; don't know exact break-up but have had a chat with one of the PM's while I was in uni years ago. He did $30bn tracking products plus some 'fundamental equity' but only worked 7:30am to 5:30pm with no weekends. Oh before I forget, when I met him it was lunch time and he had beer. Put me off so much. Seriously. What's with AM folks drinking beer in the afternoon.
Wonder what hours are like at PIMCO and so on for people who do alpha stuff.
You seem really pre-occupied on the beer thing.
I'm luckily in a position where I can afford to spend time on WSO while still making money. The reason I focus so much on the beer thing is because it pisses me off.
I went through the hard route of securing a sell-side gig and then the buy-side where I had to work super hard just like most other people working for HF as junior levels. Find that's standard no big deal. But Iv'e seen this AM breed closely and now unfortunately I've moved to a firm that has lots of these AM's around our offices.
Have you seen a sell-side intern who makes it to a full-time grad role within front office and then to a buy-side top shop? Or for that matter any graduate on a trading floor who has secured promotions in a difficult environment? A number of them are sweet little kids with dreams and ambitions (doesn't matter if they wanna make big money etc....not the point). But man they work hard. Their bubble is popped mostly on the first day on the desk. They learn quickly that it's no BSing around - all you do is work and make money. Simple. No screwing around. I'm focusing on the top banks only, not the rest of the street. I spent some time in NY, there it was even fierce where people work even harder with some sort of positive aggression and team spirit to win. They play hard as well.
Then I met some AM folks drinking beer in the afternoon. I saw their interns who are just little kids as well but they manage to remain the same even 2-3 years in the industry.
Sell-side year one analyst, 'hey I'm Paul I work on equity derivatives desk focusing on exotics'.
AM year one analyst (who is still an intern mentally), 'hiyaaaaaaaa so nice to meet yaaaaaa. I'm Rachel!!!!! ah so glad we got a chance to meet eachother!!!!'
Above is kinda big generalisation but you get the point I hope. I'm not joking, I saw a careers section of a large AM a few days ago and under employee profiles they had full names of employees. Who does that? Why mention the surname? Banks don't usually do that, they're smarter. But no one from AM HR thought of this because they're busy drinking beer.
Anyway, some of these grads shared their experience. You'd be surprised with the number of exclamation marks used in the content on their website. I'm not joking. Did no one read it from HR? I'll PM you the link if you want.
We hire year 2 analysts from banks and man I tell you they work extremely hard and are hungry to succeed. They don't look forward for the day to end. They just love it. For them the gossip is, 'hey this partner took home X this year because his P&L was amazing'. Great - that's what we like. Even they wanna replicate their success.
These AM types I've seen (and I've known many personally) look forward to 'evenings' so they can grab a pint at 5-5:30am. Complacent which over time makes them incompetent. Here the gossip, for example, 'man this dude is a "legend" not many can afford to drink beer at 10am but he can and no one fu**s with him'. Pathetic.
My classmate with an AM was a genius in uni and I still respect him as he received unfair treatment for being American looking for a job in London; so relatively he did well for himself. Visa issues didn't allow him to secure a HF role straight out of uni but he managed to join a large AM that only hire 2-3 people a year for their fixed income team. Few years in he is lazy. It's a shame that the culture is such that people lose productivity. He texts me for lunch so we can meet outside for a change. I don't remember having lunch except at my desk during working hours.
I've discussed specific situations with him and he was clueless - I'm like, 'dude we both look at the same company why are you still in when most of the market dropped it?'
That's my obsession with longer hours than usual and working extremely hard. The reason me and my colleagues are on top of their game (I believe so backed by good performance) is because we go that extra mile and find stuff when AM guys are busy enjoying beer and being all posh. You should spend some time with them you will probably puke. Yeah, I mean if you are doing extremely well at work and are the top of your class, yes you can act a bit silly. But most of these are not on top of their game but still find time for beer. It's like they wanna do well at work so instead of having beer after work at 5pm they can grab a pint in the afternoon and then eventually in the morning as they get promoted.
I'm sure there are people from AM's who are genuinely hard-working and I know only a few so don't take any of this personally.
I also partially feel that the reason hedge fund guys slam AM guys is due to books like Margin of Safety, which outlines large AM biases that Klarman believes can be exploited by flexible mandate hedge funds.
Interesting thought. And it's funny, I think Klarman criticizes short-term oriented HF's just as much as he does large institutions.
man you guys are intense. what about eating lunch at your desk do you think makes you a better investor? I love having drinks in the afternoon. If I have a sellside analyst coming through town in the afternoon, I usually prefer to take the meeting at a happy hour spot. You get a much more unvarnished view of how they're thinking about companies, and don't have to flip through some b.s. powerpoint deck. I'm usually only meeting with them to gauge what the street is thinking anyhow, so there's really nothing they are going to tell me that will become some miracle alpha generating factoid... Drinks with a management team? Even better! I just think so much of this pissing match over hours/effort etc is misplaced. Sounds like a bunch of ex-bankers who are bitter that AM guys are making the same/better money for 60% of the hours...
Eating at desk at first may not make anyone a better person but it helps me minimise risk. I've got a number of names in my portfolio and I swear every year there are at least a few who drop bombs - complete unexpected surprises that hit these stocks and credits. By being at the desk I just know I'm there if something bad happens. This exercise over a period of time has also helped me become a better investor. I often respond to emails by students asking for advice (and I get quite a few as I'm closely in touch with my uni and make presentations there a couple of times a year).
Speaking about unbiased views on companies, again, luckily I just happen to be at a shop which people take extremely serious so extracting info from analysts isn't difficult. I just don't meet many analysts these days; used to in my previous job but after work or only if they visit our offices.
Meetings with companies I like doing them till date but it tends to be in a formal setting during market hours (so our offices, broker offices or formal lunch).
I'm not bitter. We have a war on us with all these regulators and authorities from multiple jurisdictions trying to shut us down. So we better behave.
A friend is a general manager in one of the supermarkets but he never drinks during working hours. You might have to drink if you are in sales, marketing, prostitution, entertainment, undercover cop or something similar - it's just how it works. What makes any investment analyst or a PM running money so special that they can consume alcohol in the afternoon is beyond my understanding. Clients matter and just because some firms earn fat fees is not a reason enough to be so complacent and undisciplined.
I'm not trying to offend anybody from the AM side, if anything I'd love more competition for securing AUM and better performance.
Working only 7 to 5:30, I don't have a problem with that. But still making big noise and drinking beer should be punishable. They're setting wrong examples for interns and grads who unfortunately will do the same going forward.
Excepturi magni assumenda deserunt ut eos voluptas voluptatem. Beatae dignissimos voluptas id. Soluta accusamus debitis dolorum commodi inventore. Iste autem rem eos ut. Nam et voluptatem cumque dolor maxime corrupti perferendis.
Est rerum ea provident eius. Dolorum autem quo quia aut quia voluptatem omnis.
Ut dignissimos qui at in aliquam. Vitae fuga et quas. Sit voluptates aut autem dolorum ducimus. Ipsam minus aperiam quae at velit qui. Accusamus harum quod soluta exercitationem consectetur aut. Qui veniam est exercitationem modi qui sit ut architecto. Distinctio voluptates et inventore laboriosam.
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...
Unde alias ea ut nobis nobis consequatur ea. Inventore culpa minus qui assumenda eligendi. Excepturi ut quidem magni voluptates minima.
Sunt non sunt molestiae non qui vel. Unde saepe dolor architecto. Recusandae in et itaque ex est molestiae. Nobis autem sapiente et voluptas labore sint quia. Nam deserunt est iste molestiae est. Omnis illum et accusamus nihil est a.
Ipsum eligendi sint aut officiis et ullam qui. Aspernatur commodi quo a a libero autem ut. Dolores non ducimus laboriosam hic nobis enim enim.
Tempora vel fuga maiores blanditiis nihil ducimus soluta. Numquam minus soluta voluptas nobis. Deleniti magnam rerum inventore ut blanditiis in aut.