If you could work at any hedge fund
which one would it be and why?
which one would it be and why?
+42 | Compiled Bondarb's Comment History | 5 | 1d | |
+34 | T2 Hedge fund or T1 LO/AM? | 12 | 3s | |
+31 | Non-GAAP Income Statement | 6 | 1d | |
+22 | Thoughts on MMF | 13 | 29m | |
+21 | Are most HF opportunities actually not in L/S equities? | 9 | 3d | |
+19 | Top LO AM culture, comp, exit opps, etc. | 4 | 2d | |
+19 | How do you get up to speed as a consultant on finance? | 3 | 1d | |
+18 | How to Structure Bonus Comp for Analyst | 5 | 18h | |
+17 | MLP portfolio manager guaranteed payouts? | 18 | 5h | |
Joining buy-side directly at boutique AM or ER at BB for HF future? | 9 | 5d |
Career Resources
There are a couple strategies I'm interested in:
-Event-Driven: Baupost Group. Klarman is an absolute beast and I feel that he best exemplifies Graham's value investing principles. The guy's ability to perform in value situations with a huge AUM and his willigness to look at things with an absolute return perspective (as in going to 50% cash, etc.) are very impressive. Plus making hedge fund money in Boston would be dope.
-Global Macro: Falcon/Moore/Quantum. Three choices, because I don't think there necessarily is a best way going about global macro. Falcon because of the In The House of Money interview. The whole global micro perspective and focus on being like a real money fund (without the constraints) is admirable. Moore seems like one of the very top dogs right now and their risk management (limit on drawdowns) seems exemplary of what I would want to have at my hedge fund. Quantum, do you really need a reason?
Is Falcon still around? I couldn't find any of their 13F filings under Falcon Management or anything similar.
Concentrated Value: Lampert's ESL / Klarman's Baupost Activist Funds: Ackman's Pershing Square / Loeb's Third Point
Paulson & Co. because it's Paulson & Co.
You're joking right? The guy went against gold during one if its largest rallies in the past 10 years and then invested money in a Chinese reverse merger scam. His 2011 performance was amongst the worst in the sector. His Advantage Plus fund returned -52.64% in 2011 while Recovery returned -27.92% and Enhanced returned -21.55%. The Advantage and Advantage Plus funds are still negative in 2012. The guy fucked up pretty bad. I sure as hell wouldn't want that on my CV.
dude are you serious...you want to go work for the 'one-trick pony'
Are you serious? Look at the post date. Over 2 years ago. When his fund was still legitimate.
Value: Greenlight-I like Einhorn Activist: 3rd Point- I like Loeb Macro: Soros/Quantum- He's the legend Quant: Ren Tech (though it wouldn't be a good fit)- they're the best and they only hire the best Ideally: My own.
Soros Tudor Moore
EDIT: Sorry didn't see the why, but I'm pretty sure those names speak for themselves. Those guys are legends man, plus I wanna see PTJ wear Bruce Willis' sneaks.
DE Shaw for the office culture...
Paulson & Co.
Tiger
@jorge and @ goodbread
what do you guys think about brevan howard? how do you think it compares with moore and others?
I think they're a really great shop and right up there with the legends in the macro field. Like Moore and Tudor they have excellent risk management and the fact that they were up in 2007-2008 where everybody else (except Paulson, Soros, etc obviously) got slaughtered speaks for itself.
According to a very recent study, Brevan Howard has been making an average of $1.8 billion since inception, twice as much as Soros. That being said, Alan Howard is said to be pretty ruthless and I find it puzzling that one of the founders (Blochet, the B in Brevan) moved to Moore to become a Sr. PM. So BH is an awesome shop, just maybe not the most fun place to work from what I can tell.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/981a7710-bcff-11df-954b-00144feab49a.html
Brevan Howard is top notch. They're the hedge fund that managed to snag the superstar 28-year old morgan stanley trader by offering him guaranteed $25 million.
Eclectica. Alas, they never reply to my emails..
Brevan Howard is in the same class as Soros, Moore, and Tudor. However, the reputation is that its a tough place to work.
Apart from DE Shaw and Tiger, has anyone successfully got into some of the firms mentioned here (or the firms in the recent FT article about top HFs) without significant finance experience or are these just pipe dreams? Are these guys even hiring? Bridgewater is the only one that seems to have a regular recruiting program, but I'm not sure I want to work there.
I'm more interested in the value investing funds (Klarman, Berkeshire, Greenlight) and global macro funds (Quantum in particular) and am wondering if it is even worth it to spend the time networking, cold-calling, etc. to try to get into one of these places. Sometimes I'm hopeful that if you're persistent you might catch a break because that's how some of the founders started up - for example, Buffett had a hard time getting into either Harvard or Graham's Columbia class (can't exactly remember which) and then Soros broke into the industry despite being a philosophy major. But then I look at the resumes of current employees and it looks hopeless - mostly HBS with high finance or MBB exp. for at least 2 years and then some. I wonder if going an atypical route by simply mailing your own research report that jives with their investing strategy might be convincing (obv. difficult with global macro, but certainly doable with value investors)...
FWIW, my resume is decent (MS in Biocomp, BS in CS from Stanford) and I've interned at MBB with full-time offer, but no finance experience and not a single econ class. That said, in an interview you probably couldn't tell that I've had no finance or economics experience (i.e. I am pretty well versed in both topics). Don't want to make this a "What are my chances" thread...
How many different Tiger funds are out there now? I know Chase Coleman heads Tiger Global (he's in his early 30's but made several hundred million last year), and there is also a Tiger Asia.
There are tons: http://www.marketfolly.com/2010/05/hedge-fund-13f-filings-first-quarter…
Funds with investment themes centered around emerging markets, sovereign debt restructuring, and currency devaluation.
There was an ad in my alma mater's career services site for a fund with a "no assholes" HR policy that produces pretty cool returns in the small cap space with a concentrated portfolio. After my current shop, the "no assholes" thing sounds pretty great. But that's mostly because the fund I work for is more of a cult of personality than an actual institutional investor.
Are you at bridgewater? A friend recently got an offer from them but turned it down because the place was "creepy." They have cameras installed at your work station which takes snapshots of your computer screens every 5 minutes.
I just want to point out many firms do this as a security measure.
Tweedy, Browne, & Co. for the learning experience. Then my own shop called James Bond Capital Management
Nice. Legendary shop.
Silverpoint Appaloosa Lone Pine GSO
Centaurus Energy
RenTech, definitely.
Then Shaw, Citadel, AQR.
Man AHL, Tudor, Moore, BHAM, Caxton.
Oaktree, loan-to-own gets me wet, and they have a very stable culture with the ability to lock up a large amount of capital for long enough to play in distressed with serious intent.
That was written back in Sept 2010.
I don't think anyone is doubting the chops of some of Paulson's analysts. But let's be real for a second, NO ONE at HBS was going hoping they would get an offer from Paulson back before 2007. They were a solid merger arb shop with an experienced PM who had a rigorous process (at least judging from a paper I read by him from way back in the day).
But losing 50% in one year is absolutely, astoundingly awful. The shop's blatant disregard for risk management is appalling. Paulson analysts would be welcome at almost any other event-driven shop as analysts I'm sure, but I wouldn't let them run any of my money (as a PM) and neither would many HFs.
The fund just got too big for their own good.
Agreed. What do you guys think about Bridgewater? From what I've gathered about the culture, it doesn't sound like my cup of tea but I find it crazy that they have been so successful managing so much money the last two years. I get the sense that they have a very solid process down and that they just happen to be exceptionally in sync with the markets right this second, though it probably won't last.
From the numbers I've heard, Bridgewater doesn't pay junior bros that well
Re: Bridgewater http://www.hedgeho.com/ray-dalio-bridgewater-blackbox-revealed/
I've heard a lot of bad things about Bridgewater. I'm not sure about the indoctrination and paranoid monitoring of employees, but the transparency and honesty they encourage in employees sounds really refreshing. I'm sure all you guys who are out in the working world know how dysfunctional corporations can be. Anyone who's had a really shitty boss can especially relate. You can only do so much as your group's efficiency and reputation go down the drain, with the blame often unjustly settling on the employees instead of the manager. Office politics and the lack of transparency in the dialogue between people at different levels within the corporation stifles the learning process of the lower level employees and hinders the company's productivity as a whole. I think it would be great to have a company culture where everyone is held responsible for their ideas and must rigorously defend them in light of the company's goals. Dumb ideas get weeded out and crappy employees can't use office politics and bureaucracy to hide their own ineptitude
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities... although I heard they have had a lot of turn-over lately. Amazingly consistent track record though!
They have one of the highest Sharpe ratios in the industry.
Neither of these funds are housed in "Hedge Funds," so I suppose I'm cheating somewhat, but I would want to work for Michael Hasentab's Global Bond Fund at Franklin Templeton, or Bill Gross's Total Return Fund at PIMCO. Learning from either of these guys would be an incredible experience. I'm pretty sure the former favors PhD's, though, and the latter is just im-fucking-possible, so these are pipe dreams more than anything else.
Honestly I think the distinction is less important than many people on here make it. There are good reasons for being on either side of the structural fence, and bigger shops increasingly offer both (PIMCO being an example) and there are a lot more alternative-strategy mutual funds than there used to be as well.
Macro: soros, brevan howard, tudor, moore Value: baupost, greenlight, gotham Event-driven: paulson, perry, och-ziff, york Long-short equity: SAC, viking, passport Distressed debt: oaktree, avenue, elliott, appaloosa Quant: rentech, de shaw, two sigma
mutual funds: capital group, dodge and cox, wellington
Call me immature, but to have a company named dodge & cox in San Fran is priceless.
If the office was in the castro district then I would have to work for them just so I could say I'm dodge & cox in the castro.
Noob questions: Why is Greenblatt's fund generally associated with value investing? I thought his was an event driven fund? Is it multi strategy? Or is it just that the two can be applied together.
Also, the breakdown of funds that Derivatives just offered seems solid, but I don't understand why 'Value' is separate from 'Long-Short'. Aren't value hedge funds generally using a long short strategy? Is it just that not all long-short strategies use a value/fundamental analysis approach?
None of those things are mutually exclusive from one another. 1) Value is a philosophy on asset pricing; generally it's contrasted with growth-at-a-reasonable-price in the fundamental-driven (ie not macro or quantitative) world.
2) Event-driven means investing around specific events (M&A, bankruptcy, spin-offs, board proxy battles, etc). It could be value-oriented (for example distressed or special situations) or valuation-agnostic (merger arb, where you only care about valuation insofar as it influences if the deal gets done).
3) Long-short just means that you could go long or short, it can include dozens of different investing philosophies and trading styles, for example: a) Run a book if independent long and short positions on under/overvalued securities b) Risk arb, such as merger arb where you are generally long the target and short the acquirer or other risk arb trades like capital structure arb etc. c) Running pairs trades like long AT&T short Verizon and a million others. d) Running a statistically-driven trading plan like mean reversion
Thanks for the explanation. So if I'm understanding correctly, there could feasibly be a long-short fund, using a value approach to pricing stocks involved in distressed and special situations? I can make the connection between going long on distressed situations where you think the asset is underpriced, but what types of special situations call for short positions?
Well you could think that a distressed security is overpriced, for one. As an example, long the unsecured debt and short the equity because you think the equity will get wiped in the reorganization (can be a dangerous proposition!). Risk/transaction arb situations like merger arb or spin-offs can involve being long one part of the transaction and short another. Things like litigation or new regulation can create "events" that can negatively impact a company's value too; there's no set definition of what qualifies as an "event"-I've heard analysts stretch it to include beating street estimates on next quarter's earnings.
As Kenny_Powers said, there's some overlap in the strats. You might note that the "event-driven" shops listed were all founded by merger arb guys whereas the "value" ones come from a more typical fundamental valuation background. The "long/short" funds cited aren't really associated with any particular philosophy such as value investing.
All of the latter four macro funds also run quantitative macro trading mandates similar to AHL, although their primary focus is on discretionary macro. As you may know, AHL has a stellar long term track record, and they've been hiring some top talent from other macro funds in order to improve their performance that has been fairly mediocre as of late due to choppy markets. They used to have the highest AUM among 'managed futures' (the contempt I have towards that name cannot be expressed in words) strategies as recent as four months ago (exceeded by Winton), and I'm optimistic that they'd restore that presence in the near future as the market environment improves.
I see. The story of AHL and Winton is pretty interesting, although my lack of quant chops beyond basic arithmetic will probably forever preclude me from looking into systematic shops.
Personally, I'm surprised that so many have listed enormous funds with assets in the multiple billions.
If I were young and looking to get into the HF industry, I would be looking to join smaller funds who are led by ex-heavyweights that are primed to grow quickly.
If you read HFMweek or FINAlternatives on a daily basis, you'll see everyday that big players from large BBs are breaking off and starting their own smaller funds. Sometimes these funds start with 50 - 500m AUM, but are expected to grow AUM extremely fast due to the branding of 'elite' personnel.
If you get into one of these funds at a young age, not only are you going to learn A LOT, but you're going to be able to grow with a young fund and ultimately move into positions of more prestige within the fund. Not only that, but you get the chance to work with industry veterans more closely.
While joining an enormous fund may look great on a resume, I doubt you'll get to work as closely with the more elite personnel right away.
Rothy, I hear you but I think that's more compelling for a mid-level person with some buyside experience in their pocket who's really ready/able to start trying to add value. Larger funds give you some stability, resources, name recognition, etc. that I think are worth considering.
That's true also. I guess I took it as a more hypothetical 'if' you could work at any hedge fund.. I think it would be fun to just be thrown into the fire in a small, but prestigious fund which is stacked with ex-heavy hitters. Everybody are season veterans and the learning curve is steep.. you'll catch on relatively quicker than you would working in a 10b+ fund in which you're not on the front lines because the infrastructure is just so vast.
It would be great to join a small, talented team just out of school right before they scale up in AUM and crush it. Kenny is right though, it would be a tough spot to be in and even tougher spot to land.
Quis quis doloremque labore odio qui. Ipsam totam sint perspiciatis adipisci. Voluptate laudantium odio quaerat.
Et quisquam minus deleniti repellendus omnis. Et nihil rem aut eaque ut atque. Voluptas non omnis quis aliquam esse voluptas. Est quia nisi eos qui eos doloremque nisi. Laboriosam qui vero culpa laborum reprehenderit ut voluptatem.
Est fugiat vel unde impedit molestiae. Ducimus quae in eos natus architecto necessitatibus libero enim. Velit neque vero assumenda qui. Ex officia officia odio ullam.
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...
Voluptate quia cupiditate deleniti quasi culpa. Dolorem corrupti eos eum ut culpa sed. Accusantium voluptas pariatur sed aut dignissimos aut. Suscipit sit autem perferendis quasi est est. Qui natus voluptas molestiae asperiores qui eaque.
Nulla inventore asperiores numquam. Rerum fugit ea quae inventore animi placeat.
Sed recusandae non officiis rem qui explicabo. Debitis nemo autem omnis. Beatae architecto quam perferendis architecto. Blanditiis vero quas et adipisci est.
Eveniet non tempora dignissimos temporibus molestiae perferendis quos id. Fugiat asperiores quis illum ratione sed suscipit laboriosam sunt.
Repellat recusandae sit quos repellendus. Quibusdam ipsum vel repudiandae temporibus.
Sequi quo quia ab totam quam. Debitis animi sunt laborum sint omnis earum. Perferendis porro et aut vel assumenda suscipit. Cum similique consequatur omnis facere ea numquam iusto. Sed vero doloribus et veritatis. Laudantium omnis soluta dolores.
Fugit cum est in et assumenda. Est quia libero aut quasi laudantium porro est. Qui aperiam consequatur et consequuntur nam voluptas necessitatibus. Ducimus libero commodi odio rerum praesentium laudantium minima minus.
Beatae aut accusamus aperiam eaque. Dolor id reiciendis error consequatur. Odit ad doloribus neque odit. Rerum et et ut ea sit esse dolore. Beatae fugiat dolorem ea qui est rem. Nostrum aut praesentium repellendus quasi error.
Temporibus labore iure eius. Nulla dolor sunt aut alias. Dolores rerum reiciendis necessitatibus repudiandae magnam porro. Perspiciatis sunt molestias aliquam nam necessitatibus laboriosam nihil iste. Quia excepturi aut ullam. Reiciendis qui suscipit a accusamus aliquam doloribus. Recusandae labore voluptates ut.
Et dolore necessitatibus alias ad molestias minus. Nesciunt necessitatibus nulla eos ab odio. Sunt et nobis quasi esse porro. Velit odio eaque illo et veritatis. Dolor ipsam adipisci earum et.