(Tiger) cubs vs. (Hedge Fund) Giants

Rank: Neanderthal | 2,329

Why do some funds (SAC, Citadel) seem to have a much larger number of employees (even after accounting for AUM)? Is there a investment banking BB vs. boutique complex here?

How would one of these larger, better known funds compare to some of the well-regarded tiger cubs (Maverick, Lone Pine) in terms of work experience and compensation?

Comments (11)

 
Apr 30,2011

Damn, thought this was going to a cleverly written HF/Baseball allegory.

What was the point of putting "Tiger" and "Hedge Fund" in parenthesis?

Learn More

814 questions across 165 hedge funds. 10+ Sample Pitches (Short and Long) with Template Files. The WSO Hedge Fund Interview Prep Course has everything you'll ever need to land the most coveted jobs on the buyside. Learn more.

 
Apr 30,2011

To attract input from the kind of people who could actually form a clever baseball/ hedge fund allegory.

 
Apr 30,2011

Tiger cubs are seeded by Robertson and work from shared offices just like Steve Cohen seeds individual groups at SAC and it's various offshoots - the idea is that relatively young PMs (particularly at Tiger) are given a chance to establish their track record and subsequently raise funds from the outside. Lone Pine and Maverick are run by Tiger alums but are established big standalone firms with their own distinct culture. At SAC and Tiger cubs you really work for a PM running his own smaller book (versus really working directly for Steve Cohen or Julian Robertson - although some do) At Lone Pine and Maverick you have a more traditional set up.

 
Apr 30,2011

From what I can tell SAC has the most well established mechanism for getting people out of ibanks as analysts. Tiger cubs follow them - Maverick and Lone Pine hire fewer people - you can make a boatload of money at all of them. SAC seems to be the most aggressive in terms of rewarding people as well as firing them

 
Best Response
Apr 30,2011

SAC has a lot of employees because of how it is structured. The "fund" is actually made up of many distinct PMs running different strategies with distinct teams.

Citadel, DE Shaw, and Bridgewater have lots of employees for structural/cultural reasons. Citadel also has capital markets functions that add a lot of headcount.

There have been many great comebacks throughout history. Jesus was dead but then came back as an all-powerful God-Zombie.

 
Apr 30,2011

+1
Your posts are among the most informative on here.

If I miss your message, please resurface it again one week later. You can imagine how crowded my inbox gets.

 
Apr 30,2011
 
May 31,2011

Julian just reopened his firm but they're taking a different approach. Now they take money from investors and invest in other funds.

 
May 31,2011

as stated above there is a big difference between a single-manager fund such as Paulsen, Maverick, some of the individual tiger funds, etc and the large "multi-manager platforms". At the multi-manager funds like Brevan, Moore, Soros, Tudor, Caxton, Drawbridge, etc many different PMs run chunks of the firms capital and therefore they naturally have more employees.

 
May 31,2011