Track record requirements for PM positions
I am a quant and have worked at a collaborative firm for about 5 years. I was not explicitly "in charge" of the strategies I worked on, since this firm was very centralised and there was no concept of individual people being linked to the PnL of a strat, but have extensive knowledge of everything that went on. I recently joined a new firm which is also a collaborative firm, but with clearer separation of responsibilities, I.e. I am actually managing a strategy. However, my pay is not contractually linked to PnL and there is some collaboration. I am very unhappy with some political developments that happened in the firm and would like to move to a MM, where I have my own AUM and can build up my business. I could just keep my head down, ignore the politics and build up some kind of track record for my strats over the next 12-24 months and then try to go for an MM PM position. Or I could try to make the move now. The problem is that if I look at job adverts for these type of positions and also from some discussions with recruiters it seems that these funds only consider people with multi year track records with high sharpes. Does anyone here know if MMs would consider someone like me, with a lack of a consistent individual track record, for a PM position, provided I can present a consistent and attractive business plan? I would only consider full PM positions, not sub PM. Then I'd rather stay where I am now and wait until I get a shot at full PM.
Hi Quant in HF - Other, whoops, looks like nobody chimed in here.... maybe one of these discussions below is relevant:
More suggestions...
Fingers crossed that one of those helps you.
Bump
I think most track records are greatly exaggerated our outright made up... You just have to say the right numbers. Its somewhat of a game in that headhunters won't talk to you without a multi-year 1.5/2 Sharpe track record, but in reality most PM's at MM cannot even come close to realizing 1 Sharpe.
This is so true. I have done a few PM interviews ( I am a quant in a pod). In general, BD folks don’t want to hear realistic numbers since whatever you say is being discounted by X% automatically.
talk to cubist and MLP
any reason why you don't want to be a subPM in a pod?
Thanks. Any reason why these two funds in particular?
As I see it, as a sub pm I would have the risks of a pm position (I will be out if my PM is out and I will also be out if my strat doesn't perform) without the full rewards.
At my current place in terms of what I do I am already kind of a sub pm or full pm, so moving to another place for a sub pm role doesn't make much sense to me right now
those 2 in particular b/c I've seen QR's move directly into full blown PM's at those 2 shops, however I do not know if they were sub-PMs also.
BAM too just b/c they are building out their systematic equities pod and investing heavily in it. DM me on other places
to me, getting a subPM role would be a good foot in the door in the context of working under a multi-strat's risk limits. Like 1-2 years as a SubPM at a multi would be better than 1-2 years at your new place no?
If you are a sub PM, the fund's management can see your P&L attribution. If you are doing well but the head PM gets fired because of his own bad performance, management will want to keep you and might even promote you.
Why would they let you go if you are performing as a sub PM, makes no sense.
Have you got a pencil?
I agree with you - don't settle for a sub-PM role. The issue is not whether you have a separate book, or your own formulaic payout, or whether management can see your PnL. The issue is that you don't have a direct line of communication with management. PMs have reasonably frequent interaction with the head of the firm or the business heads and can manipulate the narrative of what's going on in the pod to management.
E.g. you have an asshole as a PM and you are generating the bulk of the groups Pnl as the sub-PM. Your PM will never let you spin out and will tell management whatever they want to hear to keep you making money for the pod without giving you a full cut. PM can spin it in a multitude of ways - you are using the team's infrastructure, PM is helping you build models or giving you ideas (when they haven't), etc.
What do you think is the best way to deal with this type of scenario?
pay stubs dont lie
Enim eos accusamus non necessitatibus fugiat sit sint ut. Illo nostrum aut cumque. Aut sint odio fugit qui nihil.
Quae quo quasi explicabo ea ducimus et aliquid laboriosam. Et et est quidem omnis consectetur. Maiores consequatur aspernatur et ipsa et. Tempora ipsum veritatis qui consequatur at explicabo. Esse odio cum quasi ipsa incidunt. Soluta necessitatibus id id ullam veniam qui in placeat.
Consequuntur delectus quod facere fuga illum vero. Fugit et eos qui beatae aliquam. Nihil ad totam architecto et illum. Impedit eaque facilis odio mollitia.
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...