What's so attractive about joining an MM HF these days?
Given that MM's usually super stressful environments, easy to get fired, and (unless u are a top PM) u won't get highly paid relative to hours/stress why would anyone want to join it? In addition, even if someone is "passionate" about the markets wouldn't it be better join an SM? Less stress (yes I know D1 analysts aren't exactly coasting @ Solow) and being able to dig deeper to companies instead of talking to sell-side and trying to forecast quarterly estimates (stock may not even react well even if actual is higher than analyst estimates).
Or do people just join MM HF cuz it's the only offer they get?
more seats
easier path to PM vs at SM with clearer PnL/working for yourself
gaining market share vs SMs.
fears that market cycle turning hurts SM returns and therefore comp from this point on
How many SM founders are buying the US constitution?
Single managers are long term focused, they buy congressmen
more seats because of more turnover especially at analyst level? Also, a bit unrelated but wonder how MM PM lifestyle is due to volatile nature of career especially those with families.
both turnover and just bigger organizations + growing industry. and more open to taking people at more junior levels.
Depends where you are in your career and opportunities available. This site has a lot of the “outliers”, but can tell you majority of MMHF have adapted and know are they up against corpdev/tech/etc. So “guaranteed” comp will be higher at MM for sure with upside from there.
Also as mentioned path to PM easier cause MM are in a constant state of growth.
I think a large factor many people on this forum value highly is the idea of stability and risk aversion, hence why the IB -> PE -> MBA path is appealing. You have some idea of what the future looks like. Yes, working at a SM is going to be a "safer" job than working at a MM, but you may never become a portfolio manager in those seats. Your ideas may not fit with those above you and that can be frustrating. For individuals who want that freedom (with the caveat of the firm's style like factor neutral), a career at a MM can be a great way of having that autonomy.
I think some people on this forum would rather stay and become a Senior Analyst/Sector Head than try to gun for PM as quick as possible no?
Absolutely. There's appealing aspects to both but some prefer one over the other. There's no true one best job, just what some prefer.
If you want to be a PM - you think you have alpha, you value the independence, you're shooting for the moon / become the next billionaire - then MM is a fast track. Be good / get lucky for a few years and you have a shot at big bucks. Easier than doing the same thing at a SM, but with less support and teaching.
If you want stability, don't think you have alpha on your own, don't mind working in an organization and will be content to be a sr analyst pulling in high 6 figs - low 7 figs go to a large SM if you can hack it.
I've also seen people kind of fail out of a SM role / get stuck in a low level position and lateral over to a MM to reboot their career (mid-late 20s). At that point if they fail again they often transition out of public markets (go do vc or tech or crypto or some other weird shit)
MMs are more meritocratic and so the best can rise faster. Definitely luck involved but the luck in an SM plays a bigger factor. If you have the chops their measurement on alpha at MMs is more rigorous so you can measure your real "skill". Unfortunately, most don't have the chops, including many from the successful SMs.
If you are legit, you will rise quickly or have no one to blame but yourself. The guys who run the best ones are amazing at evaluating talent and scaling up those with edge.
It's about as pure a meritocracy as life gets.
del
Have been in both and when coming out of college I always drank the single manager cool aid. I was wrong. Probability-weighted pay is prob similar at both. At MMs you take a gamble on yourself. The transparency, objectivity, portability is something I did not appreciate at first. It is hard to manage in that model, but it’s not like their models stop at a quarter - solid MM PMs could be duration and take a tilt if they had a dif mandate. SM PMs imo surprisingly often act dismissive of factors and or positioning while at the same time expressing just as much anxiety about day to day moves - just with a lot less coherence.
Somehow it feels like many SMs (not all) always find a reason not to pay a the end of the year and a less portable/verifiable record does impact your ability to shop. At MMs of course they also find a way to not pay, but that’s usually only your last year.
The best thing about SM is being a generalist and not having to do all the quarterly maintenance stuff. Best thing at an MM is (to some extend) your returns are your proof of ability and can overcome any 95% of politics / pedigree / dogma etc.
There are exceptions to every rule of course.
what made you switch your stance on the initial kool aid bias you had? If I'm being honest, I have that same bias but lack of conviction in being able to generate alpha within the tight risks limits is likely the biggest reason why haven't been able to turn off my internal bias against MMs. Would be curious to hear your moment / thought process as you left SM and now seem to have a successful career at MMs.
There are people doing deep creative work at MMs and many many people doing doing finger-the-air back of the envelope 3-expert-calls-and-an-email pitched at SMs.
“Deep” research is very often overrated. Everybody talking to the same 5 experts, Google trends and literally 1 store visit if that. When I was at an MM it was laughable how little the generalist tourists understood my sector / companies “but we have an outsiders view!”
What you should be looking for is not deep research but CREATIVE research. I see it most often from neurotic short sellers and under the radar funds. Creativity mean differentiation, which means edge which may or may not mean alpha. MMs generally find less edge and isolate that alpha. The best teams find something repeatable and get creative both with data and with their process. It’s harder to find a variant view or process on a short term, but if you do find one - are you allergic to taking that money because it’s beneath your intellect?
Both jobs are fun for passionate people. Maybe SM guys a little more philosophy-ish and MM guys a little more mathy/analytic. Researching is fun. Trading is fun. I favor the indignant neurotic short-seller, but less so the publishing ones. There’s a role for all personalities. You’ll have fun if you’re winning, nothings fun when you’re losing. Also, it’s one of those “cross that bridge when you come to it” things. In banking I came out of the gate and declined 2 of the platforms, those greasy charlatans. Probably one of the dumbest things I’ve ever done, they have great programs for the juniorest people.
The "finger-the-air back of the envelope 3-expert-calls-and-an-email pitched" is too relatable for me.
Swear doing more calls is pointless unless you’re doing an activist campaign. Everything is all macro and factor driven these days.
Pretty attractive to not be down 20% to start the year
Have only worked in MM HF and PE, but I think it comes down to risk reward & job security like others have said. MM is no hand holding and you're more or less on your own with a pool of capital. It's very entrepreneurial and there's no investment committee, etc.
MM is way more exciting if you are entrepreneurial, are highly competitive, and have a whatever-it-takes attitude. SMs are less intellectually rigorous and there's far less adrenaline/stress. However, if you prefer to focus on "investing in an industry" then I think SMs make more sense as you can really help to nurture and shape companies.
Thanks mate - are MM generally the best for development / learning? Would think MM have more structured training and resources, but perhaps less of an interest in the long-term
Not really. I think the job sucks if you come in without a very good grasp of modeling and some ideas on how to build an edge on forecasting quarterlies (or knowing when you don't), especially if you're not inspired by your coverage. For larger pods with more structure there is more mentorship, but because most teams run lean, you are starting off at a very fast pace. Would recommend someone spending 3-6 months PRIOR joining an MM learning how to model quarterlies with granular revenue builds (obviously not every line item is important, but IDing the critical factors and then finding leading indicators, if possible, is key).
What are your thoughts on MM right out of college?
Sorry, what is MM and SM?
multi-manager and single manager. multi-manager as the name implies means multiple managers running money for the overall fund. single manager just means one main boss running the show with analysts.
Thanks!
Accusantium temporibus exercitationem minima reprehenderit rerum dolorem aspernatur. Cumque sunt ex necessitatibus aut maiores repellat quas. Repellat voluptas asperiores quibusdam autem.
Sunt vel ipsa id. Veritatis non distinctio ex esse non. Adipisci quod assumenda nam et autem odit. Saepe iusto sit dicta et sunt eveniet. Voluptatem esse mollitia ut et sint ut. Numquam autem corporis laboriosam odio velit blanditiis.
Fuga quos commodi soluta nostrum in maiores eaque. Commodi sit eum quia similique quis sit. Sapiente alias commodi quisquam iure nesciunt est totam.
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...
Laboriosam rerum odio occaecati totam beatae. Fugit ipsum et ipsa adipisci sit doloribus nulla. At natus non aliquid. Dicta nostrum consequatur officiis commodi vel illum fuga.
Ut suscipit facere quis nobis sit quia totam. Qui sunt aut accusantium dolores et nesciunt.
In et aperiam non ipsum debitis ratione et. Molestiae sunt optio ut placeat. Natus temporibus soluta doloribus vel ea. Laudantium repudiandae repellat rem unde atque ut.