.....................................................................................................
| +23 | % of pods making 9 figures consistently? | 28 | 3h |
| +9 | Fastest Way to MMHF? | 3 | 39m |
| +6 | Credit HF Guys: How much do you think abt "value" | 7 | 1d |
| +6 | Bad PM | 1 | 15h |
| +4 | Amakor Capital - Who are these guys? | 2 | 3d |
| +3 | culture at citadel macro | 1 | 5d |
| +3 | 4 YOE in ER & 30 years old | 5 | 23h |
| +2 | 2+1 -> Start-up -> Publics? | 1 | 6d |
| +2 | Walleye SA 2027 | 3 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Off the top of my head:
The Big tiger cubs: Tiger Global, Viking, Lone Pine
The Big Activists: Elliott, Third Point, Starboarb, Value Act, TCF
Fallen Angels that used to be considered top jobs: Greenlight
Would also add P72 and Citadel to this list
I wouldn't consider P72 or Citadel prestigious. My friends often call these "McSeats" and I would tend to agree. Working at these funds is likened it to being throw into a gladitorial pit vs the well paid, walled, elysium of working at tiger global.
Tiger Global - nobody is leaving that seat unless you want to start your own fund or retire or exit the industry. Citadel is always hiring because they are always firing. P72 is better than Citadel though from a survivability perspective.
Not saying it's not a good risk/reward or doesn't work out for some people, but there are many many many of these seats
Would definitely not add those to the list lol
they are 10-50x easier to get than a seat at a lone pine etc
A lot of people on this forum shit on multimanager platforms because of the high turnover but they fail to understand the actual value proposition of these funds. There's a reason that Citadel, Millenium, BAM and others have some of the largest AUM bases of all the hedge funds out there and its because they perform well and make money. The reason turnover is so high is that each pod operates almost completely autonomously. Each PM can expand or contract their team as they see fit, and management can always choose to add or cut a whole pod loose if need be. The reason there are always open seats at these multimanagers is moreso because the firm is adding new pods altogether rather than the need to fill a seat that someone had been fired from. Proof being that pretty much every one of the big multimanagers is managing more money and has more pods (and total analysts) today than they did 2 or 5 or 10 years ago. All said, it's not easy at all to get a seat at Citadel or Point72. Every analyst there comes from great banking or PE programs and has the opportunity to make a massive amount of money and take on an outsized responsibility at an extremely young age. At a single manager fund you may have to be 15+ years into your career to be one of the most important decision makers at the firm and have a substantial cut of the p&l. At citadel, there are 25 year old analysts that are the most senior member of the pod behind the PM and manage their own sleeve of capital for them. If you play your cards right and are good at what you do, you could be a PM incredibly early in your career with your own sizeable book and world class infrastructure without the hassle of fundraising, investor relations, or setting up operations. You can talk all you want about prestige but if you're ready to call the shots and pick winning stocks early in your career, the mms will reward you more handsomely than anyone else.
Pardon my ignorance, what does tiger cub mean?
Hedge funds that were started by former employees of Tiger Management and seeded by Julian Robertson (founder of Tiger Management). Seats at the top Tiger Cubs (Tiger Global, Viking, Lone Pine) are among the most coveted seats in the HF industry.
Tiger cub funds are hedge funds that were started by the "cubs" of Tiger Management. Essentially they were founded by Julian Robertson's proteges.
This whole thread is a fairly biased list of value/quality funds, which may be considered "prestigious" if you subscribe to that or enjoy factor investing disguised as fundamental analysis. The ones producing the best alpha should be in the multi-manager funds which have been dominating, being able to last there for many years is certainly more prestigious than any of these Tiger or Activist funds. Successful analysts at multi-managers would never want to go these funds, unless they want a more stable atmosphere/failed/got unlucky. Simply compare the wealth of Julian Robertson vs Ken Griffin, or any of these Tiger guys vs the MM founders.
You’re telling me a successful analyst at a MM will never want to go to lone pine because it’s a step down? That seems not correct
Renaissance Technologies
I would say they are more in line with an academic type of prestige than the regular kind usually focused on here.
True, but writing published academic research is way harder than any 2x2 path most of these other funds require.
I'd add Pershing Square.
Yep forgot about this one. I know someone related to Ferguson who runs Sachem Head along with a relative of Paul Hilal. From what I've heard of Ackman, he's a very good guy and pays his analysts extremely well. Tiger Global levels of pay etc.
Do you know what some of these Analysts at Pershing and or the Tiger Cubs take home? Ballpark.
Renaissance Technologies
Very hard to get into, but my impression is that the pay is not really comparable to the Tiger-type funds for anyone who joined recently (in the last 10 years). They are much larger in terms of employees. They hire mid-career scientists who are happy with mid-high 6 figure pay and a collaborative environment, and see no reason to leave.
Spot on, they're comparing themselves to other academics mostly. That's actually how Simons managed to keep most of the money for himself. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a single person whose wealth is anyone near his at the firm.
There are a lot more really well regarded shops that keep it lower key and avoid press. Look at professors, speakers etc. involved in the Value Investing Program at Columbia for some more well regarded non-Tiger cub / non-MM. Other than that people are pretty spot on. Additonally, I’ve heard people talk very positively about Select Equity, Brave Warrior, and a number of other great funds that don’t fit in the Tiger or MM bucket. There are some sub-$2bn funds that crush it but either can’t or don’t want to scale. Also, while I agree the best single managers are better seats, it’s not true in every case. Some of the best funds only do 2-year pre-MBA programs and then send you on your way, transparently, but still a good experience and pay and exits. The top 10% of PMs w/in MMs are as sharp and skillful as any single managers - but there’s basically no way to tell who they are when you’re joining and even do a great PM can get blown out in that model.
What funds are only doing two years and out? Only ones I can imagine you’re referring to are distressed seats
There's a lot of different variables at play. A place like Select is very well regarded, but you're not playing for real upside there. Comp there tops out at ~$2mm.
I know that for the WSO bunch (20-26 year olds) that sounds like an insane amount of money, but it's really not by finance standards. That's probably about what you make (i.e., $1-2mm) as a group head in investment banking at a Tier 2/3 firm.
The HF game is most compelling (especially vs. alternative paths like PE or even staying in banking) when you start hitting your stride in your early to mid-30s if you're at a place where you can make real upside (read: make $3-5mm or more in a single year).
That's where you really start to diverge vs. your peers on cumulative earnings.
I would add that by the tone of OP, you're really asking the wrong questions. There's not really a "prestige" factor in the HF game. You're either a money maker at a firm putting up numbers, or you're not. If the same prestige rules that applied in UG/IBD/PE applied to HF world, the best HF jobs in the world would be at Bridgewater and Citadel.
At some point you have to depart from the warm comfy blanket of "if I just try to get the most prestigious and hardest to get job, I'll do fine". That only works for the first 5-7 years out of UG, after that you'll royally fuck yourself up by basing your career decisions off of such a shallow and unthoughtful mindset.
Also if you're playing for downside mitigation, why come to the public side? Stay in IB.
What do you think the comp is for a group head of a Tier 1 bulge bracket / independent advisory firm?
DE Shaw, Renaissance, Point72, Bridgewater are some that come to mind
Idk how hard it is to get a job (I imagine extremely) but I've never seen a coatue annual irr in single digits, people there are just incredibly good at making money
Crazy how none of the big macro funds of the past even make this discussion anymore.
I think more a function of people here being biased towards equity/distressed funds that one can get to from banking. Brevan/Caxton/Soros etc etc are as prestigious as ever, and I would argue that in general equity funds have actually lost prestige relative to macro
Eh I'd argue over the last several years the macro funds just haven't done and have been redeemed (https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-pull-3-billion-from-brevan-howar…). Seems like Soros also changed their model, really shrinking their internal hf assets. They're legendary names but not necessarily where you get paid these days.
Most single managers
P72 is not SAC Capital.
All that matters is your role, income, and performance
Some names that haven't been mentioned (not necessarily based in the US): Baupost, The Children's Investment Fund, Himalaya Capital
any hedge fund you will find on edgr.io
.
Worth noting here that MM's cover more than equities, and there is variability in 'prestige' or 'barrier for entry' across different classes. If we are speaking strictly about equities, not much to say as MM's vs SM's and factor exposed vs (theoretically) factor neutral strategies are not like comparisons.
However, if we talk about FICC, quantitative, macro strategies then we are talking in an entirely different space.
In an absolute sense, though, guy I work with who's been around funds for a decade or two put it well. "There's big roles, big titles, and big paydays - and I just want big paydays".
I don't work with many people who care about title or prestige - quite the opposite in fact - they care about generating and maintaining edge, risking their seats on their confidence in true edge, and getting paid for doing it. If one is in a seat where they truly have exposure to life-changing paydays (if they are as good as we all think we are in this world), then they don't care about whether their fund is "better" than another or not beyond longevity of the fund, capital they get to run, etc.
Very well put. In terms of moving between funds, it’s really about similarity of strategy moreso than prestige. There a lot of people at firm B who might be smarter than firm A but they’re approach doesn’t jive with firm As mandate/strategy. Prestige in earlier career is just a crude and poor predictor of ability to produce once you get experience. Very quickly production is all that matters in HFs. Then when you want to raise capital, prestige matters again
Assumenda tempora autem impedit est aut. Ad consequatur ipsum voluptas aut sapiente. Officiis ut maiores cum est aut qui aut.
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...
Nam minima excepturi omnis aut animi sapiente. Eveniet tempore nobis temporibus.
Quasi itaque temporibus quis et. Cumque sunt amet nobis. Laboriosam et quas ratione debitis ut. Cumque culpa omnis voluptatem cumque odit quaerat exercitationem excepturi. Id nemo sunt ut ut et. Id iure libero est illum consequatur cupiditate enim.
Veritatis asperiores ipsum nam aut autem. Voluptates sed dolorem ut qui.
Sit rerum quae assumenda debitis velit minus. Sit provident necessitatibus similique consequatur enim animi eveniet. Ipsa et maxime quam qui reprehenderit ea.