I think this has been discussed a little bit previously, but was interested in hearing peoples opinions on fund of funds analyst roles, i.e where you research other managed funds for inclusion in a fund. Is it less interesting than being say an equity analyst? What about career prospects? Once you go there are you pretty much locked in as a funds analyst?
I think the real problem with FoF analyst is that it’s not very analytical. Of course I’ve never met a FoF analyst so I’m only speaking based on job descriptions I’ve seen.
yeah, that was my feeling too, but I’d be interested in hearing from soneome who is in that sort of role or was in one in the past.
I have a feeling that the industry in general has started to look at FoF as Fees-of fees and have unfavorble opinion of them. Not something i see growing much.
what about a fund of fund of funds?
seriously, are there no FoF or ex-FoF analysts on this forum?
No, this board is sinking.
newsuper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > seriously, are there no FoF or ex-FoF analysts on > this forum? No the board is filled with auditors, unemployed and 5-7 years kids.
i did some FoF. you are locked in pretty soundly if you start off in a FoF. if you want to get out later and do something else, your experience is pretty biased to just manager selection/evaluation.
Never fear…for I am here I got locked into a FoF Analyst role a year after college when I basically had no idea what the job entailed. It sounded sexier than my current job supporting a trading desk so I took it. There are FoFoF’s by the way (sad, but true). It definitely is not as interesting as an equity analyst. Also, in my experience, FoF PM’s and CIO’s traditionally migrate from the direct investing side as a retirement job and a way to earn a decent EASY paycheck. Exit options are limited. Almost impossible to break into the direct investing side. The only cool part of the job is that I got to meet some pretty high profile HF managers (King Street, Paulson, Marathon, etc). My opinion of FoF is that they are leeches and add very little value especially if you work for a larger FoF - which by virtue limits the HF investment universe to all the top names everyone has heard of and invests in. I’d pass. Best of luck.
YeeS_Mos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > newsuper Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > seriously, are there no FoF or ex-FoF analysts > on > > this forum? > > > No the board is filled with auditors, unemployed > and 5-7 years kids. and IT pros
I am a little surprised that there are so few people in this forum involved with FoFs. Anyway, if you think about it, I think it could be an intereresting job in various ways: There is definitely some traveling involved, since every meaningful due diligence process must involve a visit at a hedge fund where you (hopefully) meet some interesting people. Depending on how the Fof is organized, your need to have a broad and excellent knowledge about investment instruments, investment styles and risk analysis . I personally wouldn’t want to work for a FoF, because the latest wash out in the HF industry has shown that by and large they had the same performance as the HF industry as a whole. So in light of the fees they charge, I doubt they add to much value to an investor who could otherwise directly approach a HF.
If you consider traveling taking taxi’s and subways to various Manhattan offices - then yes - there is a fair bit of traveling involved. Bonus: Greenwich!
exit opps: investment consulting/manager selection, endowments & foundations and other investment firms that hire outside managers. Your due dil skills should be good, you should be a proficient generalist with knowledge of many strategies and when/why they work as they do.
My first job out of college was as a FoF analyst. Boring as H*LL!!! Only good part was manager meetings and determining where to allocate client contributions to the fund. Majority of the role was performance analysis on the over all portfolio as opposed to security selection. Occasionally needed to look at specific holdings in cases where one manager dominated the performance due to holding very concentrated portfolios containing only 10-15 securities. But for the most part grunt work with limited/no exit options.
I was a FOF analyst for a bit. Got out asap. Could clearly see that the future is not bright for the skills gained as one of those.
Thanks for the feedback guys, I think I’ll give it a skip should it progress any further
FoFoF? What is that, 4-5% hurdle rate for the year just to break even (not even including the HFM’s profit cut)? Wow. On that note, can you vertically integrate? I mean, is it conveivable that you could create a FoFoFoFoF structure and manage all five components, simply skimming off the top and providing no value whatsoever? Oh wait, that’s what the government does.
I think it depends on how big the FoF’s AUM is and how big the firm is. Obviously the smaller the firm the more exposure you will have, but if its MAN group then you will be stuck to one specific task.
bromion Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FoFoF? What is that, 4-5% hurdle rate for the year > just to break even (not even including the HFM’s > profit cut)? Wow. > > On that note, can you vertically integrate? I > mean, is it conveivable that you could create a > FoFoFoFoF structure and manage all five > components, simply skimming off the top and > providing no value whatsoever? Oh wait, that’s > what the government does. Well its sort of like a “fund” that holds other Fund of Funds. I use the word loosely because you can’t even really consider it a fund. Where does it end. You could theoretically create an entity to invest in an allocator to Fund of Funds. Insanity.