Danteshek, thank you so much. How about working for a traditional asset manager as a quantitative analyst first? What is that career path like?
Danteshek Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m in Client Service/Marketing for an asset > manager. > > What you describe are two different career paths. > A HF manager will almost never make the jump to a > traditional asset manager as a PM. To become a PM > at a traditional asset manager the path usually > looks like this. > > Analytics group (data integrity or risk management > in support of trading desk) 3-5 years > Portfolio Analyst for a specific sector (portfolio > operations with no trading authority) 5-7 years > Research Analyst 5-20 years (many people are > “career analysts” some have trading authority some > don’t) > Research Analyst/Portfolio Manager (with trading > authority) > Portfolio Manager > > You can see that it often takes 20+ years to make > PM. Most research analysts will never have this > title. You have to be good and build an > *outstanding* track record first. I disagree with this career path. to me it’s more like good internship out of college get into research associate program 3y MBA for 2 years. Take Jr Analyst position promoted to Analyst 5years. maybe year 10 make PM maybe not. Also MBA Finance, I would advise against quant analyst unless you wanted to be a PM on a quant fund or asset allocation fund.
Buddha, I know BGI is a quant fund. What is asset allocation fund?
buddha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Danteshek Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I’m in Client Service/Marketing for an asset > > manager. > > > > What you describe are two different career > paths. > > A HF manager will almost never make the jump to > a > > traditional asset manager as a PM. To become a > PM > > at a traditional asset manager the path usually > > looks like this. > > > > Analytics group (data integrity or risk > management > > in support of trading desk) 3-5 years > > Portfolio Analyst for a specific sector > (portfolio > > operations with no trading authority) 5-7 years > > Research Analyst 5-20 years (many people are > > “career analysts” some have trading authority > some > > don’t) > > Research Analyst/Portfolio Manager (with > trading > > authority) > > Portfolio Manager > > > > You can see that it often takes 20+ years to > make > > PM. Most research analysts will never have > this > > title. You have to be good and build an > > *outstanding* track record first. > > I disagree with this career path. > > to me it’s more like good internship out of > college get into research associate program 3y MBA > for 2 years. Take Jr Analyst position promoted to > Analyst 5years. maybe year 10 make PM maybe not. > > Also MBA Finance, I would advise against quant > analyst unless you wanted to be a PM on a quant > fund or asset allocation fund. Depends on the shop. The better shops don’t let too many green recent MBAs make too many decisions. They leave it to the more experienced folks. The best shops only hire people with established track records. It’s kinda like the “star system” for getting a job as a professor at Harvard (you have to publish successfully in your field first and be recognized as a thought leader).
> > Depends on the shop. The better shops don’t let > too many green recent MBAs make too many > decisions. They leave it to the more experienced > folks. The best shops only hire people with > established track records. It’s kinda like the > “star system” for getting a job as a professor at > Harvard (you have to publish successfully in your > field first and be recognized as a thought > leader). I dont disagree with that. But i would feel like a guy with a 3y reserach associate program and a MBA is much more experienced at pick names than someone who has been in some BO support role for 5-7 years. And i think this is recognized regardless the type of shop.
buddha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Depends on the shop. The better shops don’t > let > > too many green recent MBAs make too many > > decisions. They leave it to the more > experienced > > folks. The best shops only hire people with > > established track records. It’s kinda like the > > “star system” for getting a job as a professor > at > > Harvard (you have to publish successfully in > your > > field first and be recognized as a thought > > leader). > > > I dont disagree with that. But i would feel like > a guy with a 3y reserach associate program and a > MBA is much more experienced at pick names than > someone who has been in some BO support role for > 5-7 years. > > And i think this is recognized regardless the type > of shop. Not sure how familiar you are with the Analytics function. They usually are just off the trading floor and are definitely not considered back office. In fact they are the main source of talent for jobs on the trading desk. Many of them are CFA charterholders at my firm. Pricing can be included in this bucket if we’re talking fixed income.
> > Not sure how familiar you are with the Analytics > function. They usually are just off the trading > floor and are definitely not considered back > office. In fact they are the main source of > talent for jobs on the trading desk. Many of them > are CFA charterholders at my firm. Pricing can be > included in this bucket if we’re talking fixed > income. U r right I’m not familiar with this role. But it sounds like a completely different career path than the research/pm path. In anycase I thougt you were referring to a portfolio/performance/risk analyst But even for a trader at an asset manager i think it is a completely different path than research.
I think it depends. I agree mostly with Dante. I work for one of the above mentioned asset managers and have seen people jump all over the place once they put in there 5-7. People on this forum always talk about how the move from BO to FO is impossible, I disagree. It is tough/ impossible to do in one jump but I have seen people do it. That being said you have to work hard and have a little luck too. All in all though I find it a good place to work.
I also think there is a big distinction between what kind of PM you want to be and the path you must follow to get there. For instance, a guy running a mutual fund might have a dif path than someone running a bunch of money for their company (buy side). Throw a private wealth PM in the mix and they can get the position (although it is a different variation) in less time perhaps. I am curious as to what sort of PM is the most coveted in people’s minds and which might be considered uninteresting if any, as well as why.