Quote from wutangfinancial:
^um, did you apply to a prop desk at Goldman recently? Do you honestly think you get there purely through meritocracy?
Look, I have friends that will get spots at I banks. Most have connections. I'm objectively smarter than almost all of them finance wise, and have a decent pedigree. Yet I'm not getting on a prop desk unless I can wait to get in and pay for a Wharton MBA. Yet I outperform 99% of mutual fund managers with less risk. There's tons of guys like me who have carved out a little niche, who are truly passionate about trading/investing, yet simply won't get to those coveted spots as a trader or as a fund manager. Has nothing to do with ability. It has to do with grooming. Wall Street is not Silicon Valley; it's still very much an old boys club. Most guys I know got a spot through a. their parents or b. their Ivy League fraternity. Not because of their exceptional track record or their passion. Get real. If we were talking about chemical engineering, you'd have a point. People in finance aren't even that smart, save for a handful of quants.
1) Having connections is something you need to get a job. Having *lots* of connections is something you need to set up a hedge fund. Smart people know smart people. That's how things work.
2) Getting on a trading desk has not much to do with being 'smart finance wise' to start with, or knowing the theory. You learn that from experience, from scratch. You need specific aptitudes and heads of desks know better than you what these are and if you have them.
3) Patience and being able to take controlled risks (ex. financing your MBA) are among those aptitudes.
4) "Nothing to do with ability, about grooming, get real, not about passion" yadi yada is typical speech of someone who lacked the drive to demonstrate his ability in front of a prospective employer.
Here's some news buddy. Goldman Sachs don't recruit idiots to pay them tons of money just for fun. Nobody does. If you truly beat 99% of fund managers, knock on the door of the 98th perc. and show your track record, make your case, and get the job. If you fail at doing that, you'll fail at convincing institutional investors to invest a single penny in your fund. That's a garantee I give you.
As for PTF. It seems like most of the discussion has been plain deleted, which I think is sad. Not all good discussions have both parties in full agreement. I think there are a lot of counter arguments to starting a hedge fund, most specifically for people with no experience in dealing with institutions or managing money with a long enough track record. For every case like you PTF, you can see a dozen which resulted in plain bankruptcy, and loss of trust by family and friends.
However, I think I owe you an apology for my agressive tone, which was not necessary. You obviously provide very useful advice to those who want to start their hedge fund. But I'm not sure this is good advice for the 'qualified' investors that will bankroll them. Managing money is becoming increasingly complicated - compliance wise. Lots of people want to do it, not all can. And this complexity is one way of filtering out those people. One shouldn't even consider doing it without being able to take a least a million in expenses per year (office space, compliance, independent admin, custody, accounting, audit and risk management, client servicing, etc.). And this cost will increase as investors become more diligent in the selection of their managers.
And I still think that anyone who wants to manage money should first convince an experienced manager to hire them, before convincing unexperienced investors to bankroll them. In fact, around here we have a law that forces anyone to have at least 5 years of experience as analyst or assistant portfolio mgr before actually managing money. Not that bad of an idea when you think about it.
And for all the others who dream of being top hedge fund managers before they turn 30 without a single year of industry experience, I wish good luck to them and most specifically to their families and friends.