It's hard to get, but the top investment management firms (pimco, wellington, fidelity, templeton, t rowe price, state street, putnam, capital group, etc.) all recruit at top business schools. Getting an interview isn't that hard, but you definitely have to nail the interviews to get an offer. The good thing about these top b-schools is that they give you so much access to firms that you otherwise may not have a chance of even getting an interview at.
Top prop firm to top MBA?
- Thread starter torque
- Start date
It's hard to get, but the top investment management firms (pimco, wellington, fidelity, templeton, t rowe price, state street, putnam, capital group, etc.) all recruit at top business schools. Getting an interview isn't that hard, but you definitely have to nail the interviews to get an offer. The good thing about these top b-schools is that they give you so much access to firms that you otherwise may not have a chance of even getting an interview at.
2 Reasons:
1) Because of the opportunity cost. If your salary is 200k, your opportunity cost is 550k. Plus, in 2 years someone might leave (as you say many people are not happy) and you might get more responsibilities. In 7-10 years, you might be on track to become head of trading. However, if you are currently making 70-80k then the opportunity cost is very small. Basically, it boils down to your current role - how good that is, how good it can be in future etc. etc. You are the best person to judge it.
2) Grass always looks greener on the other side. There is lot of truth in this proverb.
My point is this: At your career stage, it is easy to get influenced by what people are saying and have 5 different options. Ultimately, 10 years down the line, it won't matter if you are an harvard MBA or a drw alumnus, what will matter is what you have done in those 10 years.
5-10 years after your MBA, you will see a huge disparity in the amount of success different people achieve. Some of it would be due to being at the right place at the right time, but a lot of it would be due to what the individual makes of the opportunity he gets. My point is drw/getco is a great opportunity.
And this is my what surprises me
Its much much harder to get into getco or jump than to get into pimco or templeton!Most of my friends share this view that a drw/getco/jump is much better than a pimco/fidelity/templeton etc. And that is why I can't understand why you want to move to something that is not as great as your current place - in terms of compensation, the kind of technology you will use and have access to, the kind of cutting edge work you will do, the direct impact you will make to your firms profitability, no politics to speak of in a trading career vis-a-vis an investment management career etc. etc.
You should compare compensation of pimco against getco or jump. Yes, pimco does give you a relaxed life style and newport beach.
I'll admit that my knowledge of the investment management landscape isn't nearly as good as it should be, but I always had the impression that these big names like Fidelity, Templeton, or Pimco where fairly uninteresting and un prestigious places to work at. They're simply too big generate much alpha, I do not feel that the most talented people work at places like these.
I was thinking of smaller places like Greenlight Capital where you find some of the best talent. Needless to say, places like that are extremely hard to get into.
As you probably know, most asset management firms do not beat the market. The ones that do so consistently are extremely rare. Having worked at a few of the mediocre firms, which represents most of the landscape, I personally am not that excited about the experience. But maybe I'm just too jaded.
I was thinking of smaller places like Greenlight Capital where you find some of the best talent. Needless to say, places like that are extremely hard to get into.
As you probably know, most asset management firms do not beat the market. The ones that do so consistently are extremely rare. Having worked at a few of the mediocre firms, which represents most of the landscape, I personally am not that excited about the experience. But maybe I'm just too jaded.
Greenlight has only 100 people.
Fidelity has 10,000 people.
There is a lot to finance that's not just hedgefunds and prop trading.
Google has a team of traders managing their huge cash position.
Intel has an internal VC arm to integrate with their core business.
It could be pretty cool being a bond trader at the Fed.
Or being the currency hedger for Coke.
And if you are really interested in making money in finance, get an MBA, go be an Ibanker and work your way to a good PE firm. You can make hundreds of millions. Partners at Blackstone, Summit, KKR, consistently have net worths in that range.
Fidelity has 10,000 people.
There is a lot to finance that's not just hedgefunds and prop trading.
Google has a team of traders managing their huge cash position.
Intel has an internal VC arm to integrate with their core business.
It could be pretty cool being a bond trader at the Fed.
Or being the currency hedger for Coke.
And if you are really interested in making money in finance, get an MBA, go be an Ibanker and work your way to a good PE firm. You can make hundreds of millions. Partners at Blackstone, Summit, KKR, consistently have net worths in that range.
All those jobs you listed are WAY more interesting than prop trading.
I saw the job listing last year for google's currency trader position. Basically they wanted someone to make G10 currency trades and hedging for their large cash reserves.
Intel is also cash rich, so it makes sense for them to acquire companies rather than spending money on R&D.
I thought greenlight was more like a dozen people. Regardless the the point is the same though, the good places are extremely hard to get into.
And its not just the money, although that's a big part of it. I personally just don't want to work at a place that's not a alpha generating firm, which describes most places. The people there are not as smart, and the work is not as creative.
And its not just the money, although that's a big part of it. I personally just don't want to work at a place that's not a alpha generating firm, which describes most places. The people there are not as smart, and the work is not as creative.
To each his own I guess. How hard do you think it is to access Google's exposures to various currencies and then just execute and adjust those hedges. You probably wouldn't even be doing this because the systems are already in place. You are just monitoring and adjusting existing systems, none of which sound very creative to me.