Partially efficiency, also easier to raise capital, and there’s more of a cushion when the market performs poorly. Also, past a certain point, people start to care more about stability and work/life balance rather than sacrificing their lives to make even more money.

Why did the top managers transition from SM to MM after a while if a single PnL models provide more upside? All funds start off as SM don’t they? Was it too much capital to handle at some point, or is it too difficult to make all of the major investment decisions? Is it about efficiency or is there some other reason? Thanks

Depends completely on performance, track record, and consistency. If you are one of the top HF managers anywhere and have been consistently for years, a single-manager fund provides more upside. If you’re more in the middle of the pack, the MM model is better because you just need decent, consistent results to succeed rather than amazing results.

It’s around item #723 in my current to-do list, so maybe, yes, but probably not anytime soon. An article on a completely new topic sometimes takes days to research and write, so it’s difficult to justify unless it’s for a competitive keyword that is likely to generate sales.

Is there any article on merger arb coming in the future?

Thanks, I’ll see what we can do.

A topic in the future on merger arbitrage would be very helpful for many people. I am currently in M&A at a bulge bracket and want to break into to this field as well.

Sorry, I don’t know, but I would expect compensation at the junior levels to be similar. I’ll see if we can publish an interview on this topic in the future.