Hedge Funds interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

39

Firms

16

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsMan Group10Balyasny Asset Management7Bridgewater Associates3DED.E. Shaw3Apollo Global Management2KKR2Oaktree Capital Management2Point722SCSquarepoint Capital2ACAQR Capital Management1BGBaupost Group1Coatue Management1HPS Investment Partners1Northern Trust1Viking Global Investors1Wolverine Trading1

Topic

All topicsStrategy taxonomy8Stock pitch10Short selling6Portfolio construction8Risk and drawdown8Performance and alpha7Event-driven and merger arb8Distressed and credit5Fund structure and economics7Financing, NAV and operations6Compliance and research process5Quant and systematic6India and Category III AIFs5Career and fit11

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalMarket viewBrainteaserCaseFit

1. 002Explain the difference between discretionary and systematic trading.Strategy taxonomyIntermediatetechnicalMan GroupGeneralist · London · 2023

   Say this

   A discretionary manager makes the decision on each trade, using a rules-guided but human judgement. A systematic manager makes the decision once, in code, and then the rules trade without intervention. The real difference is where the human judgement sits: in the position or in the process.

   Then walk it

   1. Discretionary: deep work on few positions. A macro PM might run fifteen expressions of four themes. Breadth is low, so the edge has to be depth of insight.
   2. Systematic: shallow work on many positions. A trend or stat arb book may hold thousands of instruments, each with a small expected edge, and the edge is breadth plus discipline.
   3. The fundamental law of active management is the clean way to say it: information ratio is roughly skill times the square root of breadth. Discretionary buys the skill term, systematic buys the breadth term.
   4. Capacity differs. Systematic strategies hit capacity limits in the market microstructure and can be measured; discretionary capacity is limited by how many names one human can genuinely know.
   5. Failure modes differ too. Discretionary fails through anchoring, averaging down and story-telling. Systematic fails through overfitting, regime change and everyone crowding the same signal.
   6. The blurred middle is where most large firms live now: quantamental. Human thesis, systematic screening, portfolio construction and risk done by the machine. Man Group itself runs both AHL on the systematic side and discretionary equity books, which is worth naming if you are sitting there.

   Where candidates lose it

   Framing it as 'humans versus computers'. Discretionary PMs use enormous amounts of quantitative tooling, and systematic researchers make thousands of judgement calls when specifying a model. Say where the judgement sits instead, and mention the fundamental law if you want to sound like you have thought about it rather than read about it.

   Expect next

   • Which has more capacity, and why?
   • How would you know a systematic strategy had stopped working rather than just having a bad month?
   • Which would you rather work in?

   Reported by candidates at Man Group (Generalist, London, 2023). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 008How large is the hedge fund industry?Strategy taxonomyIntermediatephone / first roundMan GroupEquity Hedge · London · 2016

   Say this

   Around 4 to 4.5 trillion dollars of assets under management, across roughly ten thousand funds, with the largest twenty or thirty firms holding a very large share of it. If I had to build it from scratch I would get there from global institutional assets and an allocation percentage.

   Then walk it

   1. Build it up rather than guess. Global professionally managed assets are of the order of 100 trillion dollars. Institutions allocating to hedge funds put roughly 5 percent of portfolios there, which lands you in the right neighbourhood of a few trillion.
   2. Sanity-check from the other end. A top platform manages 60 to 70 billion of investor capital. Thirty firms of that scale is close to 2 trillion, and the long tail of small funds roughly doubles it.
   3. Then say the important caveat: AUM understates market footprint badly, because these funds run leverage. Gross market exposure across the industry is a large multiple of the equity, which is why hedge funds matter more to market plumbing than 4 trillion suggests.
   4. The concentration point is the real insight. Assets have been consolidating into the largest multi-strategy platforms for a decade, because institutional allocators want operational infrastructure they can underwrite.
   5. Compare it to what it is not: the global mutual fund and ETF complex is an order of magnitude larger. Hedge funds are a small slice of assets and a large slice of turnover.
   6. And flag the measurement problem: nobody counts it cleanly. Definitions differ on whether managed accounts, UCITS alternatives and private credit vehicles are included, so the published numbers vary by a trillion depending on the source.

   Where candidates lose it

   Either freezing because you do not know the number, or firing out a figure with no structure. This is an estimation question dressed as a fact question. Show the build-up, land in the right order of magnitude, and then add the leverage caveat, which is the part that shows industry awareness.

   Expect next

   • How much of that sits with the top twenty firms?
   • Has the industry grown or shrunk over the last five years?
   • How would leverage change your answer?

   Reported by candidates at Man Group (Equity Hedge, London, 2016). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

Firm tags come from public, anonymous candidate reports on Wall Street Oasis: strong signal, not sworn testimony. Firms are named as the places a question was reported, not as partners of Fin Maverick. Answers are written for this page to show how to think out loud; they are not scripts to recite.