Pros
High variability between groups - some are great to work for, others are not. Do your due diligence. Commercial culture; everyone is squarely focused on run rate revenue. This stands in contrast to the ideological orientation of most asset managers. Firm management is comprised of professional managers. Again, given the norm in this industry (nepotism or a highly successful PM given management responsibilities) this is an improvement. Alts business strong within its niches (secondaries / coinvests). Equities iffy (but no worse than peers), and better than average flows. Fixed income average with a few strong franchises. Privately held. Focused on growing EBITDA, but not worried about making quarters.
Cons
Compensation broadly below top tier managers (Wellington, Fidelity, Capital, T. Rowe) and high AUM-to-headcount boutiques. Modestly below Alliance Bernstein, probably the most obvious comp. That said, comp tied to revenue generation at the team / business level. The firm just has a lot of subscale strategies. Largest revenue generators in Equities / Fixed Income are cash cows. Has pretty strong diversity quotas. Could be a positive or negative depending on your views. Employees are not granted equity, merely offered the opportunity to buy it (with cheap leverage and at a discount to public peers). But still not the most appealing value proposition. Obviously buying equity now has less upside than buying immediately post financial crisis. And the firm has already monetized Dyal.