Best SM seats in 2024?
Basically title. Which SM seats are still competitive/would people take over the top MM seats today if given the secular trend?
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
May 31, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
tiger lone pine still excellent seats
Your undergrad college investment fund. Elite SM seat
Too bad mine is a MM
HAHAHA undergrad college pod shop
I like the ones with the former LO guys in them other than the Whalerock type ZIRP boys. Durable for example.
Any chance you could list out a couple others?
TCI still rocks
This may not be the answer you want, but this whole debate has (rightfully) shifted to "top LO vs top pod". Coming from someone at a large single manager everyone WSO loves to talk about (I am on my way out). If youre a PE or IB person, don't waste your time at any single manager (activist aside). However, if it's not a good pod or top lo, then yes we can talk about SMs, but they're not the "best" seats, which is what your thread asked. With that being said, I've been quite impressed with the folks I know at Eminence, Holocene, Permian, Maplelane, Alua, Jericho, Cadian, Candlestick. Great funds that don't get nearly as much spotlight as the giant funds everyone talks about. These funds are much better seats ime.
Aren't both Holocene and Candlestick basically similar to top pods with some flexibility to take longer-term and some more directional risk?
You’re essentially correct with your premise. Holocene, candlestick, woodline, etc. are essentially top decile pods that have scaled GMV to a large amount with consistent returns and a touch more duration while being tactical. If Passaic spun out of MLP that pod would be in the same bucket of these funds.
Any thoughts on the scalability of pod style SMs like Holocene/Woodline etc? Their aum growth looks very impressive, understand the ADV $ is levered but Holocene for e.g. looks quite large like it’s in the HSD $bn range ex-leverage?
Don’t go to Eminence. It is fine as a junior for a few years but Ricky’s churned through a lot of people over a lot of years. Smart guy but dead end career where you’ll be stuck as an old SM analyst. Only go work at a SM where the top lieutenants made a ton of money or were successful raising their own money afterwards.
Yep - I’m with you from junior POV. Not the best seat after that. OP asked for best SM seats but I just don’t think the best seats are SMs anymore, hence my response. Have been quite impressed with the level of work there, though.
they have a decent # of analyst to PM promotes though?
Surprised that's the take - seems like good longevity for the guys that do well, and the whole sr team has been there a long time
know a few guys there and they seem happy
fund does well
Is ricky really that smart? I’ve read some of his tweets regarding Israel, and he doesn’t seem very impressive himself
Would say “best” seats right now are large legacy multi-strats with permanent capital, top LOs, top pods, and activists.
Any views on Crossover funds?
Would not bother joining one. Zirpy TAM worship mindset does not mesh well with public mkts, and these guys haven't learned their lesson. Still asking 2020-type questions. Dumbest guys in the room at every conference / meeting.
As an associate at top LO, would I be regarded by such SM? Or do they only hire from PE/MM?
I've seen analysts (guys who are like 30-32, basically the equivalent of a couple of years experience post-MBA) go from LO to SM
There are still plenty of good SMs out there with strong returns that take longer-term 5 year bets and aren't competing in the same category as pods. They are just under-the-radar and you won't know unless you know.
List them! Spread the good word. Save the reputation of this industry.
Steadfast
What’s view of top boutique LO? Firms like Pzena, Select, Harris, etc. There are low profile LO’s with >$1B AUM per investment head.
If this were a, let's say MM pod or a SM fund, then that AUM/head figure might have been somewhat relevant. At the type of funds you mention, most of the money is made by the PMs running it and then trickles down to other analysts. You won't make much more than an Aso at IB or an Analyst at a MM with an average year unless you've got a shit ton of experience and are starting at a role right under the PM. Not to mention the politics that come with these places, simply not worth it. And all of this is IF the performance is good, recent numbers are pretty bad for these guys. There is a reason we see capital shift towards MMs.
I understand the narrative that SM is no longer attractive, but some SM AUM (at least according to 13f) has grown or at least held steady since 2021. Funds like Viking, Coatue, Maverick have done ok (Coatue very well) and they've proven they can navigate tough markets without completely blowing up. Why is everyone so bearish?
Viking has done well but the turnover/culture sounds not too different from that at pods (I don’t think it’s a coincidence). Coatue high turnover too but for different reasons. LP and Maverick aum whacked back to pre-2015 levels. TGM is still great I guess if you can get a job there…
For the love of god do not work at Viking or Coatue :(
I’ve heard so many negative stories now there’s no way anyone in their right mind can think those are quality seats.
If TGM doesn’t convert to FO, I also agree it’s a good seat, but that assumes they can get above the HWM…and that you can get a job there.
Would not put Maverick in the same bucket as the other two. But it's pretty simple. SMs have way fewer seats and MMs have way more. In an industry downturn, this turns places like WSO into an echo chamber when most of this forum's participants couldn't make it to an SM in the first place.
And you may think this is a creative variant view but it’s still the consensus view that “pods are bad and scary”. If there’s anything I have confidence in, it’s that the SM heydays are over (for the big / good SMs and the small SMs). Have first hand experience and many, many friends who can attest to similar experiences.
I agree with the SM hate. I, and a number of friends and colleagues, did 2+2 IB+PE and have been at SM for the last 5+ years. “Good places” even. It is horrible. No transferable skills outside the industry. Impossible to lateral to LO and very very hard to go to MM where the new PMs hiring are likely the same age or younger.
While at the SM, they never made any real money. The story goes for the first 2-3 years, there’s a cap at 500/600/700 etc bc you are a junior analyst. Then you do well. Get promoted. Make a ton of money for the firm but “it is not your capital” or “you need to do it for multiple years” or “you and the firm both have to do well.” Capped at 1-1.5 when you think it should be 3-5. Never managed risk so can’t ever be a PM or raise own capital (unless you are independently wealthy). The firm shuts down b/c of CIO transition issues, or mediocre performance. Or they work at a place like Third Point etc where they just get managed out at the first mistake. Spend 2 years groveling for a job.
the model worked a decade ago when a senior SM analyst could launch his own firm and start with 300-500MM. That kept CIOs in check to pay and gave a real exit opportunity. Now there’s no pay, no exit, and no longevity except by exception.
This is so real. What amazes me is that the senior SM guys don’t get that it’s been happening and still shit on pods and won’t adapt
Felt this comment in my soul
This. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Have the exact same view
People need to realize this…and it applies to every single manager people obsess of exiting to here. So real.
Maybe new rule of thumb: if you want to get paid now / next 10-15 years, pods. If you want to be an intellectual guy / do a bunch of research but not get paid as much, SM (good and bad ones…). If you want to do the latter but get paid in years 15+, do mega-cap LO.
To be fair 1-1.5mm with not a ton of business/career risk is a great seat if fund has longevity no? Similar or better than LO path, doesn’t have the PM promo upside but higher upfront pay
No that’s the point. There is a ton of business/seat risk.
This. If I’m in my 30s with a family, do I really care about the upside skew of a pod seat provided the SM HF has longevity? I would much rather have a somewhat sustainable work life balance clipping coupons / building my nest egg vs. grinding it out year after year to get $3M+ one year and then <$500K the next. To some with families, it’s much better from a financial standpoint to have stability vs. upward mobility. Obviously all this goes out the window if you’re in a shitty SM HF seat that caps pay AND is at risk of shutting down. I think the goal for most in the industry is to survive long enough through your 20s and 30s while keeping lifestyle inflation at check that if anything happens when you’re 40+, you should have enough savings to live off your passive returns. If I’m 40+ and have $10M+ liquid and get fired, I’m fine not getting another job tbh… especially if I live outside of NYC
Since when did a SM or MM provide “transferable skills outside the industry”?
I moved over to a fund like those on the SM list above and negotiated a formulaic, alpha linked percentage payout. It’s not very common though and it’s not a carve per se, but the market for labor is somewhat efficient, i thinks it’s possible alignment and attribution is improving at same SMs
Why don't PMs let you manage risk anymore and build up a track record?
Obviously there's structural changes in the HF world that can have you question whether SM strategies are less attractive nowadays, but most people are just pointing to how SM seats aren't as financially attractive anymore, as if that's some indictment of the strategy / category. It's just more mature and people in seats of power / carry are in those positions because they're technically being compensated for "taking the risk" when they first started.
A more exaggerated example / more mature industry, but anyone and their mother knows Blackstone is one of the largest / best PE firms in the world today, but if Jon Gray was a fresh graduate today, he wouldn't reach 5% of the success he has achieved now by joining in 1992 and staying there his whole career. Imagine joining BX as an analyst today, you think you'll be around 30 years? or reach anywhere near the success he did?
It's the same with large well known SMs. They've been large, well-known SMs for a loooong time. The age of going to these names everyone has known about for decades is obviously over.
MMs are a great option for type-A highly prepped always looking for the next thing juniors of today, because it's derisked by being part of a large platform and has a clear path to wealth "if you're good". If that fits you then it's a great time for you!
I think a lot of people (certainly myself and many friends I speak to both SM/MM) don't find the pod way of investing very attractive. If you ask an MM analyst if they would try to replicate the strategy if they could break out on their own, many would say no. So it's tough if you feel that way, cuz well known SMs aren't as attractive anymore, and you either have to compromise on ideal investment philosophy / methodology, or riskiness of the firm by going to a startup, or just suck it up.
Wut
your comparison to what is going on in the SM HF industry is to “mature” Blackstone (with aum growing from 500bn to 1 TRILLION in the last 5 years)?
and referencing Jon Gray’s path?
LOL
fair point, definitely not 1 for 1 and I'm not too good at metaphors
But worth considering that despite growing AUM at such pace, prospects to go from Analyst / Associate to meaningful carry-making partner has...increased? decreased? Stayed just about the same? So where does the benefit of the grown AUM go / who captures it? Incumbents. Which means the scale of a company / industry's growth is asymmetrically captured aka. there is dispersion from the opportunities afforded to new entrants.
Not a perfect comparison for sure but just wanted to give a crude example to make the directional point. I think we all feel it at some point when we read about how different investors got to the position they are today. Paul Enright went from PwC, to equity research at MS to Viking. How often can that happen now? Julian Robertson was a stockbroker for Kidder Peabody. People used to start hedge funds with $1m and some friends and family money.
Having worked at a big SM and a podshop, I think you and most people here grossly overstate the differences between pod and SM investment style. It’s not nearly as different as you think. What I’m getting at is many, many pods hold things for 18+ months.
And if you can’t stomach or fathom the idea of fully monetizing the alpha curve by tactically being short something into a Q where you like medium/long term story, then sure man…but why wouldn’t you just go to a LO and get paid 2x the SM comp to do the exact same work?
And you’re wrong to assume SMs aren’t getting incrementally more tactical by the day. If you’re not a LO, time horizons across the board have compressed.
For what you’re solving for (which seems like a seat where you can be intellectual and do research but not have to worry about short term noise and also get paid less than your peers in other buyside seats?) just seems like it doesn’t make any sense anymore. This isn’t 2016
All good points. Ultimately I think it will have to come down to the specific role. Obviously for comparison purposes on this forum we talk about what SMs are like generally, and what pods are like generally. Of course many pods hold longer, and SMs take tactical positions too.
The ideal seat may be at a SM where you can be intellectual and do research, and not worry too much about short term noise, but also make educated tactical positions without compromising on longer term theses by monitoring factors, etc. (the proverbial factor-aware vs. neutral). If things go well here and you're early at the firm, could be a way to generate outsized wealth. Or maybe the ideal seat is at a MM, where you have a setup where it's "possible to be less ST-oriented than the common stereotype while sticking to their risk model. I.e. you can have long-duration theses based on deep fundamental work, but just need to be a bit more tactical around position sizing into catalysts, and hedge out unintended bets more tightly" (<<--well phrased from a different thread). If this works well and can be in a risk taking position, could be a way to generate outsized wealth.
What you definitely don't want is a junior seat at a giant SM with antiquated mindset that will go -40% in a year and you'll need to find a new job in 3-5 years having learned stuff but nothing groundbreaking. Nor do you want a seat at an MM with a toxic PM trading quarters in the most unintellectual way possible, and stiffs you on a bonus pool that sucks relative to superior PMs anyway. and you do monkey work for years and hate your job.
Both options in the latter paragraph suck, both options in the top paragraph seem amazing. Will go down to personal preference, luck, how much conviction you have and ultimately, like in the investing world, hope to make a good decision on a risk/reward basis.
On a side note, glad this thread is having more nuanced conversations vs. the usual SM/MM troll debates
Agree the best pods and SMs do mostly the same work, are mostly an efficient market for talent and darn near meet close to the middle in terms of day to day realities of the job
How do people think about viability of the more value-oriented "investment partnership" types of places that run like $2-10bn often long-biased mostly outside NY Metro area? Places like WindAcre, BlueSpruce, Abrams, MFN, Southpoint, Finepoint, Empyrean, Hawk Ridge etc. A few of running distressed credit as well.
I don’t know anyone at these firms, but I think they hit the mark for a good balance between SM HFs and large LOs. You have a capital base large enough to get paid well and presumably longevity by way of investment style. The biggest issue is that you can’t plan for a career at one of these places b/c seats rarely open up. It seems like these firms have very very little turnover so I’m not sure they even have a consistent recruiting pipeline like some of the large tiger cubs mentioned on WSO often.
Separately, I think people often overlook the benefit of making $500K-$3M in any metro area outside NYC and maybe SF. It’s equivalent to making much more in NYC and by the time you’re mid career, I’m not sure many people love being in the city.
several of those are traditional SM funds (though well regarded)
Hi how exactly does "investment partnership" differ from smaller SM?
I don’t think there is any meaningful difference as it’s just what they call themselves. I think many of these funds are essentially LO with a HF fee structure which is what makes it attractive.
I work at such a firm. The group is shedding AUM big time and the skills are not highly transferrable. I expect to eventually end up in a pinch when either our LPs pull enough money leading to my bosses needing to cut heads and/or it's no longer fun for my bosses to keep showing up. It will be tough for me to market my skill set as what we do is so basic. No joke our "theses" are things like: "XYZ will take market share as cars electrify" "ABC is picks and shovels for the biotech industry", "this ShitCo industrial company at 6x EBITDA should really be trading at 8x EBITDA". They legit hired me because I came to them when I was in my mid 20's with a sum of the parts pitch that in retrospect was utter baloney. Luckily, by the time they start axing my net worth should be minimum HSD millions maybe even above my walk away number (~$10mm) so who cares. Who would have thought my life would play out this way after spending the first 30 years grinding so hard to be in one of these legendary "seats" that I dreamt about for so long lmao.
You’re living the dream. Getting paid well enough to hit your walk away number within a reasonable timeframe while having a good WLB.
Just read through this thread…I’m seeing a lot of “$10m by 40 is good enough for me that’s all I want” and people are saying that can be done at a single managers, which is true yes
That’s just not my goal and it’s probably not a lot of people’s goals. I didn’t grow up with money and therefore have a very high number. I’m almost worth that and I’m in my early 30s. I also think that argument is quite obsolete
If you want to clip $1-1.5 and have an easy life, don’t work at a single manager. Just work at a LO where the 1-1.5 is more like 3-5 at the senior level. No shorting, level of research much lower, actual duration, no yelling and screaming, everyone is happy, and you get to work a 9-5. If what you want (which by reading the comments, that’s what it seems many of you are after), just work for a LO and make your life easier…
It seems like you’ve had a lot of success early on so kudos to you. I think we just disagree on goals and what is important in our lives. If that’s the fundamental difference, I’m not sure there is any point to debate.
I think you are being extremely optimistic about the number of LO seats that clip 3-5m and how difficult these seats are to land
Well OP asked for "top seats", which I would respond over a long career top LO > top SM. They're both not easy seats to get. But at the top 3-4 LOs, there are many seats where senior people are clipping a lot more than that
I know a Well/D&C/Fido PM who makes 5 bucks a year, and his pitch ideas are equivalent to high school investment clubs
Just for anyone in banking/late in college looking to start your career and assessing the best pathway, note how crowded the views in here are on how much better pods and LOs are relative to SMs. When I was starting out my career a few years ago absolutely everyone was dead-set on private equity, 90% of banking classes would recruit, it was seen as a unilaterally better pathway than hedge funds. Now, PE as an asset class is staring down potentially years of high rates and low/negative asset growth. Loads of people who were dead set on PE are now job-hunting elsewhere because there's little pathway to promotion/long hours guaranteed without asset growth.
As you think about pods vs. SMs, you need to understand that all pods generally have to trade the same way because of their risk models. It's been a very lucrative place to be from a comp/asset growth perspective for a while, but the more AUM that flows there the more they're generally competing for the same alpha pool. As more people flow to pods your respective piece of that alpha pool gets smaller. Couple that with the reality that lifestyle at pods is terrible, and the fact that it's a lot tougher to move from pods to SMs than the other way around, and I think you should be careful about barreling into pods early in your career at this stage.
Long-onlies are appealing from a work life balance and compensation relative to risk perspective, but if you find out that you're actually good at this job, do you really want to sit around for 10-15 years waiting to make some real money? Couple that with the fact that capital has been moving out of mutual funds for decades, are you so sure that that super cushy seat will be around/as good when you make it in 10-15 years.
For as much as people dog on SMs of late, there are still good ones who will pay you well in up years and seed people who leave. If you're starting out you'll generally get a lot more of a leash at an SM vs. a pod, and you'll potentially get a lot more responsibility than at a long-only. Furthermore, if you decide you're crushing it and don't like the compensation formula/culture, pods will always be looking for people so you have that out regardless.
The market is extremely dynamic and totally based on human psychology. Different strategies will have their moment but ultimately the herd will follow performance and it will likely end up getting diluted. Just be mindful of that as you position yourself for a career.
How would you view choosing between banking/pe vs p72/citadel out of undergrad then if public equities is the long term goal?
Sure, one WSO thread is representative of the entire HF industry view on what the best seats are. It's still overwhelmingly consensus that pods are scary risky seats. It's a structural trend with a cyclical component -- the same can be said about PE. Just telling people, and having worked at a large SM mentioned on this exact thread, comp / upside is not what you guys think it is...
“With a universe of companies seeking profitable opportunities for investment, the returns in an unprotected industry will be driven down to levels where there is no “economic profit,” that is, no returns above the costs of the invested capital.” People fail to understand this fundamental truth.
This is the most coherent analysis on the thread.
MMs are great if you find an awesome PM. Not sure how plentiful they are but you're trusting that someone pays you what you're worth at the mid/junior level and then entirely eating what you kill at the senior level. Seems to me that a lot of people just believe that 3-5% pure alpha fully hedged in a specific sector is readily accessible, especially with > $1bn in GMV. It is not. There's a reason it's insanely stressful and some of my smartest pod buddies have blown out. The biggest positive to doing well in the MM world is that you have opportunities to get real guarantees as this comment notes there's a ton of AUM flowing and with that, demand for headcount. It has a MARGINALLY higher likelihood of making really strong $$ at the more senior levels (PM), but you also almost indefinitely have the same level of job/seat risk as an SM would, worse WLB, etc.
On the LO front it's just a really great combination between strong WLB / comp up-side, but the work itself is a little less deep and the firms that pay the best are slightly more "political" in terms of your ability to climb the ranks to making mid-7 figures. You don't need as many LO PM's as you do MM PM's and so therefore the funnel to seniority is thinner. Again there's natural trade offs.
SMs basically undergo a similar MM decision tree. Do you have a good/smart/fair PM? How sticky is the capital base / how likely are you to blow up? Is there a pathway to climbing the ranks higher / growing points or equity? The same way you'd ask your PM at an MM the same sort of vein of questions... track record, typical payout structure, path to PM?
Everything is cyclical. Some response to this comment suggests the move to pods is structural but has cyclical elements. All of investment management as a whole goes through cycles. 5 years ago there'd be no question about it you'd have taken Tiger / Viking / Lone Pine in a heartbeat over a comparable Citadel offer. The comp upside alone was what mattered then relative to the more autonomous nature of getting paid directly on performance at a Citadel, with a formulaic structure. The above comment mentioned something everyone is ignoring but everyone and their mother is trying to launch an MM. Freestone Grove, Jain Global, Taproot, etc. You are seeing some of these firms struggle in returns (Baly / Schonfeld / Weiss). There is going to be less alpha available in those models and the performance curve will steepen, meaning way more churn at these models inevitably. DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T MAKE GREAT MONEY but it's just a symptom of a completely cyclical industry. Hell if we go to 0% rates again and tech works for the next 2 or 3 years I'd bet you'd find a lot more threads praising Tiger seats and such.
Boiling it down to the one piece where I can add value on this thread: just solve for what you like to do. I think the comp upside in any of these seats is pretty tremendous if you can develop your skillset. There will always be folks in SMs that will hire from MMs, and vice versa. This isn't PE, there isn't a "one size fits all" type structure to how people hire and there's been tons of unconventional movement around seats. If you can prove out a skillset in public markets, that's a pretty transferable skillset across strategies assuming you can modify your process to match the differences - we are all just picking stocks at the end of the day.
Why not the pod shop cubs? These guys are the only ones growing aum, have stable capital bases, I’m sure comp is top of market too?
This is the answer my friend
maybe, maybe not. Melvin was a pod cub. Candlestick is still great but will you with 100% certainty reach the level of economics partner-level analysts get today? in 10 years time?
the truth is nothing is for certain and you have to do your diligence. like above comment, if as a pod cub you keep playing the risk model, 5x leverage "pure alpha" game, you're just as crowded in the alpha pool as everyone in pod platforms. If you deviate from that and loosen up, how long until you're essentially a more factor aware SM? Maybe that's the sweet spot but at the end of the day you have to be a good fundamental investor.
Some of the pod cubs will have turned out to be great places to have joined today. Same with some SMs. and many will have not been good to join today. Gotta do your own diligence and ultimately make a bet on yourself based on perceived risk / reward. can't take anything for granted
Reminder that nothing in life is free. Candlestick has mandatory 6-day work weeks. They presumably get paid well and learn a lot, but there is always a trade off. Great place to go if you just want to grind and make a lot of money.
Not a HF person, but I’m always jealous when my pod-shop friends show me their bonuses
Still, the highest comp I’ve ever heard (across all of my friends in finance, so that spans PE / SMs / pod-shops / activism / growth / credit / IBD), was Melvin. Just ridiculous #s, enough to retire even after tax. It was way higher than all the SMs though, so I think they were an outlier, and my understanding is Gabe’s comp philosophy / way he ran Melvin was a bit different than other funds.
Excluding Melvin, the highest comp #s I hear every year is from the pods. That’s not to say my SM friends aren’t well compensated as well.
can't say something like that and not share numbers bro
Not Melvin but know someone who made 12 at an SM after 6 total YOE (age 28-29). At a Different SM and different year, I know a different person who made 9 (age 30-31), with 8 total YOE. I know of a few other anecdotes that are slightly less impressive but still very much so.
These are both anecdotes from the past 5 years. These sorts of funds are still out there, regardless of what you read on WSO. The seats are just hard to come by.
I'd also say that both of these analysts/sr. analysts are absolute rockstars, and they aren't driven by money. They are driven by the goal to win in the markets. It's like a game to them, they play like athletes and they want to be the best. I don't think you can win like they do if you're purely driven by money.
These numbers won't come from the TGMs of the world because their pay scale is slightly more standardized at the junior levels and you have a little less freedom in investment philosophy. They come from the funds the next tier down (3bn+ SMs with good unit economics per IP where you have a generous PM).
ballpark for the comp?
Id iusto sit nesciunt ipsa. Blanditiis numquam error fugiat incidunt. Voluptatum soluta nulla magni. Et itaque molestiae vel voluptates omnis. Adipisci rem qui quaerat explicabo voluptatem quo eligendi.
Sint sit est eum quia dicta sunt. Nesciunt ea autem tempora voluptatibus voluptas et. Ut natus voluptatem corporis in voluptates.
A doloribus dolorum facere eveniet necessitatibus a impedit. Id vitae nulla velit earum voluptas quo. Ea doloremque eum incidunt ut similique. Est ut quia eos vel fugit libero fugit. Ipsam tempora eligendi qui praesentium.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Sed alias consequuntur et est. Id mollitia aut dolores dolores et et aut.
Voluptas corporis magni voluptas nihil eos animi facilis. Sapiente cupiditate facere consectetur commodi. Voluptatem et ipsum iusto accusantium. Explicabo facilis praesentium sed beatae aut quia aut. Laboriosam ipsum ut exercitationem reiciendis quidem ullam aliquid. Sequi autem rem voluptas rerum eveniet.
Qui nostrum rem pariatur optio totam vitae non. Harum a placeat deserunt enim maiores. Dolores eaque et magni assumenda quo. Sed iusto officia est non animi.
Dolores id suscipit et ratione quia sunt quia ad. Eaque recusandae beatae quos omnis quasi dolores. Deserunt repellendus laboriosam soluta ut quia vitae rerum.
At voluptatum sit illum nam eum dolorem ad. Facilis tempore dolor totam nesciunt perferendis illo. Sit optio voluptatibus a vel natus et. Consectetur autem eius expedita fugiat molestiae ex ipsa. Quisquam rerum quam in reprehenderit praesentium repudiandae. Ipsam porro tempora aut natus quae dolorem.
Vel assumenda ut ipsa aspernatur laudantium dolores. Quaerat dolores magni blanditiis aut sint sit. Maxime modi aliquid consequuntur perferendis corrupti nemo dolores. Nihil ad omnis incidunt. Quia iste fugit doloremque. Sed ut laborum voluptas.
Reprehenderit natus nihil reprehenderit voluptas. Quam nemo dolor non sequi et temporibus. Eos officiis laborum odio id repellendus animi recusandae.
Et maiores veritatis libero dolor odio. Architecto aut sit laborum nostrum sit occaecati vel dolore. Nisi illum modi aliquam nam id ducimus.
Iusto ea voluptatibus et quia esse earum. Dolor temporibus autem aut repellat tempora. Sed reprehenderit rerum excepturi voluptatem non eaque excepturi qui.
Aspernatur eius accusantium deleniti autem occaecati est. Molestiae sed est nesciunt voluptatem. Velit minima a ipsa est odio vitae totam nam. Iusto qui vero perferendis nemo. Aperiam et eligendi aspernatur non.