The Non-Compete Reality: Why Systematic Funds Need to Hire 18 Months Ahead
The senior quant talent you want to hire is almost certainly unavailable right now — locked into notice periods and non-competes that now stretch to 21 months or longer at the major platforms. The firms winning the talent competition have adapted their approach. Most haven't.
The Availability Gap
Here is a representative scenario: a systematic fund identifies a strong candidate — a senior PM with a verifiable track record, the right strategy profile, and genuine interest in a move. Initial conversations go well. Then the disclosure: a 21-month non-compete clause. The hire that felt imminent is now nearly two years away.
This scenario has become the norm, not the exception. Over the last three years, the largest multi-strategy platforms have systematically extended their non-compete and notice provisions. Citadel now imposes 21-month non-competes on senior portfolio managers. Susquehanna has extended to two or three years for quant researchers. XTX and similar market makers have operated two-year non-competes for some time. The effective sit-out period — combining notice and non-compete — for a senior quant at a top platform now commonly runs 18–24 months.
The practical consequence for systematic funds looking to hire is not widely appreciated. The talent that appears immediately available tends to be available for a reason. The talent you actually want is very likely unavailable — subject to provisions that were designed precisely to prevent you from hiring them quickly.
Why Reactive Search Fails
Most search processes are triggered by an immediate need: a strategy gap, a team departure, a new mandate. The natural response is to open a search and look for available candidates.
The problem with this approach in the current market is that it systematically filters for the wrong talent. Candidates who are immediately available without restriction tend to fall into one of three categories: they are at less restrictive smaller firms; they are between roles for performance-related reasons; or they are in the final months of a long sit-out, which means the most competitive firms are already in conversation with them as the search begins.
The candidates with the strongest track records — the ones operating senior books at the best platforms — are disproportionately locked up. A search that starts from immediate need will therefore consistently produce a shortlist that reflects availability, not quality.
Firms that search reactively find themselves in one of three outcomes: accepting a qualified but not preferred candidate, overcompensating to accelerate a preferred candidate's timeline, or extending the search past their operational runway. None of these are solved by working harder. They are structural consequences of starting too late.
The Forward Hiring Approach
The firms consistently winning the senior quant talent competition have made a structural change to how they approach hiring: they begin identifying and cultivating relationships with target candidates 12–18 months before they expect to need them.
This approach has three components.
Relationship before search. A candidate who has been in a genuine professional dialogue with a firm's investment leadership for 12 months is qualitatively different from a cold candidate approached at the moment of need. The former has already thought through the opportunity, considered the cultural fit, and formed a view on timing. The latter is being asked to make a decision they haven't prepared for, in a timeframe that doesn't suit them.
Mapping the calendar. Non-competes create predictability. A senior PM who signs a new contract today at a major platform will be available in approximately 18–24 months. A firm that maintains a systematic view of who is approaching the end of sit-out periods — or who is likely to be moving in the next 18 months based on capital plateau signals or platform trajectory — has real information advantages over firms operating reactively.
Acting on early signals. When a senior candidate indicates genuine interest well before they are formally in the market, the correct response is not to wait for them to come available. It is to begin a deliberate, low-pressure dialogue that deepens over time and is positioned to convert efficiently when the window opens.
The Hidden Cost of Getting This Wrong
The cost of reactive hiring is invisible in the moment and visible only in retrospect. The fund that fills a senior role six months later than planned loses six months of alpha production. The fund that accepts a second-preference candidate — because the preferred candidate required a 15-month wait — often makes that trade as a short-term practical decision without fully pricing the long-term cost.
Neither the time cost nor the quality cost appears in any budget line. They show up in the next three years of returns.
A Practical Starting Point
For firms that want to move toward a forward hiring posture, the starting point is simple but requires intention: maintain a running list of 15–20 senior candidates you would want to hire in the next two years, with an honest view of their likely availability timeline. Review it quarterly. Assign relationship ownership internally. Track where people are in their notice and sit-out periods.
This discipline does not require a significant investment of time. It requires committing to it before the need is acute — which is the only moment when it actually works.
Bayes Group works with systematic funds on talent strategy and senior hiring across all major markets. We maintain active market intelligence on candidate availability, timing, and non-compete status. Get in touch to discuss your current situation.
Bayes Group
Ready to discuss a mandate?
We work with a small number of firms at any time.