redskins44

Sweep the Leg got it right: “Again, it really comes down to whether or not what they manage is a stand-alone product. If it is - mutual fund, SMA, hedge fund, even just a composite - then you could safely call them a PM.” Exactly. It has nothing to do with “cream of the crop” or any other such subjective nonsense.
For example, the guy who runs the GOOG family office is not a PM. Yes he is very successful and may well be considered the “cream of the crop” but he is a CIO/wealth manager. It can get tricky:
1) is the person who managers Harvard’s endowment or CalPERS a PM?
2) Are the people who work for them that manage a specific sleeve (real estate, muni fixed income) of the total endowment or pension a PM?
By Sweeps definition, the answer to the first question is “no” and to the second question is “yes.” To an extent I agree with Frank that the titles are a bit meaningless, but if you want to break down a taxonomy I think Sweep made that best start.
I actually thought MLA was not very clear and was somewhat biased in his post, but it’s kind of a silly (if entertaining) topic so whatevs.