Comments from the week 10/14-10/20

By to_IBornot_toB in Time to Respect the MSF: Top Five MSF Myths Debunked:

The toughest part of the getting a job from an MSF, is that you have to sell it. Yes, there are a few "target" firms that come on campus, but more importantly you need to reach out to other people, and find what story fits for you.

Make a logical story (much harder done than said) and I think the MSF is worthwhile. Also, if you can get the MSF at a discount (fellowships, grants, scholarships), do so. This makes for bragging points during on-campus interviews when going up against other students from your MSF.

Just as with any frat, club, organization, employer, etc. don't make the MSF your life. It is a part of your studies. It is not all of it. So don't rely on it for a job. You need to build around the MSF. This means internships, leadership, and whatever else. I feel like having an internship before your MSF will set you leagues ahead of others.

Lastly, your story needs to be perfect. This takes practice. And msf alum are the people with that practice. Even before you start the program you need have spoke with your msf alum base. Ask them the question you would expect to get asked: Why did you do the MSF? Did you have an offer your senior year? Did you always want to do banking/advisory/corp fin? Why did you choose this school? Hearing their answers should give you direction on how you should put your story together. Make sure to network with them before you start networking with the school's undergrad alum. Use msf alum as training.

Also, the msf degree is still relatively new in the states. This means there are only a few good schools. So when you are considering options Villavnoa/ W U/ Vandy/ UT, just know that the alum from other msf programs thought the same thing. They might have chose a different school, but that doesnt mean they didnt think about your program. Use them, they are an useful asset.

By Ravenous in Hedge Fund Guru Answering Inbox Questions (Thanks, Mr. Pink Money)

I'll chime in on the banker vs. ER discussion.

I hired two people earlier this year to help me at a top L/S fund. It was very difficult to find what I wanted, and I ended up interviewing ~50 people before making a decision. My general impression was that nobody knew anything about anything, even if they had worked in junior roles on BB M&A teams or even at other well known HFs and PE shops. So it was more about fit, potential, and the likelihood that they would stay with the firm for a few years. As Mr. Pink implied above, it's not really worth my time to train someone who leaves after a year or two. Where I work, we ask for a minimum 4 year committment -- basically two years to move up the curve (people are practically useless for the first year) and then two years of solid contribution. Of course, no one HAS to stay, but that's what we are looking for.

I found that bankers had better technical skill sets in terms of modeling and valuation than the ER people I met. The investment style of the firm is looking at whole businesses, and bankers were also better at that, versus ER who seemed much more concerned with what the stock was going to do in the next 10 minutes (which we don't care about). Someone who thinks they have a call that a company will beat EPS by a penny next quarter and that the stock is 20% undervalued in that context is not going to make a good impression on me. OTOH, someone who pitches me on the stock of a company that has a clear value proposition and would be a good buyout candidate in a consolidating industry, but which is trading at a low multiple with good fundamentals is going to make a much better impression.

My ideal candidate would be a smart liberal arts major with solid accounting skills and a couple of years of experience in finance. You don't need a CFA or MBA to work here, and I don't care where anyone went to school. I'm looking for someone who loves to learn, is entrepreneurial and aggressive in finding information, and who knows enough about the technical aspects to get us on the map. Someone who loves games would be a plus (chess champion, poker player, Risk, online strategy games, etc.). We employ people who are good at all of those games, and if you claim to be good, we will test you (lol).

My advice to anyone starting out in their career is to take a job where you will learn as much as possible. I made an offer to someone three years out of UG who had worked at GS M&A who was considering our firm and a well known PE firm -- he chose the latter because they offered him more money. I told him it was probably a mistake, that he would be 8th man on the deal team and wouldn't learn much of value. About six months later, he called me and said he felt stuck in his current role (manning the copy machine or whatever bitch jobs they gave him) and wanted to know if he could take me up on the previous offer. I said no of course. If you look at the entirety of your career, it's obvious that the goal should be to maximize your NPV. First year earnings are not the priority.

Just my opinion, it varies widely by fund.

By Rufiolove in Avoiding the Marriage Zone

Maybe some of these kids are looking at "making it" in this industry as their ticket to being successful with women, and if that is the case then we're all in agreement that they are going to be disappointed. But I also know a fair amount of dudes who weren't necessarily socially awkward in college but definitely weren't getting the attention from women that they are now, primarily because they were studying hard (probably too hard in my opinion) to make sure they could break into their chosen path and now that they have gotten onto that track it's very different. My main point is that it takes a lot of work for a man to change his stars so to speak. I know that for me, navigating the social aspect of life and earning the respect of peers came way easier than the number crunching and academic discipline because I just never cared that much about it.

I think the key to note is that yes these kids aren't going to just immediately get better with women because they get money, but what is probably likely to happen for the kids who weren't all that awkward but just didn't have the traits that chicks in college were looking for (weren't a gym rat, weren't a frat bro, didn't have that the cool gene, etc.) is that what women are looking for will change. Even the douchebag who got girls in college has to adapt post college because women are looking for a more refined version.

Long story short, I'm just saying don't write off the underdog just because he took a little longer to get there. There are certainly some who are lost causes because they think that money will fix everything, but there are also the guys who just didn't have what girls were looking for then because girls at that age don't make any sense.