Having been at a Hedge Fund for 3 months, I'm still a generalist, learning the ropes, and mostly enjoying going a mile wide and an inch deep into many different industries for now.
By observing the analysts around me, I have recognized that, in general, there are two distinct stages to research:
Stage 1: The point at which you must decide whether the company requires more work. Is it a "Yes" or a "No", for proceeding with going deep? This stage should be quick and to the point. Not investing in deep research yet, but knowing just enough with a reasonable level of conviction to know whether it deserves more time. Stage 2: Going deep.
I have recognized that Stage 2 isn't such a problem for me. I imagine most of the folks that will read this post are in this line of work precisely because if given unlimited resources (time and a BB terminal) they can spend a month knowing everything about the name. But I'd like to adress Stage 1.
Does anybody struggle with Stage 1? How do you get to know whether a company is worth deeper research in a matter of, let's say, 2-3 hours?
Does anybody have a framework that they like to follow in order to succeed at the efficiency/quality tradeoff required at Stage 1?
Non placeat atque qui aut error sint tempora. Iusto fugit cumque ut ipsum voluptas consequatur.
Ut omnis dolorem dignissimos est quod. Nemo possimus est qui voluptas aut quod. Aut est aut omnis aspernatur similique veritatis.
Blanditiis et modi possimus sed. Alias voluptatem quia ea quo deserunt. Ut animi enim voluptatum deserunt aliquid non deleniti non. Officiis similique natus blanditiis aut. Ullam odio non mollitia quaerat et beatae harum sunt.
Autem consequuntur qui aut. Reprehenderit dolores architecto velit eum culpa aspernatur. Totam qui sint alias amet fugiat distinctio consequatur.
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...