Smart Kids Heading to Wall Street
And the Wall Street pay bashing continues with Bloomberg today...
“If you look at the very brightest, there is definitely a trend of trying to get a job on Wall Street,”
Traders' Smaller Bonuses Still Top Pay for Brain Surgeons, 4-Star Generals
Another nugget from the article: "Any officer, regardless of rank, receives an additional $225 a month in “imminent danger” pay for serving in a war-zone like Iraq or Afghanistan." Ridiculous, half of a decent monthly car payment to risk your life everyday?
It seems like every so often I read about how "Our best and brightest go to Wall Street as opposed to Medicine or Engineering."
Even Charlie Munger has gotten in on it more than once: " I hate it that bright young people are going into finance when all the Chinese are going into engineering."
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/12/charlie-munger-w…
There are examples of "best and brightest" going to Wall Street, making a few bucks and then starting companies like, oh... Amazon (Bezos), Burton (Jake Burton) are two off the top of my head. My buddy works for a tech start-up that was founded by a former options trader - this got me thinking that there have to be other examples out there.
Who are some other well-known folks to come out of Wall Street (other than our Patrick of WSO of course)?
Mike Bloomberg started Bloomberg with his severance from Solomon Brothers.
Here is my take.
If you can get into a BB Wall Street firm, you've got what it takes to make it to the C-level at an F500 firm if you work like crazy for fifteen years.
Smart perhaps, but I'm not sure they're wise. I think the CFO at Baxter accomplishes a lot more and works a lot less than some MD in banking .
I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking Illini....or maybe its just these layoffs that have got me thinking differently, but a more stable position at an F500 is sounding better every day
I agree with your main point, but you are definitely off base on your C-suite to BB comparison. There are only 3-4 C- suite executives for most companies, therefore there are only 1,500-2,000 F500 C Suite Execs in the world. There are WAY more people in BBs, so these are obviously easier to get into.
Getting to C Suite is actually VERY difficult - it takes intellignece, drive and a lot of luck. Even with those factors its a real long shot.
Also, while your point holds true for those who get into the C- Suite, until you're their your earnings are very small compared to similar levels at BBs. I still think F500 is a great career and it's the path I'm currently persuing, but as ambitous as I am I know I won't make BB money or ever sit in the C-Suite.
Out of curiousity, was your point made towards Baxter for any specific reason? I happen to know alot about that company and their C - Suites.
Here are my thoughts:
The main thing that most smart kids graduating college is real life experience. The best (only) way to get a lot of experience is by working a lot of hours. Unless you are willing to take the plunge and start a business directly out of college (most are not), the best place to work a lot of hours where you are doing real work is an investment bank.
I'm guessing that more and more into the future, you will see plenty of bright students that exit banking to start businesses in less related fields (IE, not a hedge fund, PE shop, ect.). A banker partnering with an engineer to open an engineering firm, a banker deciding to buy a car dealership, a banker running a contracting company.
What does banking teach you? How to work hard, get up to speed on any topic quickly, and make a deal happen. Who are the wealthiest people? Those who own their own business. Where will the talent go? Where the money is.
Honestly, I think the boutique / MM guys are more likely to try this than the BB people. They tend to work on smaller deals which ironically puts them in contact with wealthier people. The CFO of a mid size public company is worth far less than the owner of a private company that sells for $150 Million.
Agreed. I've found that those in the BB banks have trouble leaving the world of high finance and stick with BB / large PE / large HF work even when they don't like it. The jobs turn into golden handcuffs.
It is my perception that the majority of people going into banking are using it to do all the above (exit to high C level / start a business) and it's a proving ground. Sort of like bootcamp for professionals. It's also a good platform to move into high level public service, like all the Goldmanites who are involved with treasury/fed bank decisions.....
I'm not so sure about that. For instance, if you want to work for an oil major, you really want to start in engineering, geology, or perhaps finance there. Oilcos simply do not hire from banks, for better or for worse.
Banking isn't a bad place to be pre-MBA if you want to go back to F500, but if you know you want to be a C-level exec at firm Z, why not get a head-start on everyone? I say this as someone who works for a bank.
I agree with you on this and am not saying that banking is the best way to become a C-level exec. What I am saying is that banking is probably the best way to train yourself to become a successful entrepreneur.
Think about what it takes to start a business from scratch: hard work, sacrifice, ingenuity, communication skills, the ability to think outside the box, ect. Isn't that exactly what banking teaches you? Plus you get to develop a high level network, find some potential mentors, and build a financial war chest.
Ultimately, I want to own my own business. I think that would be the most fulfilling path for me both personally and financially. Unfortunately I don't think I could stomach the risk of trying to start something right out of college. What I see banking as is a way to mitigate the risk of starting a business right away while still giving me the chance to do so while I am relatively young.
that's awesome Burton started out in Wall street damn
im pretty sure they lawyer partner comp w/ 10 yrs is a bit exaggerated...unless of course your at a top firm
Smart kids go into banking because science and engineering aren't as lucrative or prestigious. Engineers and maybe a few scientist/researchers work banker hours; none of these people will have midcareer salaries that are even close to starting compensation of investment bankers or traders. During the fall, about half of all the employers who came to the MIT career fair were finance/ S&T. A lot of my classmates are going to work for a few years and either go back to school or try to start their own companies.
Finance/consulting is getting America's smartest kids because one really doesn't need to be that smart to work in science. There are plenty of state school 3.0 chem, bio and engineering majors working at IBM, Dow, Toshiba, Merck, etc. Most of these firms don't even recruit at top schools because they are often crowded out by BBs and MBB.
This is what the Bloomberg article was about. So the next question is whether the salaries are truely out of whack? Reversion to the mean?
My starting was 95 (engineering) and I at most have to work 50 hrs/week. I work more, for personal reasons, but I really don't have to. On the other hand we don't have the half-million dollar bonuses, although some companies do bonuses that are around 60-100% base pay.
Oh, the kids with no internships/bad grades had to accept jobs at service companies, and they work at least 60-70 hrs a week, and the pay is 70ish for most service companies, and 50-ish for Halliburton. These are numbers from 2 years ago (when oil prices hit rock bottom), so I bet now the starting pay has only gone up
Great topic.
On a different note- I have a friend at Fermilab who is the one responsible for checking everyone else's math. He mentioned to me that there were quite a few scientists who would ignore relevant results because their math/premise/whatever was ultimately flawed. Since the physicists are there working on long-term, grant-funded projects it can be a real blow to have guessed wrong. He mentioned that most of the people that he had to shoot down really were just ignoring reality, and then they watched their experiments fall apart. It takes a lot of effort, and reputations are at stake in that environment. Being wrong can be costly (sound familiar) Then he said that many of them end up in Wall Street firms. So, I think the idea that engineers and scientists ending up there and not doing something else more productive is a bit overblown.
There is more to this than raw intelligence, as we here should know. People like Bezos and Burton are great examples of the system working out for society’s benefit. On the other hand, Wall St. has its own mechanism for dealing with people that ignore reality regardless of IQ's and GPA's.
Some kids go into it because they have a genuine interest in it and want exposure to something they find interesting. Some also go into it because of massive debt they're incurring and want the quickest means of paying it down.
And some like me are for both haha. 1 yr bonus will knock out school loans. But I've been incredibly fortunate to meet some extraordinary people the past few years in the industry and just being caught up in it all is exciting. Also trying to be apart of "The New Wall Street" (i.e. post 07') is a bit intriguing, despite the lower compensation (in some cases).
The very smartest kids are, for the most part, not heading for wall street. People in say the top 1% at MIT or Harvard are generally headed for grad school in math, CS, or physics, with the intent of becoming a professor. These people are vastly smarter than almost anyone on wall street. When the media talks about the "best and brightest" they basically only mean people at the level of the average guy at a top school, who do tend to go into finance and consulting.
Wall Street makes way too much. Banking (even the high flying derivatives), are of a very utilitarian nature. Banks are supposed to be utilities/middle-men. For example, let's say the power utility wanted to rape it's customers? It could, but regulation prevents it from doing so. For investment banks, this regulation has never existed.
I'm in no way saying that making a lot of money is bad; just that bankers receive a disproportionate share of compensation relative to the true value they add to society.
Bankers do add value, and the career should be paid well, but the compensation in banking relative to other careers makes very little sense.
I read this amazingly good article on the subject several months ago, I've searched all through my emails to find it, but can't. It was excellent because it explained why the excessive compensation was a market failure (interesting given defense of the compensation levels often relies on market forces as a main justification).
I second Alexpasch on the disproportionate pay bankers receive relative to the value they add to society.
Typing faster than I think today. Thanks for noticing. At times, people would ignore results that they felt were not relevant. There.
Another well known person to come out of Wall St. is the author Michael Lewis.
The best and brightest go to whatever field they want to... because they are the best and the brightest. Not everyone is a type A, $ driven person that dives into finance.
i don't know about bankers, but traders/investors/speculators get paid well because they run capital in a capitalist society. thus, they deserve it.
no engineer takes on the level of risk a trader does.
If you have your own money, invest it, and get a 20% return, great. But most people who don't have millions of dollars sitting around are getting returns on someone else's money. And my view is that the world of 2 + 20 is probably coming to an end. That's why, IMHO, this is a great time to work like crazy and save like crazy. Because having the money you've saved managed well is going to get a lot cheaper over the next decade.
LLcoolj I think your kind of thinking is exactly what's wrong. Just the other day I made 300% on a derivatives trade on FCX. From home/retail. AT any level, from the BB to folks like me, we don't add value to society. Firstly, the trader at a BB only risks his reputation and possibly his job.. so the actual risk is distorted/muffled. Secondly, holding a derivatives position on FCX for 2 weeks doesn't add value to society. It just means I was able to spot (what I perceived to be some mis-priced options) and got a little lucky with the FCX pop on the tails of Alcoa earnings.
Similarly IBD don't add a lot of value. in 2010 BK & Jcrew were taken private AGAIN. That's the second time. Sum fees for : IPO 1, Private 1, IPO 2, Private 2 = a lot of money.. And you would be kidding yourself if you thought this activity added value to society.
there is a rightful place for venture capital etc., but by and large most of wall street just makes money it doesn't deserve.
p.s. a 1/3 of traders are engineers. and engineers add far more value to society.
might want to look at something beyond mean-variance analysis because that's what you seem to be thinking is the ultimatum. remember mean-variance/ capm is a mental construct NOT a law of physics
1) you are driving the market towards equilibrium -> making economy more efficient -> more wealth for everyone -> doing god's work.
2) you're missing my point. an engineer earns a wage, an investor makes a profit from allocating capital. fundamentally different things.
1) you are driving the market towards equilibrium -> making economy more efficient -> more wealth for everyone -> doing god's work.
2) you're missing my point. an engineer earns a wage, an investor makes a profit from allocating capital. fundamentally different things.[/quote]
1) A) don't say "God's work" B) bankers don't drive a market towards equilibrium. arbitrageurs do that. 2) Yes an investor makes a profit from allocating capital.. VC, PE firms do that. IBD analysts mess around with spreadsheets and fill in graph on pitch books no one cares about. there's a difference.
mdc: why would an engineering firm want to hire someone whose skill set spans filling in excel sheets and and doing simple arithmetic?
The point that is that Wall Street compensation is out of whack. If it weren't out of whack you wouldn't have thousands of students lining up for the same role. There is far greater supply of labor for banking than there is demand for banking.
You know how fast Physicist or engineer with C++ programming skills gets scooped up at a starting salary that's greater than yours? That's actual supply demand dynamics.
hold on...why is money earned supposed to be relative to value added to society?
when the hell did this become a prerequisite?
why do athletes make so much? why do teachers make so little? Theoretically should traders not be allowed to make money? Should garbage men also make more than bankers?--after all...where would this garbage go if not for them taking it away? VALUE ADDED! what about waiters? how could we ever go out to dinner if we didn't have waiters?
the society can't actually run efficiently without people doing all the grunt work...so should they also be millionaires because they CREATE an efficient society? isnt that an ENORMOUS level of "value added" as you say?
@wd40
While I do agree that compensation / incentive structure on wall street is a little out of whack, it becomes an interesting question as to where you assign fault.
If company is flipping between public and private, management is making that decision. The bankers deserve to earn their fees if the advice they provide is worth it (which is a whole other issue entirely). It isn't up to the bankers to make good management decision. Their job is to tell management what they believe the company is worth and deliver on that valuation.
However, if another arm of the same firm is consulting with / advising on the decision WHETHER to go public / private you really open a can of worms with conflicts of interest.
Anyways, compensation will always be based on what the market will bear just like anything else. We can argue about how it should be all we want, but in reality supply and demand will dictate.
Fahmie - way to take an argument way out of proportion.
1) because I mentioned added value as a criterion for determining compensation, it does not mean you can extrapolate to saying that waiters should be millionaires because they enable the dining out experience. 2) The question you are now posing is one of labor economics. And frankly, I have extensively read Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, Marx/Engle etc for undergrad and don't wish to engage in a political economy debate 3) The reason I brought up the notion of value add is because theoretically compensation should be tied to what society values your product/service to be. a la Marginal Productivity of Labor .. An athlete should earn $X because he/she attracts $Y in sales of tickets to see an event etc. etc. Treasury will be paying about $150m in fees for the AIG offering it's doing.. why should it pay $150m?? Is the service these IBers are providing worth that much?? No it's not. But given that there is a handful of viable players (GS, MS, JPM, BofA), they can essentially demand this amount. It's like a cartel. The difference between banks and OPEC is that the Blankfein, Dimon, et. al. are disciplined and clever; they will not engage each other in a pricing war.
As for compensation, I would not work in finance if my paychecks were not so fat. Alternatively, say an engineering company wants to hire me. Then it should compensate me; otherwise I suppose I am not worth that much to them.
This is the conundrum I also find funny. What is the true definition of "worth"? If I wanted to spend $200mm on a 400 sq. ft. apartment then isn't that apartment worth $200mm?
Some would say no because it isn't the going rate per sq. ft. in the market but the guy selling it would likely disagree with that. The point is there is an implied (rational) value for things and there is typically a perceived value that is factored on depending on each individual. I don't think this painting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:No._5,_1948.jpg
...is worth $150mm+...but guess what, someone else does. Personally, it looks like the some of the art I did when I was in elementary school, but someone, somewhere sees it being worth more than the finger painting I did. Even at the auction one person found it to be "worth" more than the rest, obviously the current owner.
Your house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it just so happens to be the perfect house for the perfect buyer, that person will pay more than the person who doesn't like it as well.
The question is, if someone is willing to pay $150mm in fees for a service, doesn't that, by definition, imply that the service provided is "worth" $150mm? If it wasn't worth $150mm why on earth would they pay that much if they could get the same level of service for less? You hear this all the time when it comes to IB and analyst pay, etc. In fact a director at a BB I spoke with recently told me that, in his opinion, analysts are paid way too much if you consider how little value they add. Of course I didn't argue with that, but the premise doesn't stand the test of reason. If they are worth less than what you are paying them, shouldn't you be offering them less money? It would stand to reason that people at the higher levels would make more if they could pay the people beneath them less money for the same level of service (sound familiar?). But I realize, as a director, he sees the world in terms of clients and money brought in from fees, etc. As an analyst I realize his paycheck depends heavily on the lower levels, even if he doesn't see the "value add" because, in most cases, the analysts at a bank are the same as the waiters at a restaurant...people may come for the food/menu that is created by the chef (the relationship with the Dir. or MD) but they stay because of the quality of service offered by the staff.
I will concede there can be inefficiencies in the market when one entity spends another entity's money...a prime example being the government's (lack of) efficiency vs. the private sector's.
Regards
You heathen, have you ever seen Pollock in person? Trust me, it is not something you could easily repeat even if you trained for it. He'd had a very specific technique, as did Rothko, which is why they are so highly valued and respected.
PLUS ONE ON EVERYONE WHO COMMENTED ON THIS POST!!! Please keep them coming, these really teach me more about Wall-Street.
Yves Smith had a great take on the subject (as usual) but only read it if you want to get really pissed off:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/01/outsized-pay-on-wall-street-pers…
This goes a long way towards explaining how, 20 years ago, a kid like me with no college could still get hired on the Street (albeit at lower-rung firms), yet today you have to be a rocket scientist to populate fields in Excel:
the smartest kids would consider the avg banker/trader completly and utterly retarded. Wallstreet wont cause brain drain on the very smartest people any time soon(other than a few quants here and there).
The real drain is on kids that would have become engineers/f500/entrepreneurs and are now in finance. WS shouldnt have any drain on doctors, because if you were in medicine for the money your an idiot.
Talking about supply-demand, there was no need for networking/sending out resumes/any other jumping through the hoops, we just submitted our resumes to the dept. secretary and the companies picked whom they wanted to interview. All info nights were catered, simply because no one would show up to an uncatered one, and most of them had stuff to give out. I don't think other engineering majors had it quite that easy though.
good topic. Found the differing views on whether the street adds value to society interesting.
Can't paint bankers with a broad brush, though. Difference is from group to group - and from deal to deal - when it comes to being a 'productive' or 'valuable' contribution to society.
In general, my view is split between primary mkt players and secondary mkt players. The primary/banking side obviously at its core involves resdistributing capital from those with excess capital to those in need of it. Why the need for capital? Again, obviously, varying reasons - some for the greater good, others not. So for any given banker, the deals they do will either benefit or not benefit society. I'm in lev fin, my clients are physical commodity traders, so I sleep pretty well at night. If I were doing an IPO for Phillip Morris, I'd feel differently.
On the trading side - the secondary/tertiary mkts - I'd argue that the benefit to society is less direct. The community trades amongst itself, again redistributing capital - but mostly between those who already have excess capital to spare. To the extent some traders then use their personal income for the benefit of society, I'd argue that qualifies some of their work as being 'for the greater good' as well.
Outside of societal benefit, there is indeed a brain drain phenomenon - I like working with smart folks, though. And are we paid 'too much'? Hell no. Is it disproportionate? Hell yes. Lets keep it that way, though.
AG
all the smart ppl go into finance bc they r searching 4 the truth havn't u read the quantz the ppl who b blowin up wall streEt?
As far as the pay goes, I think you really have to look at it from the supply v. demand perspective. As AG said, are people in Industry overpaid? Of course. But there is a reason for that. In order to get the 'best and brightest' to literally yearn for the privilege of pounding keys on an excel spreadsheet, you HAVE to do something that makes it attractive. You certainly can't change the nature of the work to any meaningful degree so you have to provide some other incentive to draw them in. That means you have to pay seemingly ridiculous sums of money to get people to go into banking versus some other, perhaps more noble, pursuit.
The simple reality is, everyone likes money. Though there are varying degrees, no one is ever thrilled at the prospect of a pay cut and I would say that 100% of the population are happy when they hear that they will get a raise. To this end, you have to give the kids that would otherwise go into that aforementioned fields something that those other fields can't or won't give them. In banking, that's money.
The whole contribution to society thing is sort of a silly debate to me for a couple reasons. For one, the contribution that an individual really makes is (99 time of of 100) minimal if anything. I know at least 3 people that became social workers and they freely admitted that they had little to no effect on the problem and all of them left the field after 2 years or less. Secondly, the real benefit of having a job that 'contributes' something is really only for the person in that job to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. No matter what greater good you think you are serving, its going to be hard to sustain the desire to continue your work when you are barely able to pay your bills and can't go out to dinner unless you save your money for it. This is the opposite case in finance as you 'compensate' people to a degree that they overlook whatever lack of contribution they are making or to incentivize the position and make it, seemingly, too good to pass up.
This discussion has veered from the point.
From what I have observed, the smartest kids I know go to New York in general to maximize their experiences and wages (for the most part).
Since we're even having this discussion, its obvious that in some way the brightest DO go to New York, and some how end up in IBD on Wall Street.
Finance pays so well for the same reason there are a dozen ways to get a better boner but no cure for the common cold - it's a reflection of our culture's value system
Funny how in the article posted above, he says, 'Investment management is more honorable than investment banking'. uhhhhhhhh BULLSHIT. Ibankers create the shares they trade, and part of the reason for the last blowout is because traders were structuring the CDOs.
http://m.npr.org/story/132937015?url=/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/14/13293…
Here's a dedicated artist. Although I would be more impressed if it was with bellybutton or toe lint that she could collect by wearing right color sweaters and socks.
*fractalism and chaos theory *
How about MoMA and Met :)
There is a difference between entrepreneur and start-up owner. Sure, launching a web-based company often requires creativity. But I think that most of the time it takes diligence first of all. Like banking, consulting is also very hierarchical but partners go on to become entrepreneurs.
Fair point. However, consultants differ a bit from bankers and people in other corporate jobs. Consultants develop the skillset to analyze different business problems by looking at all sides of the problem and employing a systematical approach to deal with whatever issue is thrown at them with limited information. This is a useful skill when dealing with entrepreneural problems which are complex and involve marketing, operations, sales, etc. Anyway, the majority of the consultants don't go on to become entrepreneurs - most of them become corporate managers/directors at some point. It's not like consulting is a typical breeding ground for entrepreneurs either and that's mainly because the job turns you into a good thinker, but you are not learning to get your hands dirty and manage business operations, which is a major part of running a business. Plus, consulting also doesn't encourage risk tolerance, as with any job at a big company.
Banking gives you a much more limited skillset - it's only finance and perhaps sales if you get to the higher levels. Your typical corporate jobs are probably the worst in terms of teaching you entrepreneural skills. And banking is a typical corporate job, just with double the hours and a little more glamour, which is just branding. Corporate jobs are more about following rules and avoiding risk which is not the mindset you would like to nurture if you want to think like an entrepreneur.
Sure, some people leave these fields to become business owners, but that's after they figured out that banking or consulting is not for them. They had an entrepreneural mindset to begin with and felt that these jobs were not their thing. Neither of these jobs teaches you to become an entrepreneur or to be a hardworker - you need to be hardworking in order to get the job in the first place. It's not like you cannot gain some skills that you could use later, but that can be said for any job. I could bet that even cleaning toilets can teach you some skills that would help you as an entrepreneur. It's just that these jobs are by far not the best if you want to do that. IB can give you prestige among people who know that being a banker doesn't mean giving out loans at the local Chase branch, financial analysis skills, the ability to endure abuse by assholes and to fulfill ridiculous tasks, but these are not critical skills that will decide your fate as an entrepreneur.
If you want to learn to be an entrepreneur, the best way is to be in an environment that emulates such environment most closely. It's not banking or any other job where you are just a cog of the machine in a big company. Go work at a startup or at any small company where you will have the opportunity to take much more responsibility for running a business early on and will get a diverse skillset.
Banks shouldn't hire non-econ/finance majors ! :\ why should someone who's genuinely interested in finance have to compete with someone who took a technical degree and then suddenly became "interested" in banking >:O wth
The worst part about it all is that people assume that engineers/physicists/doctors are smarter than Wall Streeters... :# just because I like something so much that I chose it as a career doesn't mean I'm stupid or less intelligent than say a doctor or engineer...there are countless people out there with 2400 SATs and 4.00/4.00 GPAs heading into big finance... only arbitrary factor here is whether or not they can survive in this environment
And SAT and GPA is a pretty shitty indicator of intelligence.
Because you aren't chosen on how bad you want something, but on how well you can perform. Duh.
Konig, nice display image. Take my username to heart.
ahaha tough guy,eh? t3aal gollaha fwajh wahid s3oodi fil s3oodia wo b3dayn nshoof kayf ;)
Ut consequatur natus veniam pariatur cumque. Perspiciatis quia eum voluptatem voluptatem esse. Eum facilis odio quia ut dignissimos quae at.
Et eaque quod est ullam voluptatem distinctio quibusdam. Incidunt quia delectus et debitis impedit consequatur enim. Tenetur modi officia ut id excepturi. Qui velit nihil et est voluptas non.
Sit libero rem distinctio possimus rerum voluptates. Necessitatibus id qui saepe eligendi autem fugiat. Unde exercitationem natus est animi ad id sequi. Repellat omnis ea consequatur cupiditate ducimus. Voluptatem voluptates corporis animi fuga quibusdam. Est commodi sed porro aspernatur voluptates.
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...
Impedit est quae eos deserunt. Nihil eum quia ullam quia ea fugiat. Repellat debitis optio amet odit eos quae. Doloremque et ad sint id quia. Alias voluptatibus sint ut quia odio atque.
Et sunt beatae ipsam sint molestiae et incidunt nobis. Qui voluptates sint eum repellat incidunt. Reiciendis alias id qui assumenda sint veritatis laborum. Quo sequi ut dolorem inventore.