Honestly it’s a well-written piece but it misses the point IMHO. I’ve worked in corporate finance, group strategy, on secondment at government doing substantive transactions, and then equity research. It’s an unusual path and I went into research for a strategic reason to build a brand and add another major leg to my network. And I got that. I am now pursuing what I have wanted to do for many years - setting up my own business. Newsletters are an important part of that - but not the only facet (I also note in a previous post your conclusions on choosing to do a newsletter versus a sell-side role and I can tell you that I left a sell side role in which I was the consistent top performer to do this out of choice - which is at odds with your own (albeit broader) conclusions). That’s the context. To get to the point re why I think this note misses the point, firstly ER sell-siders do have quite a few exit opportunities. It’s all down to the individual and their own experience & skills but most go down the route of either buy-side or IR. They’re not usually tapped up for corporate / strategic / commercial roles because: a) they’re often quasi-academic (indeed the role is quasi-academic IMO); b) they’re very often not strategic thinkers in fact (no matter how much they read about strategies) and are almost all looking no more than 2-3 years forward; c) they build extremely limited experience of negotiation, real-life commercial decision-making, and some can be easily suggestible / very easy to placate by their more cunning peers in other parts of the firm / seniors. Also many just run with management guidance and bring very limited levels of original / critical thinking to bear (in fact the industry is so conflicted it often suits the bank/brokerage and their corporate clients for the analyst to be that way) - it’s not as if the firms earn that much for the research anyway (it is - and always was - a loss leader if one calls a spade a spade). My own experience is investment bankers are, on average, a lot smarter, savvier, adaptable, and strategic. It’s almost an entirely different subset of skills that are needed (anyone with half a brain can learn to model but not everyone can learn to negotiate hard, effectively and strategically et al.). I appreciate that these are sweeping generalisations and I know many analysts who break the mould. Everyone is different. But I absolutely disagree with your broad conclusions and I think one really needs to work in a few areas to understand how different the necessary skillsets are. There are very good reasons why corporates & PE firms don’t seek out ER pros. So, I respectfully disagree but I also want to say that I’m enjoying your posts and your candour. Keep it up!
Honestly it’s a well-written piece but it misses the point IMHO. I’ve worked in corporate finance, group strategy, on secondment at government doing substantive transactions, and then equity research. It’s an unusual path and I went into research for a strategic reason to build a brand and add another major leg to my network. And I got that. I am now pursuing what I have wanted to do for many years - setting up my own business. Newsletters are an important part of that - but not the only facet (I also note in a previous post your conclusions on choosing to do a newsletter versus a sell-side role and I can tell you that I left a sell side role in which I was the consistent top performer to do this out of choice - which is at odds with your own (albeit broader) conclusions). That’s the context. To get to the point re why I think this note misses the point, firstly ER sell-siders do have quite a few exit opportunities. It’s all down to the individual and their own experience & skills but most go down the route of either buy-side or IR. They’re not usually tapped up for corporate / strategic / commercial roles because: a) they’re often quasi-academic (indeed the role is quasi-academic IMO); b) they’re very often not strategic thinkers in fact (no matter how much they read about strategies) and are almost all looking no more than 2-3 years forward; c) they build extremely limited experience of negotiation, real-life commercial decision-making, and some can be easily suggestible / very easy to placate by their more cunning peers in other parts of the firm / seniors. Also many just run with management guidance and bring very limited levels of original / critical thinking to bear (in fact the industry is so conflicted it often suits the bank/brokerage and their corporate clients for the analyst to be that way) - it’s not as if the firms earn that much for the research anyway (it is - and always was - a loss leader if one calls a spade a spade). My own experience is investment bankers are, on average, a lot smarter, savvier, adaptable, and strategic. It’s almost an entirely different subset of skills that are needed (anyone with half a brain can learn to model but not everyone can learn to negotiate hard, effectively and strategically et al.). I appreciate that these are sweeping generalisations and I know many analysts who break the mould. Everyone is different. But I absolutely disagree with your broad conclusions and I think one really needs to work in a few areas to understand how different the necessary skillsets are. There are very good reasons why corporates & PE firms don’t seek out ER pros. So, I respectfully disagree but I also want to say that I’m enjoying your posts and your candour. Keep it up!
I like it. Lots of insights I did not know before, so appreciate that. I don't plan to work in a few other areas, so this is very helpful.
I am not seeking anyone's understanding that I can only go broad without covering all the cases and everyone's skills and narrative are different.
I hear you. Re the comment you need to work in a few different areas I didn’t mean you personally, I have altered language above.
got ya
Good read 👍
:)
Nicely said!
Thanks!