The fear of being an entrepreneur if you don't have a great idea is our biggest handicap. Everyone thinks they need to have everything ironed out before they can leave their "career". If more people just started viewing entrepreneurship as a career path of its own (as it is), a lot more cool products and business models would be invented.
I definitely agree with the notion "Team first, Idea second". Good ideas are easy; execution is the hard part. Put together a good team, and good ideas will come -- the support for this is the existence of many serial entrepreneurs.
I get the point you're trying to make but that's not exactly true. For every legacy candidate they admit, they must reject exactly 1 qualified candidate as a result.
For every candidate they accept in general, they must reject 8 others.
This argument makes sense, but aren't many large PE shops and Hedge Funds (which either acquire large companies whole, or make many small investments in thousands of companies) a counter example to this? Many have $5B+ valuations, often limited intentionally by a desire not to expand beyond 40-50 investment professionals.
Seems like there is no inherent law preventing a portfolio manager from becoming bigger than any single item in his portfolio.
Sorry to disappoint, but this is not from Mint - it's actually my team's presentation for the Stanford West Coast Venture Case Competition when I was an undergrad at Berkeley (I am Victor, listed on the first slide).
It's a funny story but we won the competition with this presentation, in part because Shasta Ventures, one of the judges there, happened to actually be funding the company (which they announced 3 days after we pitched it). For the questions regarding the financials, I don't know how closely they match reality but we were told by the judges that we won in part because the numbers were conservative/realistic and were in the same ballpark as their own figures.
Calling trading a zero-sum game shows a fundamental lack of understanding of finance. We may have very negative views on the industry, but it exists because it serves many fundamental (and necessary) functions, including:
* Accuracy in pricing shares (and it is important to know the actual value of a company for many reasons)
* Enable market participation. In many illiquid OTC markets, it is all but impossible for anyone outside large institutional players to participate. More trading = lower transaction costs, more transparency, and ability for the little guy (me) to join the action
* Liquidity. And yes, this is very important. It is a common answer because it is a good one
* The same security can be worth different amounts to different people. By definition this precludes it from being zero sum (this statement is of course subject to what school of financial theory you subscribe to)
* Performance measurement. Stock options have gotten a lot of bad press, but compensating a CEO according to lets say, revenue, is much less unbiased and can lead to worse outcomes (e.g., grows business in unattractive segments or over-invests to boost top line)
* Others
The above are in no way MECE and overlap in many ways. Markets can definitely be better, but calling it a zero-sum game or completely value-less to society is a bit too far.
I see a lot of hate towards this article, but there are definitely nuggets of truth here. Yes his tone might be a bit defensive, and yes he might sound like an "mba-type" with a "chip on his shoulder". However, the basic point that we should consider all available information when looking for a new hire is a good one. The resume contains many useful data points, and it is ludicrous not to take it into account. Should I base me entire decision on it, or even a large part of it? Maybe not. But to completely disregard it? That makes little sense.
While "Stanford vs. State School" might not be the best argument, the point still holds. It is useful information, and all else being equal the Stanford kid probably has a track record of a harder work ethic. Make a decision solely based upon it? Absolutely not. But it would be poor business sense not to take it into account.
Having worked at Goldman Sachs in FIG investment banking, and having very close friends at virtually every bulge bracket as well as 8 of the 10 largest Private Equity firms, I can attest that this is completely false. If there is one industry that bleeds meritocracy (outside of entrepreneurship, which I think is a clear first), it is finance. You are definitely right about the long hours - you must be intelligent and be willing to work extremely hard, and you must also be willing to put up with a great deal of tedium and grunt work at almost all levels. However, the one thing that you don't have to be is white. Minorities are vastly overrepresented, and while I have not done a hard calculation if you take Asians and Indians as a percentage of total front office workers, I would not be surprised if it were near 30%. Include Jews and it's even higher. I currently work at McKinsey & Co in the Corporate Finance practice in New York, and the office as a whole (of 500 front office consultants) is probably 40% Asian or Indian.
That said, there are many downsides to finance as well and there are many reasons I am forgoing a $400k+ paycheck in PE to move back to SF to start a company where I am paid $0 and will have to live off of a ramen diet. The fact that I am not straight, white, and anglo-saxon however does not play a factor at all (and in fact there are running jokes at many banks and top tier consultancies that the above description puts you in the minority).
Given the large number of banks, it's definitely possible that some adopt the "white guy in China" mode of operating. However, having worked in the industry and living on Wall Street, I do have close friends at virtually every bulge bracket bank and management consulting firm, so I can attest that my experience is not unique (at least when it comes to bulge brackets and large boutiques).
If someone says "now I'll hand you over to my colleague..." that's a dead giveaway. In other shocking news, bankers don't do their own PowerPoint slides either
Yeah ok that just plain isn't true. I worked at Goldman Sachs in FIG investment banking, and now at McKinsey and Co in New York as a consultant. While we do have a graphics department that we can call on to help spruce things up, as well as workers in India to help with tasks such as following simple instructions to translate spreadsheets into charts, 95% of the work is done by the bankers/consultants themselves (i.e., me).
In fact, the reason I left Goldman is because as an analyst 80% of your time is spent line editing charts, checking footnotes, and making sure everything is aligned. We even used MS Word with built in macros because Power Point wasn't precise enough. When you're working 110 hrs/week, that's not fun. McKinsey is better but not much different - which is why I'm moving back to SF in 4 weeks to be an entrepreneur.
Same goes for the "I'll hand you over to my colleague" statement. Often times an Engagement Manager who is well versed in the overall project presents for continuity sake (so the audience doesn't get confused by 5 people all chiming in), and questions are directed to the analyst in charge of the section.
I'm merely pointing to the fact that many extremely intelligent individuals have given atheism a lot of thought and come out on both sides of the fence. Of all major world issues, topics of study, etc., I cannot think of another with bigger potential implications.
Your statement that "religious belief should be an individual thing" is exactly the mindset that I am trying to address. The existence of a God is fact, or not fact. It's either true for everyone, or false for everyone. Saying something is "individual" is healthy only to the point that it does not stop you from actually researching it, and many times the best learning is done in collaboration and reviewing the work of others.
Many major religions are monotheistic by definition. The entire premise is that only 1 true god exists.
Saying we "agree on 519 of 520 and disagree on 1" is a non-statement. The first person's belief in that 1 by definition precludes his belief in the other 519.