I haven’t posted in a long time but another close group of friends are looking for a junior analyst and I want to help them out. If you are interested email them email@example.com with your resume, cover letter, and contact information.
Take a look at the job posting below:
The firm is Chicago-based operating a long-biased, equity hedge fund committed to long-term capital growth and preservation. The Fund has a long-term time horizon, invests globally and is value oriented. The fund has a “go anywhere” mandate that is agnostic to geography, sector and benchmark. The firm maintains a reasonably concentrated portfolio of well researched investments on both the long and short side. We use fundamental analysis to invest in mispriced and overlooked companies.
We are looking for an Analyst to join our small and tight knit investment team. The Analyst will work directly with the Portfolio Manager to perform both quantitative and qualitative due diligence. This will include financial modeling, “investigative journalism” and industry analysis. Ideal candidate would be more junior, but open to various experience levels. A strong passion and interest in learning the craft of value investing is a requirement.
Email firstname.lastname@example.org with your resume, cover letter, and contact information.
I haven’t posted in a long time but a close friend of mine is looking for a junior analyst and I want to help them out. If you are interested email me at miguel @ simoleonsense.com with your resume, cover letter, and contact information. I will pass your information forward and my friend will contact you if they are interested in going forward.
Take a look at the job posting below:
The ideal candidate would be more junior. While the candidate does not need to have direct experience in the investment management business, they should be fluent in financial statements and be competent in building basis models. Non-traditional candidates (such as journalism or engineering) would be looked upon favorably, so lack of a finance degree would not be a disqualifier.
The candidate must be a self-starter and have the initiative and drive to make the extra effort in ferreting out information on companies. The candidate must understand value i.e. get excited as things get cheaper. A non-US centric view of the world is a major plus.
The day to day duties are straight forward. Doing deep dives into companies that may qualify for inclusion into the portfolio. Learning about different business models, interviewing management and pestering everyone you can think of for scuttlebutt on the company in question. Compensation will be reasonable. The job is in Chicago so no telecommuting is possible.
Any introductions would be much appreciated, please feel free to pass on this email to potential candidates to respond directly.
Email me at miguel @ simoleonsense.com with your resume, cover letter, and contact information.
If your following the recent conflict in Gaza and finding it hard to resist the urge to “pick a side”. I recommend reading this paper it highlights the perils of the “illusion of understanding” politics and public policies. This reminds me of a very famous saying,
“Don’t be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” – E. Hamilton Lee, 1949.”
As we follow current events in the Middle East we need to keep those wise words in mind. We need to remain intellectually flexible and willing to reconsider our closest held beliefs. We must acknowledge, encounter, and confront our ignorance. Clinging boldly to our ideas about groups of people thousands of miles away (who are living in radically different circumstances ) will only get in the way of solidarity, progress, and reconciliation.
Abstract – Philip M. Fernbach, Todd Rogers, Craig R. Fox, and Steven A. Sloman
People often hold extreme political attitudes about complex policies. We hypothesized that people typically know less about such policies than they think they do (the illusion of explanatory depth) and that polarized attitudes are enabled by simplistic causal models. Asking people to explain policies in detail both undermined the illusion of explanatory depth and led to attitudes that were more moderate (Experiments 1 and 2). Although these effects occurred when people were asked to generate a mechanistic explanation, they did not occur when people were instead asked to enumerate reasons for their policy preferences (Experiment 2). Finally, generating mechanistic explanations reduced donations to relevant political advocacy groups (Experiment 3). The evidence suggests that people’s mistaken sense that they understand the causal processes underlying policies contributes to political polarization.
Favorite Excerpts from the paper – Philip M. Fernbach, Todd Rogers, Craig R. Fox, and Steven A. Sloman
“Many of the most important issues facing society – from climate change to health care to poverty – require complex policy solutions about which citizens hold polarized political preferences. A central puzzle of modern American politics is how so many voters can maintain strong political views concerning complex policies yet remain relatively uninformed about how such policies would bring about desired outcomes. “
“One possible cause of this apparent paradox is that voters believe that they understand how policies work better than they actually do.”
“Rozenblit and Keil have demonstrated that people tend to be overconfident in how well they understand how everyday objects, such as toilets and combination locks, work; asking people to generate a mechanistic explanation shatters this sense of understanding.”
“Moreover, people are more likely to change their attitudes about a policy when they have less confidence in their knowledge about it.”
“Attempting to generate a mechanistic explanation undermines this illusion of understanding and leads people to endorse more moderate positions.”
“Mechanistic explanation generation also influences political behavior making people less likely to donate to relevant advocacy groups.”
“We propose that generating mechanistic explanations leads people to endorse more moderate positions by forcing them to confront their ignorance.”
“More generally, the present results suggest that political debate might be more productive if partisans first engaged in a substantive and mechanistic discussion of policies before engaging in the more customary discussions of preferences and positions.”
Interesting paper on the use of political information and investment performance.
Abstract by Meng Gao Jiekun Huang
This paper examines the hypothesis that hedge fund managers gain an informational advantage in securities trading through their connections with lobbyists. Using datasets on the long-equity holdings and lobbyist connections of hedge funds from 1998 to 2012, we show that hedge funds outperform by 63 to 87 basis points per month on their political holdings when they are connected to lobbyists. Furthermore, the political outperformance of connected funds decreased significantly after the STOCK Act was signed into law. Our study provides evidence on the transmission of private political information in the financial markets and on the value of such information to financial market participants.
P.S. I think it’s difficult to establish causality between investment performance and lobbyist connections given potential lurking variables.
Interesting paper for students of crowd behavior and complex systems. What if we look at market participants as being members of social networks? I wonder what would we would uncover.
Abstract (Guillroy, Kramer, Hancock,)
Emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness. Emotional contagion is well established in laboratory experiments, with people transferring positive and negative emotions to others. Data from a large real-world social network, collected over a 20-y period suggests that longer-lasting moods (e.g., depression, happiness) can be transferred through networks [Fowler JH, Christakis NA (2008) BMJ 337:a2338], although the results are controversial. In an experiment with people who use Facebook, we test whether emotional contagion occurs outside of in-person interaction between individuals by reducing the amount of emotional content in the News Feed. When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. These results indicate that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks. This work also suggests that, in contrast to prevailing assumptions, in-person interaction and nonverbal cues are not strictly necessary for emotional contagion, and that the observation of others’ positive experiences constitutes a positive experience for people.