so recently there was a flurry of articles in the news how it's the 10 year anniversary of the march 2009 lows on the S&P etc, and just as the landscape of leading stocks/ companies have changed since then, i think the same could be said of people's careers
even some of the top luminaries in 2009 have now gone by the wayside, perhaps surprising in a way, as they/their companies are presented as almost invincible by the press..while others have managed to remain firmly in the highest echelons
the list is probably too long to tally, but a few that come to mind have been
- a global tech company/ceo who went from billion dollar valuation to liquidation mode
- a quant manager that didn't deliver on expectations
- a few stock pickers/macro funds that didn't deliver on expectations
- a pe fund, same as above
- a commodities fund, same as above
i don't think it's necessarily just hubris like the Greek mythologies either, as some seem genuinely decent & competent people.
on the other hand, there are also those who seem to perpetually go to greater wins all the time
so what gives? what do you think accounts for the differential in people's career longevity in business, finance, trading?
my own hypothesis is that maybe some factors are:
- leverage/ how good the connections are with providers of said leverage: eg. if highly leveraged, absolutely must be on good terms with bankers/brokers, etc, so that they don't immediately margin call/ demand liquidation on first drawdown
- relationship with the press/ how much energy spent on business publicity vs. profits management: maybe it's like the 'inverse indicator' they say of magazine covers, where companies whose ceos appear on magazine covers too much tend to lag the market afterwards
- balance on tradeoff between focusing on core competences vs. having blinders on by filtering out everything else
even some of the top luminaries in 2009 have now gone by the wayside, perhaps surprising in a way, as they/their companies are presented as almost invincible by the press..while others have managed to remain firmly in the highest echelons
the list is probably too long to tally, but a few that come to mind have been
- a global tech company/ceo who went from billion dollar valuation to liquidation mode
- a quant manager that didn't deliver on expectations
- a few stock pickers/macro funds that didn't deliver on expectations
- a pe fund, same as above
- a commodities fund, same as above
i don't think it's necessarily just hubris like the Greek mythologies either, as some seem genuinely decent & competent people.
on the other hand, there are also those who seem to perpetually go to greater wins all the time
so what gives? what do you think accounts for the differential in people's career longevity in business, finance, trading?
my own hypothesis is that maybe some factors are:
- leverage/ how good the connections are with providers of said leverage: eg. if highly leveraged, absolutely must be on good terms with bankers/brokers, etc, so that they don't immediately margin call/ demand liquidation on first drawdown
- relationship with the press/ how much energy spent on business publicity vs. profits management: maybe it's like the 'inverse indicator' they say of magazine covers, where companies whose ceos appear on magazine covers too much tend to lag the market afterwards
- balance on tradeoff between focusing on core competences vs. having blinders on by filtering out everything else