| Topic Name: |
generalist vs. specialist |
| Message Name: |
Depends on what you want long term |
| Date Posted: |
05/05/2002 |
| In Reply To: |
I'm joining a medium sized, growth-oriented mutual fund firm. Last summer I interned there and worked with an analyst who's basically a generalist covering companies in a wide range of industries across the economy, including leisure (gaming, hotels, cruise lines), home-building, consumer products, etc.
Now that I am joining the firm fulltime, I have to decide if I want to work with him again or switch to another area. I really like the guy I worked with a lot. He is a great guy to work for, and I know I would be happy under him.
On the other hand, I am really tempted to try to get a more specialized coverage assignment, eg. technology, or media, or perhaps financials. I think that in terms of my professional development it would be better to be a specialist, an expert in one area, rather than having less dept of knowledge across a wide range of industries. Would it not also be better in terms of my marketability to business schools or subsequent job opportunities down the road? The other thing is that I risk being put with someone I don't get along with as well.
Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Is it common to switch coverage areas frequently? I would think it would be ideal to cover a particular industry for as long as possible, even one's whole career. Then again, it's got to be something you like a lot. In all honestly gaming stocks don't really move me very much.
Thanks for your input.... |
| Message: |
I work for a large asset management firm and I was an energy specialist for two years. When I was in that position, I was on track to join the fund that specializes in energy / natural resrouces. I recently turned into a generalist because I am now on track to run a general fund. I think it really depends on what you want to do in the long run, and you should spend some time to develop your skill sets accordingly.
It also has to do with economic conditions. IN MY OPINION (strictly my opinion), I believe it's easier for generalists to keep their jobs through economic downturns - if you are a specialist and your sector is our of favor, your firm may just fire you (even if they don't want to, they might be forced to due to decline in asset under management). If you are a generalist, it's easier to go through downturns because you just switch your focus in the sector that's working.
On the other hand, when the economy turns, you may be in huge demand if you are a specialist, and your compensation will go up a lot if there is enough demand for your speciality. If you are a generalist, well, you are "a mile wide and skin deep" on your understanding of the industries, so you won't get the huge increase in compensation. However, you probably won't get laid off either, since we are talking about good times.
Personally, I like the generalist path more than the specialist path. As a energy specialist for two years, I am past the steep learning curve... and the job is actually not challenging enough for me anymore. Personally, I am the type of person who like to climb steep learning curves all the time and keep on challenging myself. There is really no difficulty for me to choose generalist over specialist.
"Is it common to switch coverage areas frequently" - I think that depends on the size and structure of the firm, and nature of their funds. And frankly, sometimes specialists get tired of their sector and want a change. I'd say 3 to 5 years - that is if the analyst demand the change. I think firms rarely ask specialists to change their specialty unless they want to or unless there is a dire need in another area.
|
|
