Am I too old......

D

DoctorToER

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

At 29 do you think I am too old to get a job in pharma equity research in the UK. I am currently a medcial doctor.

I am planning to take CFA level 1 in December and will network extensively.

Will age be a barrier for me in terms of getting a pharma equity research job.

Thanks.
 
Why not network and get a position on the buyside at a healthcare fund like OrbiMed? Even if its not strictly a healthcare fund, many large HF's have healthcare PM's which have analysts working under them.
 
You are not too old. However, what will prevent you from getting a job on the sell-side is an apparent lack of initiative and asking questions that are either redundant, uninsightful or both. No offense, but you've been posting these inquiries since 2005; as you might imagine, during that time a lot of people have came and gone into this industry, and a few of them have even been promoted within. Don't you think it's time for you to put yourself on the radar? I guess I thought that the sell-side was about being proactive, thinking outside the box, and doing whatever it takes to get it done...but what do I know, maybe I've been doing my job all wrong for the last few years.
 
I second that.

Just for giggles, do a search on all your posts. Your posts go back two years and are all approximately the same "Hi Folks, I'm an MD and want to get into finance. How do I do this and will CFA help me?" The only change is an evolution from "how do I pass L I?" to "can I do somethinge easier than LI?". The search gives a view of an uninspired self-indulgent person who doesn't really want a career in finance or is too lazy to do anything about it.

If you want a career in finance, start doing something about it. We would be happy to help you pass your exams, discuss pharmaceutical stocks, give views on potential job opportunities, point you toward useful books and reading material, etc.

BTW - I was 29 when I got out of school (actually I was 28 by less than a month).
 
I was 30 when I got a buyside analyst job. I think, in my case, being a bit older with some "life" experience was an advantage.
 
Student loans in the US are capped at 20% of after-tax income. I think that 80%/(1 - Tax rate)*junior analyst > college professor and you can live on college professor.
 
To Sum up an brief answers on your previous posts--Not too old; prep about 200-300hrs per exam, and yes, you can get into finance. I think the buyside research, given your background would be more open to you than sell-side.
 
I looked into a biotech hedge fund run by a guy who got his MD and MBA at the same time. His "edge" was that he could understand the medical research submited by companies to the FDA for drug approval. This would improve his analysis of whether or not the drug would get approved and move the stock. He called these situations "binomial events." Too bad he was a lousy trader and blew himself up.

DrtoER --why dont you just pimp yourself out to one of the drug companies in a sales position and hand out free pens and squishy balls at hospitals to convince doctors to use your name brand drug? You'd distroy any PM or analyst in terms of pay.
 
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Student loans in the US are capped at 20% of
> after-tax income. I think that 80%/(1 - Tax
> rate)*junior analyst > college professor and you
> can live on college professor.


Not to completely sidetrack the post, but I thought those were changes that just get recommended, but have never actually been put into place?

Although I have heard of loans that repay based on your income. I took out student loans as recently as Fall '05, and was never told anything about a cap on repayment. Although, the sums were relatively small (less than $15k over the course of 4 years) and they were all private student loans, rather than FFELP. Don't know if that makes a difference.
 
JackA$$ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked into a biotech hedge fund run by a guy
> who got his MD and MBA at the same time. His
> "edge" was that he could understand the medical
> research submited by companies to the FDA for drug
> approval. This would improve his analysis of
> whether or not the drug would get approved and
> move the stock. He called these situations
> "binomial events." Too bad he was a lousy trader
> and blew himself up.
>

If you really had a good sense of how the FDA would rule on clinical data, you'd be able to make bank -- and that's awesome if this guy were able to do it (and if he were that good, it baffles me how he could blow himself up as a trader).

However, for most of us "ordinary" people, sometimes it's hard to gain much visibility on drug candidates in late stage Phase II/III if clinical data is sparse, not to mention that it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to predict how the FDA will rule. As for "binomial events," this is a term used by everyone in the industry, not something proprietary.
 
In fact, they might even be Bernoulli events, not binomial events. There's just no sense in saying that an MD has an edge in understanding those clinical trials or how the FDA would rule on them. If so, just hire some GS 12 from the FDA and quadruple his salary and you would have a much better candidate.
 
"getting things done", "stepping forward with ideas" and "weathering the storm" are the the key attributes of analysts on the buyside
if you think that you are made of these ingredients you should be ok
 
>If you really had a good sense of how the FDA would rule on clinical data, you'd be able to make bank -- and that's awesome if this guy were able to do it (and if he were that good, it baffles me how he could blow himself up as a trader).

He was right on his calls last fall, but wrong on how the market reacted. A company missed earning and the new drug was sent back for more testing. He was short and the stock shot up. Then he was squeezed trying to get out. This happened quite a bit in 3Q06 and he took it on the chin. Rather than trade out or around a position, he stayed with his fundamental research. While you cant fault a guy for having conviction, you can if his conviction loses you -20%.

>There's just no sense in saying that an MD has an edge in understanding those clinical trials or how the FDA would rule on them.

Who would you rather get your biotech recommendations from....Joe portfolio manager who cant tell his kindney from his splean or John MD who understands the science behind biomarkers?
 
JackA$$ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> He was right on his calls last fall, but wrong on
> how the market reacted. A company missed earning
> and the new drug was sent back for more testing.

Then he was wrong on his call. Why would the drug candidate be sent for more testing? Did it get a non-approvable letter, did an FDA panel request additional data, or what? In either case, these are pretty pivotal events over the course of a drug candidate's development timeline, so I can't see how his predictive abilities should be commended if he weren't able to anticipate this. Not saying that anyone else could have predicted it, but the reality is that if everyone knew which way the FDA would rule, far fewer people would be investing in biotech.

> He was short and the stock shot up. Then he was
> squeezed trying to get out. This happened quite a
> bit in 3Q06 and he took it on the chin. Rather
> than trade out or around a position, he stayed
> with his fundamental research. While you cant
> fault a guy for having conviction, you can if his
> conviction loses you -20%.

What stock was this?

> Who would you rather get your biotech
> recommendations from....Joe portfolio manager who
> cant tell his kindney from his splean or John MD
> who understands the science behind biomarkers?

You gain street credit with an MD, but there are also a lot of smart people on Wall Street without MD's or Ph.D.'s who can learn about this stuff. And plus, the reality is, a lot of firms have outside consultants who help them with such decisions, if needed.
 
"You gain street credit with an MD, but there are also a lot of smart people on Wall Street without MD's or Ph.D.'s who can learn about this stuff. And plus, the reality is, a lot of firms have outside consultants who help them with such decisions, if needed."

this is exactly right. my boss has a chem e background and does the biotech analysis at our firm. he has made some great calls, most recently on DNDN (both on the spike up and the down). about a year ago, he asked me to go with him to have lunch with another analyst who has a phd and covers biotech stocks. at the lunch i asked the guy what his phd is in. his phd? english literature. great biotech analyst. you dont need to go to medical school to be a great biotech analyst, just need to put in the time to learn.
 
JackA$$ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >There's just no sense in saying that an MD has an
> edge in understanding those clinical trials or how
> the FDA would rule on them.
>
> Who would you rather get your biotech
> recommendations from....Joe portfolio manager who
> cant tell his kindney from his splean or John MD
> who understands the science behind biomarkers?


Who said those are my only choices? I might have a choice a little closer to home.
 
Maybe someone who understands what influences the regulatory process... is it science, money, religion, who appointed/hired the regulators, who is in charge of appropriations? How much of each. The MD can definitely help with the science part of it. What about the others?

Back to the original post, 29 is definitely not too old; however, the MD may be more practical for research in private equity and venture capital, other than the statement that an MD has worked at a job that requires ridiculous hours.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 08:27AM by bchadwick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top