Journalist, or analyst?

We all know how hot the job market is these days in the Chinese financial industry, and with almost every hirer facing the question of where to find enough smart people to fill those openings, some banks are trawling an alternative talent pool — financial journalists.

In fact, the media industry has been a talent source for fund houses and investment banks for some time, but mostly for public relations- or marketing-related roles.

Talk to a spokesperson for a big bank such as Citigroup or Morgan Stanley, and you shouldn’t be surprised to learn she or he once worked for a leading media organisation before moving to the so-called “dark side”.

More recently, some banks are starting to realise that journalist can handle more than PR. What about as economists or analysts to study monetary policy and capital markets for big global banks in China?

The head of China research at a British bank recently sent an email to his friends advising that the bank was looking for a China economist and researcher to join his fast-expanding team in Shanghai or Beijing. Besides a basic financial and economics-related educational background, the notice highlighted one condition that the ideal candidate would meet.

“We are looking for candidates with either a decent advanced (i.e. post-graduate) degree in economics and/or with a strong background in journalism/industry research in China. We view a journalist’s eye for a story and ability to work out how particular policies work in practice in China as strengths,” the hirer said in the note, which was widely distributed among financial journalists in China this week.

Separately, at almost the same time, the China research team leader at a big European investment bank also published a new job notice for China stock analysts in Beijing, and asked his colleagues to spread the word, especially among their financial media friends. Among the requirements, the hirer pointed out that the applicant should demonstrate excellent writing skills, especially for analytical articles.

As far as I know, not too many journalists have MBAs, which are often considered an entry ticket for a career in investment banking or asset management. For roles such as economist at a big bank, a PhD used to be a basic requirement, but in a developing market such as China, do people really want to make things a bit easier?

Given China’s immature market environment, the right information and fast access to key economic data are becoming more important for economists and analysts, whose reputations rely on the credibility of their forecasts and a sensitivity to market trends (ahead of their competitors).

Such work often relies on an extensive network of contacts in different industries and ministries across the vast nation.

Meanwhile, in China’s capital markets, rumours are often proved to be true. For example, about two weeks ahead of the release of official data early this month, the stock market in Shanghai was already full of talk and speculation that inflation in November would reach a new high of 5.1 percent on year.

Guess who is usually among the first to hear these rumours? Good financial journalists with strong ties with government sources.

Some industry watchers have observed that economists in China are becoming more like newsbreaking, investigative journalists. Remember Beijing’s surprise announcement of a 4 trillion yuan (about 586 billion U.S. dollars at that time) stimulus package in late 2008 to help maintain economic expansion amid the global financial crisis?

To some clients of a big U.S. bank, the announcement may not have been very surprising as they had learned of the plan from the bank’s economist, who had tapped his well-placed sources in Beijing for intelligence.

Perhaps, a good China economist can someday teach at Columbia Journalism School when he feels he earns enough money? By the same token, a financial journalist could also teach MBA students how to develop a source network in China.

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

In California - Parents reclaim a failing school - and make history

The writer, a Republican, is governor of California.
 
History is usually made by a small group of passionate people. On Dec. 7, history was made by a small group of parents in Compton, California.
Their children attend McKinley Elementary School - a school that has been defined as failing for the past 10 years. Using a new power known as the "parent trigger," which I fought for and state legislators approved last year, these Compton parents banded together to demand change. The legislation allows parents of students at troubled schools to demand such significant reforms as closing a school, replacing a school's management or most of its staff, or reorganizing a school into a charter, if 51 percent of parents sign a petition.
McKinley Elementary is being reorganized and will soon be transformed into a charter school run by Celerity Educational Group, which is successfully operating three other schools in California.
Some have called this action "the shot heard across the country" - and they're not overstating the case.
To get some perspective of the scope of this new power, consider the heart wrenching stories brought to public attention this year in the documentary "Waiting for Superman," which focuses on the failures of our public education system.
Without the power of the trigger legislation, parents whose children are in what the documentary and others call "dropout factories" have only one avenue to save their children. They must win a lottery to get them into a highly performing charter school.
Across the country, millions of families' prayers go unanswered. These parents are left to face the bleak reality that their child will be forever stuck in a failing school and a failing system. The exit doors may as well be chained.
For millions of low-income families, this means that their child is doomed to a life of unrealized potential.
For millions of California families, this is the shattering of the American dream.
Now, however, for the first time in California history, these historically underserved parents have new power and new choice.
The package of reforms I signed in January gives parents significant options for changing their child's school as well as the freedom to leave failing schools or send their child to a new school or even a new district. Schools are eligible for the 51 percent trigger if they have been judged under state standards to have shown no progress for three consecutive years.
While leaders of the State Teachers Union have threatened legal action to try to stop parents from using this groundbreaking power, I am confident that if they try to thwart the public, the courts will end up upholding this important bipartisan legislation. Changes such as replacing a school's principal and staff do not come unless there have been continued years of failure and a majority of parents banding together and signing a petition.
This sort of majority-demanded restructuring is exactly what just happened at McKinley Elementary School. More than 60 percent of McKinley parents signed a petition and chose to convert to a charter school.
Throughout history, all great movements have started at the grass-roots level, with ordinary citizens and communities rising up to demand change.
In California, like in many other states, our public education system is not based on merit or holding the adults in whose care we have placed our children accountable. Some students get a good education, but others do not, and report after report reaches the same conclusion: No matter how much money we throw at the problem, unless the school is fundamentally fixed, we will not get the results in student performance we all deserve.
Giving parents the power to hold their schools accountable is a giant step forward, and I believe that what happened in Compton is the beginning of a movement that will sweep the nation.

BY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER

My day in parliament: a story of a beginner

I start my day by attending planning meeting in the news room with my colleagues. It is only after that meeting someone knows what he or she will be covering for the day. The editor asks me if I have something in hand for the day and I respond “no”. Ok, go and cover the parliament proceedings.

At the parliament, I spend between 30 and 45 minutes going through security checks and feeling the forms to get registered. Then I take a seat in the cabins especially designated for the press. Untill then, I have no clue of the agenda. Lack of specialization? Shortage of staff? I do not know the answer, but that is the way we do things here. A reporter is expected to cover whatever issue and sometimes subjects he has never heard of.

Now I know the issues on the agenda and I am looking forward to hear some heated debates that can give me a chance of writing something interesting. But after hours seating and listening to the debates my frustration gets even worse. The notions of opposition the MPs hold is that of saying “no” whenever the rulling bench says or is perceived to be saying “yes”. No matter what is being discussed. This also applies to the MPs of the rulling party.

It is a breach. I mingle among the MPs hoping to create some sort of a “source” that can give me substance. 

Everyone is eager to gossip about the colleagues on the opposite side but not about the issues. All parties have the same excuse: “party discipline”. It sounds true because we elect lists of people not people. But as I insist, another true emerges. They do not read the massive documents that are printed for every session and, those who read do not understand the issues.

How do I get copies of the documents if everyone has the power to declare them “secret”. The only way is to approach those who do not read and see if I can get a copy. It is the opposite, Those who do not read the documents consider everything secret even the budge with their names. So, it is not surprising that most of the stories we write are about the agenda and not the issues.