?? If one of the companies I worked for has since changed names (2 actually did), how should I list the name? New (old), just the old name?
i would think : New Name (Formerly : OLD Name ) …
maybe a silly Q, but what type of font and font size is generally acceptable to use for your resume?
Don’t go below 10, and try to stay above 12 point fonts. Remember that older people have trouble reading small print, and may get grumpy (even without knowing it) if they have to squint to read stuff. Times New Roman is pretty typical, and probably best to stick with that. Don’t use sans-serif fonts for blocks of text (harder to read), although for short line items (like your name at the top), you might be able to use it if it doesn’t look funny.
ahahah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In that case, I’d change it from: > > “Instrumental in improving nearly every aspect of > portfolio management and operations including > enhancing existing processes, and devising new > processes within a more robust compliance > framework. This was accomplished during a period > of rapid growth when the firm added $130 million > in new assets.” > > to > > “Instrumental in improving nearly every aspect of > portfolio management and developing new, > efficient, operational processes during a period > of rapid growth (added $130 million in new assets, > increasing AUM xxx%).” Never use the grating word “instrumental!” Try “Created or Contributed or Worked or Analyzed or Implemented or Conducted” Also don’t use the phrase “nearly every aspect.” Too vague. You say what you actually did to improve specific processes.
I think I’ve got it! - Improved portfolio management and operational processes during a period of rapid growth. No additional staff was required despite the addition of $130 million in new assets and an increase in AUM of xxx%. I’m using 11pt Garamond, btw, to address the font comment above.
It’s still way too vague. I would change it to “improved portfolio operations” and then cite specific examples. It’s a bit misleading to say that you improved “portfolio management processes” unless you were actually doing the investment decision making. It’s not necessary to say that no additional staff was required. Presumably they weren’t going to hire anyone else if the people they had in place were doing their job.
I guess we’ll agree to disagree. The result/example was that we were able to leverage the operations enough that 3x the assets =/= 2-3x the staff. There really isn’t much room for specific examples, and even if there was it was 50 little things, not 1-3 big things, that improved the processes. Make more sense?
The problem with your statement is the fact that asset management is one of the most scalable businesses. It really isn’t saying much that you were able to leverage operations.
That’s true when you are talking about $1b > $2b or $100b > $110b. But, we’re talking about a relatively new company w/ < $90M when I walked in. So, none of those systems that the $1b shops take for granted were in place. None. Zero. AM is scalable, if the systems are in place. But, I get your point. I think I’m going to nuke this bullet, maybe save it for talking points in interviews. As important as creating the scalable systems was, I think I need to emphasize other things for the jobs I’m looking at right now. Thanks Dante for helping me think through it.