|
|
Enron Mail |
David,
Here are the reviews of the UT Energy Finance program that you requested: From Jennifer Martinez (MBA class of 1999, Energy Finance taken fall of=20 1998): The Energy Finance Program 2 years ago was very good, especially considerin= g=20 it was the first year of the program. There were a lot of guest speakers= =20 from various energy companies who gave us a lot of practical knowledge abou= t=20 the energy industry through case studies, lectures, etc. Basically, we=20 learned all the same finance concepts and tools as in the regular finance= =20 classes, but all the cases and examples were energy-related. The professor= s=20 were good for the most part but didn't have a great deal of practical=20 industry experience. If I had to guess the reason for decreased=20 participation in the program, I would probably say it is the professors. = =20 Ronn and Titman are great but known as being very technical and=20 quantitative. Some students prefer less technical professors and classes= =20 that aren't limiting to the energy industry. Also, the fact that the class= =20 meets for 3 hours twice a week may not be so appealing. Other than those= =20 things, I can't imagine why there has been such a drop in enrollment. I=20 especially don't understand why every single person didn't drop for Enron. = I=20 wonder if it has something to do with international status.???=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ----------------------------------------------------------------- From John Massey (MBA class of 1999, Energy Finance taken fall of 1998): Bottom Line - UT Business Schools is great - Investment Fund - Best Activity available to= =20 students Energy Finance program - Fairly Weak - It was a watered down version of the futures options class crossed with a= =20 weak finance appendage - The Finance teacher was pathetic - both a poor teacher, ignorant about=20 industry specific analysis, devoid of industry experience, rude to outside= =20 lectures (from industry) Keith Brown was the only educator that was any good and he only had a small= =20 portion of the class time - Way to make Better: Get teachers with practical industry experience - Make it a seminar Class - Focus on Case studies, lectures - given by people= =20 from industry - Promote the class within the business school - I felt like UT did a poor jo= b=20 of internally (to students) promoting the class - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ----------- From Ross Mesquita (MBA class of 1999, Energy Finance taken fall of 1998): To be honest, a great majority of the coursework was not energy specific. = =20 When energy applications were presented, it seemed more like general financ= e=20 questions were reworded to include energy lingo. We had some very good=20 speakers, but for the most part, I did not feel like the 6 hours of class h= ad=20 enough energy focus. I assumed that this would get better as the program= =20 progressed. One reason that may account for the decline in enrollment is that Energy=20 Finance is a very specific focus. I would have probably not enrolled in th= e=20 Energy Finance program had it been available in my first year. I did not= =20 know enough about energy at that time and I had returned to B-school to=20 consider several career options -- i.e., investment banking, corporate=20 finance, entrepreneurship, marketing, etc. As a new MBA student, I would n= ot=20 want to narrow my window of opportunities to only energy companies. =20 Here is my perspective and probably something that is true of many MBAs-- My interest in Enron brought me to the energy industry and not vice versa. = =20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------- From Billy Braddock (MBA class of 1999, Energy Finance taken fall of 1998= ): I was a participant in the inaugural Energy Finance program in the Fall of= =20 1998. The primary positives to the class revolved around outside=20 panels/instruction. For example, Enron sent representatives on 2 separate= =20 occasions to discuss particular topics (Vince Kaminski and Gary Hickerson).= =20 Other notable speakers were Jeff Sandefer (independent business consultant= =20 and E&P professional), the Beacon Group, and Encap Investments. Another go= od=20 speaker was a professor from UT's school of engineering. He brought a good= =20 perspective as to the "basics" of the energy business. The class was structured via a team-based instruction approach, with 3=20 professors team-teaching a 6-hour credit course. None of the 3 professors= =20 had any product knowledge of the energy business. Of the 3 professors, 2= =20 were research focussed/tenured with little credibility in "teaching." One = of=20 the professors primary focus of research was fixed income, while the other = 2=20 were investments and corporate finance, respectively. =20 As is the case for UT's finance program in general, and energy finance in= =20 particular, UT is in dire need of teaching professors (as opposed to resear= ch=20 professors) that have the ability to convey finance with practical examples= =20 and at a level that can be more easily be understood by students without a= =20 finance background. Particular to the energy program, UT needs to have mor= e=20 instruction from energy professionals (such as the instructors used for=20 Enron's internal learning programs (ie. Derivatives classes, etc.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ----------------------- From Bryan Williams (MBA class of 1999, Energy Finance taken fall of 1998)= : I participated in the first Energy Finance class offered in Fall of 1998, a= t=20 the University of Texas. =20 The curriculum was understandably =01&rough around the edges=018 as 1998 wa= s the=20 first year the Energy Finance course was offered. However, the instruction= =20 also suffered as none of the instructors had any energy background to speak= =20 of (The 6-credit hour class was team taught by three tenured professors).= =20 Two of the three professors have co-authored textbooks, and the third=20 professor=01,s claim to fame is fixed income. As a group, the three profes= sors=20 are research-heavy (as opposed to industry focused), and the team-teaching= =20 format did not incent any one of the profs to be personably accountable for= =20 the success of the class. =20 That said, the instructors did a good job attracting some top notch outside= =20 speakers. Among them: Vince=20 Kaminski & Gary Hickerson, both of Enron. They also dedicated one class=20 period to a video conference call with the Beacon Group, an energy consulti= ng=20 group that I believe was recently acquired by Goldman. Jeff Sandefer, an independent businessman, an entreprenuership instructor,= =20 and one of the foremost experts in the E&P sector, also spoke to the class.= =20 Jeff was joined by some of the executives from Houston-based Encap. The woes of the Energy Finance could be easily remedied by injecting some= =20 instruction from someone from industry. The class is too=20 academic/theoretical with too few relevant examples excerpted from the ener= gy=20 sector.=20 The instructors Enron uses for the Derivatives courses taught internally ar= e=20 good examples of people who can package very relevant information and=20 successfully articulate it in a couple of days. Perhaps a similar approach= =20 would bode well for the Energy Finance program at UT. =20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------- From Yuan Tian (MBA class of 2000, Energy Finance taken fall of 1999): Here are my thoughts on the UT Energy Finance Program: Pros: - more focused on the Finance studies in the Energy Industry which is right= =20 now in a transition period from regulation to deregulation and thus is=20 exposed to different financial perspectives from the other industries; - there are some experienced, brand-name professors (e.g. Sheridan Titman)= =20 teaching in the program;=20 Cons: - the program should give the students more exposures to energy companies= =20 such as Enron. Specifically, it might need to help students link to the=20 interview oppurtunites from these energy companies such as Enron; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From George Huan (MBA class of 2000, Energy Finance taken fall of 1999): Companies expect MBA students to have both general management (new ideas) a= nd=20 analytic (quantative) skills. Energy industry is no exception. Energy Finance Program offers Financial Strategy and Risk Managements cours= es=20 which fit in the insudtry need. However, these two courses are far from=20 enough to help students understand the dynemic of industrial transformation= =20 and excitements and opportunities in this industry. Other management and= =20 quantitive courses are needed to complete this program.=20 My suggestions: 1) Seminars or lectures about energy industry and energy companies. Before= =20 students make their decisions, let them know: What's happening and what's= =20 going to happen in this industry; What the companies are doing now; Who= =20 they are looking for. =20 2) Management and/or analytical courses should be included. Such as:=20 Strategy, Financial enginering and Real Option. 3) More industry connections. Presentations and discussions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -------------------------------- From Charlie Weldon (MBA Class of 2000, Energy Finance taken in fall of 199= 9) My experience in the Energy Finance program overall was a positive=20 experience. The most rewarding part of the class was the guest speakers=20 brought in during Dr. Titman's portion of the class. This part of the cour= se=20 is taught in the second half of the semester and consisted of ~10 case=20 classes all focusing on the Energy industry. Two of the cases were based o= n=20 Enron, and overall the case selection in my opinion was very appropriate an= d=20 well thought out. Value added by the professor was less than from the=20 speakers and cases. The first eight weeks of the course covered futures and options. Nearly a= ll=20 of the examples and problems discussed pertained directly to the energy=20 industry and special emphasis was placed on increasing the student's=20 understanding of the supply and demand dynamics in the power market. The u= se=20 of options and futures for speculating and/or hedging was stressed on=20 numerous occasions and a decent attempt at explaining how to value a power= =20 plant project. I believe that the University Energy Finance faculty are trying to=20 continuously make improvements to the program. However, I do not believe= =20 that they are moving fast enough or necessarily down the right path to=20 improvement. There is a strong need for more practical based training on= =20 energy derivatives similar to the course taught by Paradigm here at Enron. = =20 The focus of the University teachers is quite theoretical, due in large par= t=20 to their background. While the theoretical basis is crucial to understandi= ng=20 the basics, the real value of such a program in my opinion is the effective= =20 bridging of the theoretical with the practical all in one course. =20 Until measures are taken to inject practicality from someone with extensive= =20 industry experience, I believe the Energy Finance program will continue to= =20 underdeliver on its objectives. Additionally, I believe that the course=20 structure should be changed to eliminate the need of having 3 consecutive= =20 hours of classroom instruction.
|