How to get a job in investing
Summary
Andrew Walker’s hiring thesis is that aspiring public-market investors must manufacture evidence of commitment before asking anyone to believe the résumé. Natural connections remain the easiest route, but candidates without them can signal intent by passing CFA Level I, investing a modest amount themselves, and publishing research. The point is not that the CFA makes someone a great investor; it demonstrates “clarity of purpose, willingness to work.”
A tailored investing conversation is far more effective than a cold request for employment. Walker’s ideal outreach cites the recipient’s work or holdings, then offers a related pitch—for example, asking a McDonald’s investor to critique a Burger King thesis over Zoom. It proves the candidate researched the target, contributes something useful, and makes a specific close without immediately asking for a job.
The stock pitch is the central test because it reveals whether a candidate actually enjoys investing and how they reason under questioning. “I don’t invest” or “I don’t have one” is disqualifying at a fundamental shop, even for a college student. A generic McDonald’s pitch built from its 20x P/E, historical 25x multiple, famous holders, and 2% dividend is technically acceptable but “nothing memorable.”
Differentiated pitches require evidence beyond SEC filings, with primary research serving as the best low-budget proof of analytical initiative. Walker highlights the 2025 Pershing Square Challenge winners’ Carlisle (CSL) work: they tailored the pitch to the judges and attended building-products conferences to collect non-publicly available, non-MNPI scuttlebutt. The investor-relevant edge was not privileged information; it was willingness to do “the leg work to go and get really unique insights.”
Young or nontraditional candidates should turn their apparent disadvantage into a research-access advantage. A student might interview 15 McDonald’s franchisees and discover that 13 plan to add stores, while a marketer might interview seven advertising managers and learn that five are shifting budgets from Google to Amazon. Those findings create a testable variant view and demonstrate how the candidate’s existing network or professional knowledge can strengthen an investment team.
A pseudonymous Substack can compound skill, reputation, and career optionality even if it does not immediately produce a job. Publishing weekly for six months forces clearer thinking, exposes weak ideas to reader feedback, and creates opportunities for investors to discover the work; then the writer can ask the audience for introductions. Walker’s framing is broader than recruiting: “Expose yourself to the serendipity”—the publication itself could become a career, attract a fund, or eventually support launching one.
Deep dive
1. Commitment must become visible before credentials matter
Walker is speaking specifically to college students, MBA students, and young professionals trying to enter public-market investing—not older or experienced career changers. Investment-banking and private-equity applicants could adapt much of the advice, but public-market investing is his focus. He is not currently hiring, but says he will help candidates whose work demonstrates genuine intent.
His candid hierarchy starts with relationships: the Harvard-to-bank-to-Wharton candidate whose former fraternity contact works at an investing firm has the easiest route and should use it. The rest of the playbook is for manufacturing credible signals when that natural network is unavailable.
Walker’s CFA distinction is important: he does not claim the qualification provides “enormous value,” but says it carries enormous signaling value. Passing CFA Level I—especially while still in college—shows basic financial and accounting knowledge, disciplined effort, and “clarity of purpose”; studying is also much easier before a full-time job.
Candidates should also open a brokerage account and invest reasonably, even if they can only assemble $100. The objective is neither concentrated bets nor expiring call options; it is acquiring real decisions and mistakes to discuss: “I bought this stock, they reported bad earnings, and I realized my thought process was wrong, so I sold it.”
2. Good outreach offers an investment conversation, not a résumé
The archetypal bad email came from an Ivy League graduate, top-tier investment-bank alumnus, and current Ivy League law student asking whether Walker’s firm offered internships. The background was excellent; the email was “terrible” because it looked copied to 100 firms and contained no evidence of interest in Walker or investing.
Walker’s first requirement is proof that the message is not a cold blast: reference a specific article, podcast, position, or argument from the recipient. For someone with his public footprint, “I read your piece on XXX” immediately distinguishes the sender from candidates who found a name on LinkedIn.
His ideal hook pairs the target’s McDonald’s position with the candidate’s Burger King pitch: ask for 30 minutes to swap thoughts and improve the presentation before interviews. The request offers useful work and help rather than demanding employment, and ends with a concrete close—“Get on a Zoom.”
Walker estimates that 40 genuinely tailored messages might produce 37 conversations, though probably not an immediate job. That is still valuable: those 37 investors become relationships that can later yield referrals, connections, or credibility with a future employer. His phrase for the strategy is “expose yourself to serendipity.”
3. A memorable stock pitch proves judgment, curiosity, and fit
Every fundamental-investing candidate needs an investment pitch. Walker’s response to “I don’t invest” or “I don’t have one” is categorical: “You’re out.” Even a college student should arrive ready for questions because the pitch lets interviewers observe how the candidate thinks and responds.
Filing-derived facts alone rarely establish an edge. A McDonald’s thesis based on a 20x P/E versus a historical 25x, three big-name investors with positions, and a 2% dividend is “fine”—but it neither teaches the interviewer anything nor demonstrates work beyond standard public filings.
Audience design matters as much as company selection. Pitching a fundamental investor a speculative coin—or bringing Walker “Fartcoin” after learning he is a crypto skeptic—ignores fit. The 2025 Pershing Square Challenge winners explicitly studied their judges and built the Carlisle (CSL) presentation to appeal to them.
Their second differentiator was scuttlebutt: attending building-products conferences and interviewing buyers and industry participants. The information was not MNPI; it was simply not publicly available. That combination gives the audience something useful while proving the candidate understands “how in the modern era the game is played.”
4. Cheap primary research can create a genuine variant view
College status can unlock interviews that established professionals cannot easily obtain. Walker suggests calling McDonald’s franchisees as a student exploring franchising, learning the business, then asking about current sales and expansion. In one example, 13 of 15 franchisees report that sales are going well and that they plan to open new stores.
Medtech offers a sharper adoption test. Ask doctors whether they would retrain for a new hip or knee device: enthusiastic willingness to switch suggests meaningful product superiority, while an “incremental improvement” plus ten years of accumulated technique exposes switching friction that could favor the incumbent and affect patients.
Nontraditional experience can become the research engine rather than a résumé defect. A marketer might interview seven advertising managers managing $50 million or $100 million budgets and find five moving incremental spend from Google to Amazon—or increasing Instagram spend because improved AI tools lifted ad ROI by 5x.
Lululemon and Crocs provide a softer version. They are popular value-investor ideas trading at relatively low multiples, raising the question of whether investors are catching a falling knife or finding value. Marketing contacts might report that a new campaign is rebuilding buzz despite recent execution problems. Walker concedes this is less powerful than surveying franchisees or doctors, but it still shows where “the puck is going” rather than merely reciting reported financials.
5. A pseudonymous Substack turns improvement into discoverability
Walker recommends publishing under a pseudonym—his improvised example is “King of Raccoons”—so the writer can later erase the association if politics, a Fidelity job, or another career demands no public persona. That reversibility preserves the upside of public work without permanently attaching every early idea to one’s identity.
One article a week for six months creates an unforgiving feedback loop: “You’re not that good. Your writing is unclear. Your ideas are uninteresting.” That feedback is the benefit. Repeated publication improves analysis and communication while gradually attracting readers who can challenge ideas and become professional contacts.
The breakout piece should combine an investable claim with primary research: perhaps 12 franchisees all looking to grow while Wall Street models zero unit growth, or 10 doctors, 8 of whom say a new device is so much better they would switch all patients immediately. Send that work to investors already long the company; useful evidence gives them a reason to respond.
After six months, the anonymous author can disclose being a rising junior, recent graduate, 25-year-old career switcher, or MBA student seeking an internship. If nobody responds, Walker recommends diagnosing writing quality or distribution and trying another three months—not declaring the effort wasted.
Walker’s own filter is deliberately playful: mention his loud pink shirt to show engagement with the episode, then send the best pitch. He offers 30–60 minutes of candid feedback and, if the work is good, a link to his audience, but promises neither employment nor a job: “Show me that you’ve done the work.”