energy finance critiques 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
1998 ) :
the energy finance program 2 years ago was very good , especially considering
it was the first year of the program . there were a lot of guest speakers
from various energy companies who gave us a lot of practical knowledge about
the energy industry through case studies , lectures , etc . basically , we
learned all the same finance concepts and tools as in the regular finance
classes , but all the cases and examples were energy - related . the professors
were good for the most part but didn ' t have a great deal of practical
industry experience . if i had to guess the reason for decreased
participation in the program , i would probably say it is the professors .
ronn and titman are great but known as being very technical and
quantitative . some students prefer less technical professors and classes
that aren ' t limiting to the energy industry . also , the fact that the class
meets for 3 hours twice a week may not be so appealing . other than those
things , i can ' t imagine why there has been such a drop in enrollment . i
especially don ' t understand why every single person didn ' t drop for enron . i
wonder if it has something to do with international status . ? ? ?
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
students
energy finance program - fairly weak -
it was a watered down version of the futures options class crossed with a
weak finance appendage -
the finance teacher was pathetic - both a poor teacher , ignorant about
industry specific analysis , devoid of industry experience , rude to outside
lectures ( from industry )
keith brown was the only educator that was any good and he only had a small
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
from industry -
promote the class within the business school - i felt like ut did a poor job
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 .
when energy applications were presented , it seemed more like general finance
questions were reworded to include energy lingo . we had some very good
speakers , but for the most part , i did not feel like the 6 hours of class had
enough energy focus . i assumed that this would get better as the program
progressed .
one reason that may account for the decline in enrollment is that energy
finance is a very specific focus . i would have probably not enrolled in the
energy finance program had it been available in my first year . i did not
know enough about energy at that time and i had returned to b - school to
consider several career options - - i . e . , investment banking , corporate
finance , entrepreneurship , marketing , etc . as a new mba student , i would not
want to narrow my window of opportunities to only energy companies .
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 .
- - - - - - - - - -
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
1998 . the primary positives to the class revolved around outside
panels / instruction . for example , enron sent representatives on 2 separate
occasions to discuss particular topics ( vince kaminski and gary hickerson ) .
other notable speakers were jeff sandefer ( independent business consultant
and e & p professional ) , the beacon group , and encap investments . another good
speaker was a professor from ut ' s school of engineering . he brought a good
perspective as to the " basics " of the energy business .
the class was structured via a team - based instruction approach , with 3
professors team - teaching a 6 - hour credit course . none of the 3 professors
had any product knowledge of the energy business . of the 3 professors , 2
were research focussed / tenured with little credibility in " teaching . " one of
the professors primary focus of research was fixed income , while the other 2
were investments and corporate finance , respectively .
as is the case for ut ' s finance program in general , and energy finance in
particular , ut is in dire need of teaching professors ( as opposed to research
professors ) that have the ability to convey finance with practical examples
and at a level that can be more easily be understood by students without a
finance background . particular to the energy program , ut needs to have more
instruction from energy professionals ( such as the instructors used for
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 , at
the university of texas .
the curriculum was understandably  & rough around the edges  8 as 1998 was the
first year the energy finance course was offered . however , the instruction
also suffered as none of the instructors had any energy background to speak
of ( the 6 - credit hour class was team taught by three tenured professors ) .
two of the three professors have co - authored textbooks , and the third
professor  , s claim to fame is fixed income . as a group , the three professors
are research - heavy ( as opposed to industry focused ) , and the team - teaching
format did not incent any one of the profs to be personably accountable for
the success of the class .
that said , the instructors did a good job attracting some top notch outside
speakers . among them : vince
kaminski & gary hickerson , both of enron . they also dedicated one class
period to a video conference call with the beacon group , an energy consulting
group that i believe was recently acquired by goldman .
jeff sandefer , an independent businessman , an entreprenuership instructor ,
and one of the foremost experts in the e
- there are some experienced , brand - name professors ( e . g . sheridan titman )
teaching in the program ;
cons :
- the program should give the students more exposures to energy companies
such as enron . specifically , it might need to help students link to the
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 ) and
analytic ( quantative ) skills . energy industry is no exception .
energy finance program offers financial strategy and risk managements courses
which fit in the insudtry need . however , these two courses are far from
enough to help students understand the dynemic of industrial transformation
and excitements and opportunities in this industry . other management and
quantitive courses are needed to complete this program .
my suggestions :
1 ) seminars or lectures about energy industry and energy companies . before
students make their decisions , let them know : what ' s happening and what ' s
going to happen in this industry ; what the companies are doing now ; who
they are looking for .
2 ) management and / or analytical courses should be included . such as :
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 1999 )
my experience in the energy finance program overall was a positive
experience . the most rewarding part of the class was the guest speakers
brought in during dr . titman ' s portion of the class . this part of the course
is taught in the second half of the semester and consisted of ~ 10 case
classes all focusing on the energy industry . two of the cases were based on
enron , and overall the case selection in my opinion was very appropriate and
well thought out . value added by the professor was less than from the
speakers and cases .
the first eight weeks of the course covered futures and options . nearly all
of the examples and problems discussed pertained directly to the energy
industry and special emphasis was placed on increasing the student ' s
understanding of the supply and demand dynamics in the power market . the use
of options and futures for speculating and / or hedging was stressed on
numerous occasions and a decent attempt at explaining how to value a power
plant project .
i believe that the university energy finance faculty are trying to
continuously make improvements to the program . however , i do not believe
that they are moving fast enough or necessarily down the right path to
improvement . there is a strong need for more practical based training on
energy derivatives similar to the course taught by paradigm here at enron .
the focus of the university teachers is quite theoretical , due in large part
to their background . while the theoretical basis is crucial to understanding
the basics , the real value of such a program in my opinion is the effective
bridging of the theoretical with the practical all in one course .
until measures are taken to inject practicality from someone with extensive
industry experience , i believe the energy finance program will continue to
underdeliver on its objectives . additionally , i believe that the course
structure should be changed to eliminate the need of having 3 consecutive
hours of classroom instruction .
energy finance critiques
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
1998 ) :
the energy finance program 2 years ago was very good , especially considering
it was the first year of the program . there were a lot of guest speakers
from various energy companies who gave us a lot of practical knowledge about
the energy industry through case studies , lectures , etc . basically , we
learned all the same finance concepts and tools as in the regular finance
classes , but all the cases and examples were energy - related . the professors
were good for the most part but didn ' t have a great deal of practical
industry experience . if i had to guess the reason for decreased
participation in the program , i would probably say it is the professors .
ronn and titman are great but known as being very technical and
quantitative . some students prefer less technical professors and classes
that aren ' t limiting to the energy industry . also , the fact that the class
meets for 3 hours twice a week may not be so appealing . other than those
things , i can ' t imagine why there has been such a drop in enrollment . i
especially don ' t understand why every single person didn ' t drop for enron . i
wonder if it has something to do with international status . ? ? ?
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
students
energy finance program - fairly weak -
it was a watered down version of the futures options class crossed with a
weak finance appendage -
the finance teacher was pathetic - both a poor teacher , ignorant about
industry specific analysis , devoid of industry experience , rude to outside
lectures ( from industry )
keith brown was the only educator that was any good and he only had a small
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
from industry -
promote the class within the business school - i felt like ut did a poor job
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 .
when energy applications were presented , it seemed more like general finance
questions were reworded to include energy lingo . we had some very good
speakers , but for the most part , i did not feel like the 6 hours of class had
enough energy focus . i assumed that this would get better as the program
progressed .
one reason that may account for the decline in enrollment is that energy
finance is a very specific focus . i would have probably not enrolled in the
energy finance program had it been available in my first year . i did not
know enough about energy at that time and i had returned to b - school to
consider several career options - - i . e . , investment banking , corporate
finance , entrepreneurship , marketing , etc . as a new mba student , i would not
want to narrow my window of opportunities to only energy companies .
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 .
- - - - - - - - - -
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
1998 . the primary positives to the class revolved around outside
panels / instruction . for example , enron sent representatives on 2 separate
occasions to discuss particular topics ( vince kaminski and gary hickerson ) .
other notable speakers were jeff sandefer ( independent business consultant
and e & p professional ) , the beacon group , and encap investments . another good
speaker was a professor from ut ' s school of engineering . he brought a good
perspective as to the " basics " of the energy business .
the class was structured via a team - based instruction approach , with 3
professors team - teaching a 6 - hour credit course . none of the 3 professors
had any product knowledge of the energy business . of the 3 professors , 2
were research focussed / tenured with little credibility in " teaching . " one of
the professors primary focus of research was fixed income , while the other 2
were investments and corporate finance , respectively .
as is the case for ut ' s finance program in general , and energy finance in
particular , ut is in dire need of teaching professors ( as opposed to research
professors ) that have the ability to convey finance with practical examples
and at a level that can be more easily be understood by students without a
finance background . particular to the energy program , ut needs to have more
instruction from energy professionals ( such as the instructors used for
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 , at
the university of texas .
the curriculum was understandably  & rough around the edges  8 as 1998 was the
first year the energy finance course was offered . however , the instruction
also suffered as none of the instructors had any energy background to speak
of ( the 6 - credit hour class was team taught by three tenured professors ) .
two of the three professors have co - authored textbooks , and the third
professor  , s claim to fame is fixed income . as a group , the three professors
are research - heavy ( as opposed to industry focused ) , and the team - teaching
format did not incent any one of the profs to be personably accountable for
the success of the class .
that said , the instructors did a good job attracting some top notch outside
speakers . among them : vince
kaminski & gary hickerson , both of enron . they also dedicated one class
period to a video conference call with the beacon group , an energy consulting
group that i believe was recently acquired by goldman .
jeff sandefer , an independent businessman , an entreprenuership instructor ,
and one of the foremost experts in the e
- there are some experienced , brand - name professors ( e . g . sheridan titman )
teaching in the program ;
cons :
- the program should give the students more exposures to energy companies
such as enron . specifically , it might need to help students link to the
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 ) and
analytic ( quantative ) skills . energy industry is no exception .
energy finance program offers financial strategy and risk managements courses
which fit in the insudtry need . however , these two courses are far from
enough to help students understand the dynemic of industrial transformation
and excitements and opportunities in this industry . other management and
quantitive courses are needed to complete this program .
my suggestions :
1 ) seminars or lectures about energy industry and energy companies . before
students make their decisions , let them know : what ' s happening and what ' s
going to happen in this industry ; what the companies are doing now ; who
they are looking for .
2 ) management and / or analytical courses should be included . such as :
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 1999 )
my experience in the energy finance program overall was a positive
experience . the most rewarding part of the class was the guest speakers
brought in during dr . titman ' s portion of the class . this part of the course
is taught in the second half of the semester and consisted of ~ 10 case
classes all focusing on the energy industry . two of the cases were based on
enron , and overall the case selection in my opinion was very appropriate and
well thought out . value added by the professor was less than from the
speakers and cases .
the first eight weeks of the course covered futures and options . nearly all
of the examples and problems discussed pertained directly to the energy
industry and special emphasis was placed on increasing the student ' s
understanding of the supply and demand dynamics in the power market . the use
of options and futures for speculating and / or hedging was stressed on
numerous occasions and a decent attempt at explaining how to value a power
plant project .
i believe that the university energy finance faculty are trying to
continuously make improvements to the program . however , i do not believe
that they are moving fast enough or necessarily down the right path to
improvement . there is a strong need for more practical based training on
energy derivatives similar to the course taught by paradigm here at enron .
the focus of the university teachers is quite theoretical , due in large part
to their background . while the theoretical basis is crucial to understanding
the basics , the real value of such a program in my opinion is the effective
bridging of the theoretical with the practical all in one course .
until measures are taken to inject practicality from someone with extensive
industry experience , i believe the energy finance program will continue to
underdeliver on its objectives . additionally , i believe that the course
structure should be changed to eliminate the need of having 3 consecutive
hours of classroom instruction .