How much more difficult is Full Time IBD recruiting nowadays?

HFer_wannabe:

It's just an unfortunate reality. The SA's are already familiar with everything and can hit the ground running once graduated. Honestly surprised some firms still go through FT recruiting, I'm sure it's just to fill holes from SA's who didn't want to commit.

One or more of the following:

1. This response was written as a joke.
2. you've never been an SA so you aren't aware of how utterly little SAs know about banking. Most are completely useless when they start and are only useful for process work like data entry, comps and formatting by the time they leave
3. " Hit the ground running"? You've never been a full time analyst, because you would know that the first six months on the job are a steep learning curve for everyone, regardless of who summered (aka did comps and formatting) or not.

Banks like to hire out of their summer class not because summers are geniuses, but because you can weed out the ones who can't do basics after weeks on the job so it is less risky (and much cheaper) than hiring a full time.

That being said, I think the OP may be late for most full time positions because numbers for next year are largely set, at least at the BBs. Maybe not MMs but I'm not sure. Best of luck.

Do you mean recruiting in the Spring, when you say off-cycle recruiting ? I've been taking to a few bankers who said that some spots do open up in the Spring as kids renege.

Full-time recruiting is hard to compare. The top top interviewers will generally take a good portion of the good stuff really early on - the rest is split between people who have lots of good experience, but less interview potential.

I don't know what your problem is dude. Maybe if you were less antagonizing, your post wouldn't get 3 Monkey Shits...

I am AGREEING with you that the summer program is less risky than full time recruiting because it allows the group to sift out incompetent people. I never claimed that I am the best out there and I don't see how you made that connection based on what I said. I agree with you that I was not super functional on my first day but I was still able to add value by doing something that had a tangible impact on the deal and allowing the analyst staffed on the deal to enjoy more of his weekend. That was my first staffing on my first day on the job (it was a Friday).

By the end of the summer, I was taking the client through the model on a separate staffing. Yes, I used the management team's assumptions from the CIM as well as a haircutted case based on the senior bankers guidance. I don't take credit for determining the operating assumptions because I know nothing about Paper & Packaging companies. But at the end of the day, as the sole analyst on the deal, I was the one who made the model and I was the one who spoke up when we were on the phone. Whether you choose to believe me or not is your problem.

I don't necessarily mean to say that my experience is standard for a summer analyst, but rather I built up enough rapport and trust that I was allowed to speak. Some future summers will be luckier than me while others won't even come close. Clearly your group was less fortunate with the quality of summers it had in the 2 cycles you witnessed.

Do you mean there is a slim chance of landing a FT offer for the class of 2016 or there is generally a slim chance of landing a FT offer if you were not a part of a firm's summer pool (In terms of BB & EB)? I plan to go through FT recruiting in the fall for summer 2017 and I'm trying to get a realistic view on recruiting

your chances with BlackRock are slim. i attend a target university and i know for a fact from speaking to the recruiter that their analyst class is 99% filled with summer interns and they're only recruiting right now for IT and the like. wellington and putnam are recruiting at my school rn and they are conducting first round interviews already. i think networking is crucial if you're not at a target school. also apply on their websites now if you havent already because my guess is they will be conducting superdays in the beginning/mid of oct and once their class is filled (and they only hire 2-4 people) then that's it.

It is because there are a lot more spots, therefore less competitive. While one definitely has to know the material, there is a lot of emphasis on fit considering it's FT vs a few months. I don't think recruiters go easier as far as interviews, however.

Like my take on geriatric undergarments, it depends...

FT can be more competitive than SA in some instances, especially given the current climate in which most banks filled all but a few FT slots with their SA classes (GS almost completely filled their FT Analyst pool with their SAs or with accelerated SA hires from other firms). The interviews aren't any easier, and I would argue that it is more stressful all the way around given that if you don't get an offer then you are in real panic mode, whereas with SA you can come back strong for FT recruiting and at least have another shot. I had 60 plus kids at some of my Super Days and 10+ interviews... A lot different than the SA process for sure... just something to think about...

Double post...

I would say more spots plus the fact that many of the "more qualified" candidates most likely already accepted their SA return offers.

Aren't there less spots? E.g. if there are 60 intern spots and 75 full-time spots, and 45 interns accepted full-time offers at the firm, aren't there only 30 spots open for full-time? In that case SA would sound more difficult (60 vs. 75) when the actuality is that FT is more difficult (60 vs. 30)

I would definitely agree that many of the top candidates already accepted offers (especially the GS/MS kids, who might only recruit for one or two buy-side shops like Silver Lake if they come to recruit)

I think it's more difficult because of the fewer amount of spots available. If 95% of the class if full and some others are gunning to switch into the group of their choice then there is little room for error. Very true though that a lot of people don't bother applying FT if they're content with the offer from SA.

Friend of mine had pwm internship junior summer then landed real nice MM IBD gig full time.. He's a semi target

What I thought about the differences is already ressembled in the posts above, usually more fit based. However for FT spots (at least accelerated) there are a ton more of interviews, so you will meet with many people and if one doenst like you than thats it. I am talking about 10 - 15 interviews per place. So while it might be more fit based there is also a higher chance that somebody does not want to hire you. So is it easier? I dont know.

but then if you mess up one interview, it doesn't affect your candidacy as much compared to SA hiring where you meet 4 people

There are a lot more spots and the best applicants were already SA's, hence they have an offer to return FT.

Furthermore, a large percent of the applicant pool is of less quality, including many applicants with non traditional backgrounds (no IB internships, non targets....).

I'd say it was harder this year. Almost every firm overhired in their SA class so there were very few spots for FT. That said, in general it is certainly relatively easier (but by no means easy)

depends entirely on over or under hiring in SAs

I think this is an interesting question, and I've heard four different answers. One camp says if you don't get BB or elite boutique, you're screwed. Another says any investment bank within Vault's top 50, more or less, for prestige will put you in a great position for your job search senior year. Another says any investment banking internship, no matter how small, will do the same. Others say PWM or AM will get in you in just fine. WSO, which is it?

I think BB, elite boutique, or a well recognized MM firm (e.g. RBC, Wells Fargo, Jefferies, Houlihan Lokey) for an SA. Have heard BB S&T guys being successful in jumping to IB as well.

As is everyone else at a MM