How to See Through BS in Interviews

So every time you talk with someone at firm XYZ they give you the puffery business of "lean deal teams" and great responsibilities for analysts, but in reality how good is the experience?

Referring to NYC BB's and Elite Boutiques:

What firms actually build their own models from scratch as opposed to using templates?
What firms have the analyst on the deal from pitch to close?
What firms truly have the leanest deal teams?

Alternatively, what are good questions to ask to probe around the CYA answer and get into the details of the work?

 

For the top BB's, MS has very lean teams. Their analyst and associate classes are much smaller than the rest. Most of the elite boutiques will have simliarly lean teams, especially compared to BB's. Moelis has historically been a sweatshop becuase of being so lean on the bottom, but that has been changing somewhat. Really, all the top boutiques have similar business models.

I don't know the answer to the building models from scratch, but i believe that almost every single bank has templates, and you can choose to build the model from scratch if that's what you prefer (correct me if I'm wrong)

It is very difficult to generalize which banks have analysts on deals from pitch to close, because that will really come down to the group, specific deal, MD, staffer, and analyst's talent...difficult to generalize based on bank. BUT, if that's a major concern, MM's will give analysts the most exposure/responsibility on deal teams. This is because there may be more deals going on at once to make the same amount of fees (smaller deals), but there are not more bodies. So Jefferies, Piper, RBC, BMO give analysts a lot of responsibility, and they will have the most direct promotes. Obviously though, you will be missing out on the high-profile deals, and top headhunters, but MM PE is still within grasp.

 
Best Response

I've never understood the fascination Monkeys here have with 'building models from scratch'. Templates still allow you to pick up an understanding of the dynamics of an LBO and how things flow through it. Just take one home and play with it when you have chance.

I know you're talking about Advisory, but from a Buy Side perspective to actually build an LBO from scratch would be incredibly time consuming. To build one out that was fit for me presenting to an internal Investment Committee would take me the best part of a day, so why do you want to start from scrartch every time?

Quit being so selfish, the world doesn't revolve around you and none of us have time for you to build your model from scratch.

 

When you are working 100 hours a week, you don't want to build models from scratch if you can avoid it. Nobody wants to do extra work and if you can reuse something from a prior model, I think most teams will be doing this.

But then again I don't work in banking so not sure. My models are much more elaborate than banking models, so maybe bankers actually do build from scratch each time. The formulas in each cell in my model are like four lines of text, totally crazy. No way I want to build from scratch.

 
gamenumbers:
But then again I don't work in banking so not sure. My models are much more elaborate than banking models, so maybe bankers actually do build from scratch each time. The formulas in each cell in my model are like four lines of text, totally crazy. No way I want to build from scratch.

I'm trying to think why you would need to have four lines of text in a formula. Can you give me examples?

Agree with other posters though - building models from scratch takes too long. Building models from scratch is for those who have time.

 
tylderdurden:
gamenumbers:
But then again I don't work in banking so not sure. My models are much more elaborate than banking models, so maybe bankers actually do build from scratch each time. The formulas in each cell in my model are like four lines of text, totally crazy. No way I want to build from scratch.

I'm trying to think why you would need to have four lines of text in a formula. Can you give me examples?

Agree with other posters though - building models from scratch takes too long. Building models from scratch is for those who have time.

Here's the formula from one of the cells. I pulled this out of a random cell on Row 129 from one of 30 worksheets in this model. The formula is part of a process that ultimately calculates Amortization, which is merely one of a multitude of line items we forecast.

Every single cell in every single row in this worksheet have equally confusing formulas. Our models are incredibly complex and even the column headers (ex: Q1 2012) are completely automated with very long, confusing formulas and the models have thousands of named cells, rows, and so forth.

You should see our formulas that calculate ending share count.

I've been told by countless clients that our models are the most detailed and complex they have ever seen. I know banking models are much less complex, but believe me we are not rebuilding these models from scratch or it would never be debugged in a million years.

long formula redacted

 
tylderdurden:
gamenumbers:
But then again I don't work in banking so not sure. My models are much more elaborate than banking models, so maybe bankers actually do build from scratch each time. The formulas in each cell in my model are like four lines of text, totally crazy. No way I want to build from scratch.

I'm trying to think why you would need to have four lines of text in a formula. Can you give me examples?

Agree with other posters though - building models from scratch takes too long. Building models from scratch is for those who have time.

=MAX(0,IF(ISERROR(IF(Q$6=INDIRECT("'["&Model&".xls]"&$E$7&"'!$C$3"),NPV(((100%+$G14)^(1/12))-100%,INDIRECT("'["&Model&".xls]"&$C14&"'!"&Q$7&"39:"&Q$7&"878"))((100%+$G14)^(1/12))/1000,Q14)),Q14, IF(Q$6=INDIRECT("'["&Model&".xls]"&$E$7&"'!$C$3"),NPV(((100%+$G14)^(1/12))-100%,INDIRECT("'["&Model&".xls]"&$C14&"'!"&Q$7&"39:"&Q$7&"878"))((100%+$G14)^(1/12))/1000,Q14)))

It happens a lot more than you think, especially if you are using indirects and sumproducts of arrays...

 

If you build models from scratch you are just creating more work for yourself. The templates are all very well put together most of the time it requires adjusting the accounts on the financial statements to be reflective of your clients business etc. I've been at a MM for about 11 months and have yet to build one from the ground up, doesn't mean I lack an understanding of what is going on but as someone mentioned when you have so many other deliverable pieces which need to get out the model is just one part of the process.

its one way or the other: hate me or admire.
 
TheKid1:
ferragamo u know I sent you a message, please check :)

Never got it dude....

Thanks everyone for the insight. As lame as it may sound, I actually want to try to learn something in banking and as I'm trying to figure out where I want to spend my summer [and ultimately my next few years] I want to make sure I get into the right firm. Working in the space last year, we used templates, and it was awful. I had to trace back so many cells it took me longer to understand where everything was pulling from than it would have to just re-create it myself. That said, a buddy of mine is at a firm where they only build models from scratch and he / his group are killing PE recruiting. So I'm just trying to find the right firm for my goals...

How does the experience on a transaction differ from the perspective of the firm leading the deal relative to the firm on the right? For example, what would the analysts be doing on the same deal at Evercore v. MS?

 

Four lines of text in a formula = a shitty formula.

Most of the advice in this thread is nonsense. Templates are fine down the road but starting out you need to figure out how to put something together from scratch. You can always tell who's modeled from scratch and who's only worked with templates. There's a reason PE firms have you model from scratch in case interviews.

 

="4 lines of text" is not a formula its just you typing :D

Formulas make you lazy, building from scratch is harder. Every PE interview I had I built from scratch. Depends on the template though. Some templates are OK. Some are just like fill in these boxes and ti'll spit out an answer ...

Finally, if you can't tell you're being bs'ed - you need to get a new line of work. Read between the lines, be a cynic, and don't be retarded

 

Does it actually take that long to build a model from scratch? I know it will take a while the first few times, but after that, surely it would take just as long as a template would?

I've always modelled from scratch and have never used a template. The learning experience is much better if you build it yourself. There's nothing more annoying than trying to understand a model someone else built (once you're past the initial modelling learning/training stages).

 
Awon Eleyi Awon Eleyi Won Bad Gan:
Does it actually take that long to build a model from scratch? I know it will take a while the first few times, but after that, surely it would take just as long as a template would?

I've always modelled from scratch and have never used a template. The learning experience is much better if you build it yourself. There's nothing more annoying than trying to understand a model someone else built (once you're past the initial modelling learning/training stages).

LMAO, It's all about speed and accuracy in IB with that being said. You don't want to spend any more time than necessary building a model considering that you may be juggling another live deal and a few pitches and all of the work that goes along with that. I don't get why some of you guys have such a boner over building models from scratch.

'We're bigger than U.S. Steel"
 
Wasserstag526:
Awon Eleyi Awon Eleyi Won Bad Gan:
Does it actually take that long to build a model from scratch? I know it will take a while the first few times, but after that, surely it would take just as long as a template would?

I've always modelled from scratch and have never used a template. The learning experience is much better if you build it yourself. There's nothing more annoying than trying to understand a model someone else built (once you're past the initial modelling learning/training stages).

LMAO, It's all about speed and accuracy in IB with that being said. You don't want to spend any more time than necessary building a model considering that you may be juggling another live deal and a few pitches and all of the work that goes along with that. I don't get why some of you guys have such a boner over building models from scratch.

It's not that I get a boner out of building models from scratch ... I've just never done it any other way. We don't have templates in my group (multi-industry cross capital structure investing so a "template" will never make sense). I didn't go through the BB IBD route so actually have no idea what a template looks like.
 

Rufiolove, gamenumbers: thanks for the examples.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why people pride themselves on crazy models. I get that you can have complex formulas and sometimes they just aren't avoidable (I'm guilty of it myself), but a well-designed model imo should be easy to maintain and follow.

Quick poll: Of the people who think building a model from scratch is the best way every single time - how many of you actually work in the industry?

I'm not saying you shouldn't, it's just that there's a time and place for everything and more often than not, it's faster to use the template.

 
tylderdurden:
Rufiolove, gamenumbers: thanks for the examples.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why people pride themselves on crazy models. I get that you can have complex formulas and sometimes they just aren't avoidable (I'm guilty of it myself), but a well-designed model imo should be easy to maintain and follow.

Quick poll: Of the people who think building a model from scratch is the best way every single time - how many of you actually work in the industry?

I'm not saying you shouldn't, it's just that there's a time and place for everything and more often than not, it's faster to use the template.

These models are easy to maintain and they automate everything... that is the point. You probably don't get into the scope of detail that we do, but when you have to model an enormous oil company with assets everywhere, and your client wants basin-level detail for all areas, you need it to be automated. The formulas aren't incredibly hard to audit, you just highlight within the cell the piece you want to calculate and hit F9 that will give you the result of that argument. Trace precedents to figure out where the components of the formula are coming from. What a lot of people don't realize is that building a model this way (the first time) does take forever, but if you look at some of the references in that formula they are fucking brilliant. The row ranges are dynamic so that it is always scaling up by 12 months to return a year's worth of monthly data summed up. You can drag this formula down over the life of your data and always have full year ranges. When you aren't simply applying a percentage of sales assumption or percentage growth assumption or applying a P/E multiple to earnings, your models get complex, there's no avoiding it and there really isn't a better way to build the model. The benefit of this is that you link all of your outputs off the model as an indirect and then 90% of your valuation book is done by hitting F9, and that's baller as fuck. MD: "Oh, well what if we run a flat pricing case." Boom, done bitch... you wanna see sensitivities on that shit? Sticky cells and F9. Oh what happens if we strip this basin out? No problem... shit's dynamic as fuck, everything is linked up and able to update. This is what everyone wants, but when you have this much granularity and detail you can't direct link that shit to external files or it will crash.

It's sophisticated in it's simplicity. Once you get comfortable with the syntax (which agreeably can be a bit of a pain), the benefits beat the shit out of the detriments. Fact.

 
rufiolove:
These models are easy to maintain and they automate everything... that is the point. You probably don't get into the scope of detail that we do, but when you have to model an enormous oil company with assets everywhere, and your client wants basin-level detail for all areas, you need it to be automated. The formulas aren't incredibly hard to audit, you just highlight within the cell the piece you want to calculate and hit F9 that will give you the result of that argument. Trace precedents to figure out where the components of the formula are coming from. What a lot of people don't realize is that building a model this way (the first time) does take forever, but if you look at some of the references in that formula they are fucking brilliant. The row ranges are dynamic so that it is always scaling up by 12 months to return a year's worth of monthly data summed up. You can drag this formula down over the life of your data and always have full year ranges. When you aren't simply applying a percentage of sales assumption or percentage growth assumption or applying a P/E multiple to earnings, your models get complex, there's no avoiding it and there really isn't a better way to build the model. The benefit of this is that you link all of your outputs off the model as an indirect and then 90% of your valuation book is done by hitting F9, and that's baller as fuck. MD: "Oh, well what if we run a flat pricing case." Boom, done bitch... you wanna see sensitivities on that shit? Sticky cells and F9. Oh what happens if we strip this basin out? No problem... shit's dynamic as fuck, everything is linked up and able to update. This is what everyone wants, but when you have this much granularity and detail you can't direct link that shit to external files or it will crash.

It's sophisticated in it's simplicity. Once you get comfortable with the syntax (which agreeably can be a bit of a pain), the benefits beat the shit out of the detriments. Fact.

I'd challenge your statement that there isn't a better way of building a model like that. I've had to put together some big models for mining companies that have required the roll-up of multiple mines to flow into the financial statements along with scenarios for when near-production properties came online. I'd expect that many of the inputs used for a mine (though I may be wrong) would be similar to those used in O&G along with sensitivities for differences in commodity prices.

The most complex formula I had to use in that model was index(match()) and some dropdowns. In the past, I used sumproduct array functions too, but found that they were just a pain to maintain, confused clients and pissed me off when I had to revisit them months later and figure out what the hell I did.

edit: I also hope to hell you guys are using colors to make things easier to read. I've inherited a bunch of models from the previous associate who didn't think to color code things so I spend way too much time cleaning up her mistakes because she can't tell the difference between a formula and an input.

 

gamebynumbers, i'm digging that you are using the COLUMN function... isn't that shit tight if you want to reference and anchored date and then drag it down?... That and the ROWS function are great for data over time. I like to combine them with OFFSET if I'm trying to pull in data from another page in order to make an output. A lot of times that's just cleaner and easier for uniformity if you want to duplicate a ton of outputs.

 

I'm not a fan of the formulas like those rufiolove and gamenumbers posted for several reasons (in no particular order):

  • I'm from the school of thought that a good model is one that is clear, easy to follow, and easily audited. When you put in formulas like these it's impossible to audit and you're basically drifting into black box territory. This may be ok if you are developing full blown Excel applications (still questionable in my mind), but not ok if you are putting together financial models.

  • I used named ranges when I first started modeling. Then after working with a legacy model with like 500 phantom named ranges, I realized named ranges are actually more of a pain in the ass than they are worth in the general financial modeling context.

  • I like to break down my formulas and calculations into interim steps. Makes things much easier to follow and audit.

  • If your formula starts getting as long as the formulas in these examples, chances are you are doing one or both of two things: (i) you have laid out your underlying data in a way that is cumbersome and does not align with the way Excel expects data to be laid out; (ii) you are not using the right function for the job at hand. For example, if you are using a ton of COLUMN functions, you might be able to simplify things with a V / H LOOKUP, INDEX, or OFFSET function. Plus COLUMN functions are real easy to screw up by adding / deleting cells elsewhere in the worksheet.

  • Linking to other workbooks (as in the rufiolove example) is best avoided if at all possible (which should be 99.9% of the time). This unnecessarily lengthens formulas and is often a quick way to blow-up your model.

  • Multiple nested IF formulas are a mess and rarely needed. There is a better way to do it, just think about it for awhile.

  • SUMPRODUCT formulas definitely have their use (and I use them frequently), but remember that array formulas slow down your worksheets dramatically if you have a bunch of SUMPRODUCTs or they refer to very large ranges. Use with discretion.

 
labanker:
I'm not a fan of the formulas like those rufiolove and gamenumbers posted for several reasons (in no particular order):
  • I'm from the school of thought that a good model is one that is clear, easy to follow, and easily audited. When you put in formulas like these it's impossible to audit and you're basically drifting into black box territory. This may be ok if you are developing full blown Excel applications (still questionable in my mind), but not ok if you are putting together financial models.

  • I used named ranges when I first started modeling. Then after working with a legacy model with like 500 phantom named ranges, I realized named ranges are actually more of a pain in the ass than they are worth in the general financial modeling context.

  • I like to break down my formulas and calculations into interim steps. Makes things much easier to follow and audit.

  • If your formula starts getting as long as the formulas in these examples, chances are you are doing one or both of two things: (i) you have laid out your underlying data in a way that is cumbersome and does not align with the way Excel expects data to be laid out; (ii) you are not using the right function for the job at hand. For example, if you are using a ton of COLUMN functions, you might be able to simplify things with a V / H LOOKUP, INDEX, or OFFSET function. Plus COLUMN functions are real easy to screw up by adding / deleting cells elsewhere in the worksheet.

  • Linking to other workbooks (as in the rufiolove example) is best avoided if at all possible (which should be 99.9% of the time). This unnecessarily lengthens formulas and is often a quick way to blow-up your model.

  • Multiple nested IF formulas are a mess and rarely needed. There is a better way to do it, just think about it for awhile.

  • SUMPRODUCT formulas definitely have their use (and I use them frequently), but remember that array formulas slow down your worksheets dramatically if you have a bunch of SUMPRODUCTs or they refer to very large ranges. Use with discretion.

A few comments:

Linking to other workbooks is a necessity. Our comp sheet pulls in our revenue, eps, EBITDA, etc estimates for all the companies we track. Look, I'd also prefer a simpler way of doing things but alas here we are. It's not like this is rampant in my model but yes we do connect all the models and lots of other data sources to these spreadsheets.

Naming cells and ranges is really the only way to go if you are going to automate a spreadsheet and maintain it over the longer haul. Our models 'know' what date it is, they 'know' the current stock price, and they 'know' the current quarter. This allows us to write formulas that basically say "Take the next year's EPS estimate and divide by this year's ending share count", and it knows what cell is the next year's EPS without having to be manually pointed to the right cell every time. That formula never has to be updated ever again, it will always calculate FY1 PE (or whatever) no matter what year it is.

In terms of being too complex, sure, I could use a simple formula like =D3*(1+E123) to calculate share count, which would be driven by a simple % growth driver in cell E123 (or you could just plug it somewhere). But our model considers stock option tranches as disclosed in the 10K, the size of the revolver, cash balance, the current stock price in relation to the option tranches, and whether the company has a buyback program. Ultimately, my share count number appears in the P&L in my model. It's confusing to calculate, but not confusing to read.

These models also include toggles and switches that can display "base case" or "bull case" scenarios in addition to changing currency / FX assumptions.

To be clear I work in ER not IBD or PE. The star was given to me by a mod because I had posted some helpful posts in the past. I really am not comfortable posting personal data so I'm fine with the misrepresentation!

 
gamenumbers:

A few comments:

Linking to other workbooks is a necessity. Our comp sheet pulls in our revenue, eps, EBITDA, etc estimates for all the companies we track. Look, I'd also prefer a simpler way of doing things but alas here we are. It's not like this is rampant in my model but yes we do connect all the models and lots of other data sources to these spreadsheets.

Naming cells and ranges is really the only way to go if you are going to automate a spreadsheet and maintain it over the longer haul. Our models 'know' what date it is, they 'know' the current stock price, and they 'know' the current quarter. This allows us to write formulas that basically say "Take the next year's EPS estimate and divide by this year's ending share count", and it knows what cell is the next year's EPS without having to be manually pointed to the right cell every time. That formula never has to be updated ever again, it will always calculate FY1 PE (or whatever) no matter what year it is.

In terms of being too complex, sure, I could use a simple formula like =D3*(1+E123) to calculate share count, which would be driven by a simple % growth driver in cell E123 (or you could just plug it somewhere). But our model considers stock option tranches as disclosed in the 10K, the size of the revolver, cash balance, the current stock price in relation to the option tranches, and whether the company has a buyback program. Ultimately, my share count number appears in the P&L in my model. It's confusing to calculate, but not confusing to read.

These models also include toggles and switches that can display "base case" or "bull case" scenarios in addition to changing currency / FX assumptions.

To be clear I work in ER not IBD or PE. The star was given to me by a mod because I had posted some helpful posts in the past. I really am not comfortable posting personal data so I'm fine with the misrepresentation!

I'd be interested to hear how you guys deal with the bull, base case scenarios, but here's how we do it in our models:

Assumptions tab for each mine input with scenarios (grade, tonnage, etc), which will be laid out like so:

Base Best Worst Current

The current feeds into the actual mining model itself. That way we can switch it based on a single dropdown. Current numbers are drawn in using index/match

For our pricing deck, same thing, we'll have our standard commodity price curve with lt prices and use a dropdown there.

We have certain named ranged we always used too - date, stockprice, etc. It's when people start doing stupid shit like naming FY2010_rev, FY2010_ebitda that I get annoyed.

 

@rufiolove, I don't think any respectable BB IBD group would ever use such a menace of a formula as auditing it would be impossible. I looked at a very detailed O&G model a few months back but was able to follow it through to understand it. If it was formatted like yours, that would have been impossible!

If those are the kind of models guys in ER are building, it may explain the difficulty they have in pursuing buyside opportunities.

 
Awon Eleyi Awon Eleyi Won Bad Gan:
@rufiolove, I don't think any respectable BB IBD group would ever use such a menace of a formula as auditing it would be impossible. I looked at a very detailed O&G model a few months back but was able to follow it through to understand it. If it was formatted like yours, that would have been impossible!

If those are the kind of models guys in ER are building, it may explain the difficulty they have in pursuing buyside opportunities.

Lol... I work at one of the best O&G shops on the street so your opinion really doesn't mean much to me

 
rufiolove:
Awon Eleyi Awon Eleyi Won Bad Gan:
@rufiolove, I don't think any respectable BB IBD group would ever use such a menace of a formula as auditing it would be impossible. I looked at a very detailed O&G model a few months back but was able to follow it through to understand it. If it was formatted like yours, that would have been impossible!

If those are the kind of models guys in ER are building, it may explain the difficulty they have in pursuing buyside opportunities.

Lol... I work at one of the best O&G shops on the street so your opinion really doesn't mean much to me

I didn't mean to criticize your group's work ... just pointing out a major difference between ER and IBD modelling which I guess I would never have realised before.

If someone put you in a room with a blank excel sheet for three hours, could you recreate that model? My guess would be no.

 

You guys are great.

1) I've seen some complicated ass M&M models - like 20mb models 2) We hire consultants to build those anyway 3) A good model is not one that is complex but one that is flexible, clear, understandable 4) Flex cases should be built into model separately and make the model dynamic

There are lots of personal preferences that go into modeling but the problem with templates is that its not flexible

 

Calculations that are conceptually complex (e.g., modeling share count by looking at 10 different things -- which is cool, by the way) do not require individually enormous cells.

Break everything into small cells, and use more, simpler cells instead of fewer, more complex cells.

Excel real estate is dirt cheap. Use it!

 

Fugiat voluptas maiores provident in. Natus libero iure accusamus molestiae autem minima vero praesentium.

Iure a est dignissimos eum ea aut. Harum quo officia et voluptas quidem. Sint omnis consequatur repudiandae quasi modi quia ab.

Aut in distinctio iusto voluptatum autem. Atque ullam hic ut incidunt rerum alias. Possimus asperiores minima est sunt sint impedit molestiae maiores. Odio animi esse consectetur reprehenderit aspernatur corporis.

Tempora ut in deserunt aspernatur voluptatibus voluptatem laboriosam. Non sunt qui at. Autem vel quia in omnis voluptatem.

 

Nostrum velit incidunt enim est reprehenderit est tempore. Maxime placeat ipsa odio quia. Rem ullam perferendis et tenetur tempora. Quia eius ea aperiam pariatur. Beatae saepe nisi commodi velit. Illo autem corrupti qui fugit vitae nihil. Facere quis quibusdam aliquam et ab nihil sapiente.

Iusto amet expedita iste omnis reprehenderit. Deserunt et magni aliquam harum. Vitae qui voluptas autem optio.

Culpa saepe labore repellat corrupti. Dolores sed ut et hic minus. Distinctio quaerat voluptatem sit ratione omnis. Nam vero quo ut enim.

"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”