Can anyone who has been on the other side of the interview process talk about the feedback interviewers usually have in the interview debrief?
What is the consensus on a top candidate who is given an offer? What is the consensus on a poor candidate?
| +145 | The "Not So Obvious" things that get you a return offer? | 18 | 2m | |
| +69 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 18 | 1h | |
| +55 | Best IB group on the Street | 22 | 1h | |
| +52 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 13 | 5h | |
| +45 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 23 | 17m | |
| +40 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 20 | 14h | |
| +38 | Pros and Cons of the BB coverage groups | 16 | 6d | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 15h | |
| +35 | Georgetown Placement for 2024 and 2025 | 21 | 6d | |
| +31 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 50 | 23h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Great question. I'm very interested to hear what is considered regarding IB associate selections as well.
@"SSits" you're up
Sometimes it's really quick - an MD who interviewed walks in, says "I want X, Y, and Z. How'd they do on technicals? Good? OK. Any objections? No? OK, let's move on to alternates then." Done in like 15 minutes.
However, more usually, it's pretty apparent who the top 1 or 2 candidates are, then most of the debate is about who gets the last slot(s) and you don't spend much time (if any) on those who did poorly because there's no point. Regarding top candidates - the biggest thing is likability (but what this actually means varies from person to person, so it's why interviews can be a bit of a crapshoot). Technicals matter, but not as much as most candidates (including myself when I went through recruiting) think - no one ever got hired because they could tell me about reverse morris trusts, but you can certainly get dinged for not knowing something basic.
In my experience, the conversations are pretty short. For lateral interviews, people have mostly made up their minds when before they walk out of the room and there are usually only a handful of candidates anyway.
For SAs, there's a lot more of you and you're largely commodities, with 1 - 3 standouts (similar to @CHItizen's point). We usually reach consensus on who gets an offer pretty quickly (maybe 2 minute discussions), because:
This doesn't mean you should only try to impress the MD. It's just as likely that the MD doesn't care and is looking to someone else in the team to make the call. In my team, that's usually me, because they all know that I care.
@"SSits" @"CHItizen" Thanks for the input. Are you talking from the perspective of an EB or BB?
MM IB in a team that deals mainly with DCM underwriting work.
I haven't worked BB in the US, but the two MDs on my team are both ex-GS IBD, so I imagine the decision process was much the same there.
Decision process on laterals is based on my experience in HK, where the BB/MM distinction doesn't mean as much (eg my bank there was #1 in ECM underwritings for years, but doesn't make BB range here in the US). Unfortunately, I ran a desk there in merchant banking/PE and no one ever trusted me with an SA, so I never did SA interviews. In any case, the decision process is HK is typically more "How much in fees can their dad/uncle refer to us in return for giving their muppet son/nephew an internship?" (cf JPMorgan's notorius intern fee tracker spreadsheet).
I was a relatively junior guy but had the opportunity to sit in on a couple decision processes and even conduct a few interviews. We were a bit unique in that we were looking for 5-6 SAs across 3 teams. 2 spots were front office and the rest middle office with lots of front office exposure, so really anyone from that pool could get a return offer to a front office role but if you were already front office you obviously had an edge. For background this was a MM bank in North America but not NYC. Here are some general notes as I recall:
>> As mentioned, technicals drove decisions mainly in that they were used to make sure candidates were at a level we were willing to teach them from. You should get them right or at least present your thinking so you look smart. For example, for a debt-side S&T internship a standard question for all candidates was where the national benchmark rate was. If you're interviewing for an S&T role in debt, you should look that up before your interview... even if you just say "I don't know exactly but it's less than 2% isn't it? Rates are crazy low right now!" you look like someone who can be taught. if you say "how should I know that??? I'm not an analyst!!!" then you never will be.
>> Make sure you know your resume inside and out. My MDs always got a kick out of people who contradicted themselves or just plain said or did stuff that didn't make sense. To be honest I actually got busted for this once... I had that I practised with a certain sports team in school on my CV (and I genuinely did) and the guy interviewing me was a life-long player. He started asking me what position I played and about technical stuff and I had to interrupt him and say straight up that I didn't really know the game, I just practised with the guys occasionally. Doh!
>> Make sure you know WHY you're interviewing for a role and WHAT the role is. I found the seniors were MUCH better at this than me (for obvious reasons) but they could tell pretty quickly when someone wasn't genuinely interested in what they were applying for. A perfect example is IBD vs S&T... Out of school a lot of people apply for both (and that's not a bad thing!) but they're very different roles and lifestyles.
Regarding the decision making process: >> Decisions on whether to shortlist or not were basically made immediately after the interview. Again, I only actually sat for a couple interviews but in my experience, it was basically "should we offer them something, somewhere, or should we send them home?" right away.
>> Because we were recruiting a pool of analysts for a pool of roles, this basically meant the decision process was 1) does the candidate get kept in the pool, 2) does a D/MD want that specific candidate 3) which team did the candidate want to be on. If 2 & 3 aligned it was easy, if not, I think management tried to accommodate as much as possible.
>> Nobody will ever admit it but sex makes a big difference. I didn't observe or feel that race, background, education, etc were ever really a factor (maybe a factor to get the interview?) but come decision time, I definitely recall people saying stuff like "well, we could definitely use some more women on the floor!". I don't think it would ever be the case that a #2 candidate is selected over #1 for this reason, but for tiebreakers it could be.
** Few last notes... We had a couple candidates who stood out because they had and were willing to spend a lot of their own money to live in our city for the summer (they were from non-targets far away and I think we only covered the flight in for the interview). This was never a factor so I don't think management will ever think "wow, they must definitely want this role!". Also, I definitely noticed that management liked seeing prior finance experience on resumes (especially if in front/middle office roles) so I think candidates would have a lot to gain from painting a good picture around that. Nobody seemed to care about if or why they didn't get return offers, so don't get hung up on that... just focus on a good story and experience highlights.
Sorry for long reply :-)
@"stillsleepy" @"SSits" Great responses guys, much appreciated. What is an acceptable level of aggressiveness in interviews, in order to show interest? is stating "I want this job" too much? There was a great post on here earlier where the candidate repeatedly stated "I want this job" after every response, wouldn't anyone get quickly annoyed with that?
@goldmanboy - I saw the same post... Wasn't sure what to think of it at the time. I think you should always err on the side of acceptable rather than annoying. For example, if you can say "I want this job" 49 times and get away with it, but on #50 they'll decide you're annoying, I would still suggest only saying it 20-30 times. Give yourself a wide margin of safety.
I think it is VERY valuable to be aggressive in making your goals / intentions clear, because every firm will have an affinity for hiring someone who wants to be there, but answering every single question with "because I want this job" is too much. Make it a bit more subtle... e.g. if they ask "what skills do you think you have for this job" you can answer and then finish with "I've really been working on myself to position myself well for this role" - you're basically saying you trained for exactly this job and it delivers the same message, without using any of the words in "I want this job"
edit - in fact, just think a bit more about it, most interviews are structured where you have a minute or two at the start and at the finish. I think you can be a bit more direct and saying you want this job during each of those points, and it'll be registered by the person on the other side of the table. Maybe sprinkle it in a few more times during the interview but otherwise, keep it suggestive / subtle.
One way to show you really want a job, rather than just saying it (and in my opinion, a more effective way - since the interviewers know everyone wants the job) is to have really well thought-out, intelligent answers for why xyz bank that show you've clearly thought it through and genuinely want this bank rather than any bank
No MD gets what they want just by saying they like x y z . I've disagreed with plenty of MDs and gotten my way. It's a discussion about technical skills, interview and fit. Usually people take a vote and majority wins
I pick my fights. If the MD feels strongly about it, I'd rather pick a fight about something that matters than which 2 candidates out of the top 3-4. That choice doesn't really matter because they are largely commodities.
Only example I can think of where an MD has felt strongly - where one candidate went to his school, approached him after he gave a talk there and told him how impressed she was with him.
Just because something hasn't happened in your experience doesn't mean it hasn't happened for others, and OP asked for everyone's experiences. Moreover, assuming you're an analyst/associate, maybe you get your way when you feel very strongly about a candidate and the MD is lukewarm, but I guarantee you that if an MD feels just as strongly as you, you're not winning out.
Also, I've personally never taken a vote before, but it certainly could happen at other firms. The issue with voting is that an analyst/associate's vote doesn't carry the same weight of that of a senior banker (even if senior bankers barely know who their analysts are).
What's the typical yield rate for the BB HK IBD SA class?
I’ve gotten a chance to sit in on a few discussions when we were hiring interns and UG’s, and I will say that who you interview with, and who you impress matters. It is a discussion and agreement from all decision makers, but office politics definitely also plays a role in the decision room, and unfortunately is something completely out of your control. If you can convince the MD or highly respected VPs with political clout, you have a much better chance of getting that job. On the other hand, even if you kill it in the interviews, if you only interviewed with lower level people in the office, newer VPs who maybe aren’t that vocal or aren’t as aggressive in demanding that you deserve to be there, you may still not get the offer.
There will be clear favorites that everyone likes, and then the middle of the pack are just in a large pool. If you are in the middle of the pack, you really need someone you know, or someone who interviewed you to make a stand and vouch for/recommend you. You can't just be "decent, or good enough" in this instance. This requires your advocate to actually really like you, and put their neck on the line for you. They will also need to be a loud enough voice, and be respected in the office enough for other people to buy into their consideration of you. Maybe my office is smaller so politics matter more, but I remember a story when one VP, who basically gets whatever she wants, said she really liked one candidate. No one else was willing to strongly oppose her view point, so we gave that intern an offer.
Exactly how I got my job
So who makes the final offer call? (Originally Posted: 11/12/2016)
Does anyone have insight into how these decisions work behind the scenes? For example, if there are a few people on a firm's "waitlist" for offers, who ends up making the final decision (MD, chair of department, etc)?
Also I assume for the top candidates they like they will probably contact them by the end of the super day? And for the ones that are on the fence will be notified until the top candidates denied the offer?
Typically look for convergence. But I would assume that if an MD has a particular preference for a candidate on that wait-list then they would choose that one.
Again, this varies across firm, especially in a boutique versus BB.
I have experience in this arena at a BB.
It's pretty brief for both the program analyst and associate pools. Sometimes, there is some disagreement for bubble candidates (at the associate level) but more often than not there is a robust pool of quality candidates to choose from. It's usually pretty clear who makes the cut at the analyst level.
Conversations begin before you've completed your interview schedule.
If you're on our radar, then you will typically hear from us that same day (shortly after you leave the office).
"It's usually pretty clear who makes the cut at the analyst level" Can you expand on this, what did they exhibit that the rest of the interviewees didn't?
"Conversations begin before you've completed your interview schedule" So your saying after an interview or two, a preliminary consensus is formed?
also interested
So for most people who don't hear back right after the day of their super day, it's probably bad news, right?
It's not etched in stone or anything… but your chances are significantly lower than they were going into the interviews, yes.
Not all firms are the same though. Keep your head up. You have to be willing to fail, and you will, to perform in the business. No shame in not getting an offer. We've all be dinged before and that's a fact.
I heard back the Tuesday after my Saturday interview, and I was told I was one of top interviewees of the entire weekend. So definitely keep your head up. But by the 4th day I wouldn't keep your hopes up. Possibly email the people you interviewed with as well as anyone in HR you had contact with and reiterate your interest certainly won't hurt you.
I have three hires worth experience and one firing worth. I debrief with the two most senior people of the firm. Only us three interview candidates. Small firm. Culture and knowledge matter. Now as for what we discuss...
So while you have anxiety over collecting a monthly salary and having a job ... then advancing .... we try to figure out how much you contribute to generating revenue or executing on what we tell you to do.
...that's how we debrief.
Hawt bish gets my vote...lumps of clay indeed.
One thing that definitely can make the candidate decision get squirrely is the alumni dynamic. Some guys have a huge hard-on for their school so they'll give an alumnus candidate more credit than they should. There are also non-target guys who will lean towards other non-targets over the super clean ivy league background.
Personally, I always lean frat over GDI.
This has been a really insightful thread. I'm happy that it gained traction like it did.
Time to get those interviews now that I know how to knock their socks off! ha
Sort of a tangential question here... how much emphasis do the IBD groups place on gmat scores? For consulting it's pretty important, but it's been my impression it doesn't really help the IB recruiting process about a certain level (this is obviously related to associate recruiting).
Honestly, it really comes down to who would I rather spend 18 hours a day sitting next to. Some people just can't get past that part.
So can I safely assume that there's no need to send a thank you e-mail after the interview?
You still should. It's common courtesy
You still should. It's common courtesy
I really don't like receiving thank you e-mails. Nor does anyone in my division.
See the comments I posted here 10 minutes ago about thank you notes, particularly ones containing apologies or re-thinking on questions I asked during the interview: http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/sending-thank-yous-to-interviewer…
I have interviewed people for my team (markets) At a more senior level however - either I know the person from the market, or some HH gives me the name. I talk to them about a specific position - if I like them my colleagues and myself will ask clients what they think of the candidate. If we like him + people like him on the street we will hire.
In the past an interviewer called my old boss asking what he thought about me.
For juniors when I was working at a BB I helped HR a bit - it was really just fit, all resumes are the same: target + high credentials. Usually it's something odd in the resume that will caught my interest, like basket weaver professional. If i like the guy i say to HR ok - if the guy is a twat I say he is a twat. I remember this one kid walked out of the room, and HR told me he thought it went really well with me - I told HR not to hire him as I really did not like him. So don't think that because you thought it went well it did.
When I interviewed for my first job I had met the global head of the division at a BB i wanted to work for. He had personally put me in the interview process, so basically the decision had already been made prior to me getting hired. Only if someone had taken a very strong dislike to me would I not have gotten the job.
I know this has been asked before but since people in this forum seem to know what they are talking about...
How do gmat scores come into play when screening and assessing associate candidates?
I was in London BB IBD. We interviewed SAs and FTs for IBD as a whole, i.e. not for specific teams (teams only got allocated after they joined), so the discussion to give offers was between interviewers and HR.
Most decisions were made very quickly. As others have said, it's very clear who the top candidates are (the ones who are well prepared, seem like they can work independently, and don't come across as pricks). For the middle of the pack candidates, it was just a crapshoot, we probably picked based on fit, or if they were a girl, or went to the same school / came from the same obscure european country as a senior person who interviewed them.
Because we were recruiting for IBD as a whole, no one was really that vested in picking candidates. I was responsible for grad recruitment in our team, so I did a ton of interviewing. All I cared about was getting a handful of good hires who could fill the slots in our team and were keen on joining us, and beyond that I couldn't really give a damn (i.e. if I interview a candidate and think they're crap but someone else pushes for them, I'm not going to protest. Not my problem when they turn out to be completely useless).
NYC BB. Hire as generalist. For Summer Analyst, basically the cream rises to the top for everyone and gets the offer (generally top 30-40%). The crappy ones (including a connection recently) gets pushed out extremely quickly and no one (including MDs) would try to save them from exit. The middle 30-40% might end up in WL or something. There is never a discussion around trying to get them an offer that day. We get enough good candidates to spend time on yellow flag guys. Given the timeline for most schools, it can be a long haul in WL. Sometimes we vote and all of them counts equally. Diversity or connections or being fratty (I was in one) doesn't seem to matter as much. Just looking for smart people who can do the work and not annoying. We just need people to follow orders for two years and hope they have a good exit.
Slightly different for Summer Associate since offers are school specific. My school has a relatively small close list and we talked with candidates enough to know their skills and fit prior to the interview and have a feeling for who we want more. Most don't mess up the interviews, and baring major surprises we get the guys we expect to get.
I was part of campus recruitment and I was the only analyst. All I can say is you need one person to fight for you. I also fought for kids to get full time offers after internships with the help of associates on my team and they got it. So everything is possible.
you bumped a 7 year old thread just to say that?
Aut qui impedit dolores est. Numquam officiis dolores enim dicta corrupti culpa minus. Molestiae dolores et placeat vel ducimus eos. Est quasi earum voluptatem suscipit reiciendis.
Ut perspiciatis cupiditate architecto aut autem. Error ab aliquid quo velit dolor consequatur sed ut. Perspiciatis aliquid libero et quo et ut.
Aspernatur quia dicta molestiae nisi magni. Aliquam earum voluptatem quia nulla praesentium molestias omnis illo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Numquam est et dicta praesentium ea aspernatur. Mollitia inventore sit quam quas veritatis sint. Sed iste similique officia mollitia. Autem exercitationem natus sed atque tempora totam nostrum. Enim eum rerum eaque rerum repudiandae iste.
Unde inventore deleniti nihil vero asperiores. Ut veritatis magnam sed esse eum est. Sed est fuga explicabo voluptatibus. Consectetur sit sunt nobis reiciendis sunt labore cupiditate ea.
Quia voluptates aut ut omnis qui corrupti aut enim. Qui vel ab voluptatem. Quidem magni nam at sed eum consectetur explicabo dicta. Distinctio sit voluptas qui harum.
Pariatur sint doloribus minima natus animi nesciunt temporibus. Praesentium voluptatem voluptas veniam pariatur magni harum veniam.