Been hearing a lot of chatter on the floor about declining analyst quality the past few years. Do people actually think this is the case, or is it a myth?
My take is it could be 3 things:
1) Selection bias. The VPs and Ds complaining were the relatively high performers as analysts/associates, and therefore have relatively lofty expectations of juniors.
2) Simple human bias and a yearning for the "good old days."
3) Actual decline in analyst quality.My take as an experienced associate (ignore the username) is it's a combination of the three, but the decline in analyst quality is very real. I've observed that associates used to have the authority to demand a finished work product from analysts, and therefore could spend more time checking and thinking about what else to include in materials, making VP and D lives easier.
Nowadays, I work with average or bad analysis who pull things like lying about being jammed, disappearing for hours at a time… or some of them just plain suck at the job. I then have to spend more time actually preparing the materials, and the inefficiency goes up the chain.Have people actually observed this decline, or is this unique to me or my group?
No need for 50 pissed off analysts to reply power-tripping about how they are pushing back more, don't care about the job, etc. Interested in objective answers only.
Agreed. Very sharp and noticeable decline in quality over the last few years. Still a few gems out there who have great attitudes and do great work but the amount of brazen slacking I see these days is unbelievable at times.
Will add that there’s definitely some nostalgia and boomerism involved as well (ie it’s partially just emotional rationalization on my part) but having seen multiple analyst classes over the years there’s still a definite difference.
Also spot on about the inefficiency backing up the whole chain. Every hour the associate spends redoing the analyst’s work is an hour the associate can’t spend taking something off the VP’s plate, which continues all the way up and makes the job worse for everyone.
you can also look at the mid levels and say they are declining which is causing a decline in analyst quality due to training. When I say the mba associates I worked with are brain dead I mean it.
Agree. Many factors. We could argue the ordering of the below but in my mind the hierarchy of issues is as follows:
1) Volume - there are just a lot more analysts (and bankers in general) than there were 5, 10, or 20 years ago. This dynamic was hugely exacerbated in the last 2-3 years.
2) Life preparedness / macro trends - the average college graduate is just not as well prepared to roll up sleeves and do work today. Proliferation of colleges, majors, and grade inflation, combined with a general sentiment shift toward valuing self/time/other factors vs. building skills/network/potential has created a general workforce that doesn't have the same approach to "apprenticeship" jobs like IB as prior analyst classes. All these analysts think they're really good because they've always been told they are in school.
3) WFH - again, this is an apprenticeship job. Analysts see seniors going home at 6-7 or not coming in at all and there's both a "when the cat's away the mouse will play" element as well as just a lost opportunity to listen into important calls (which provide context to the work you're doing) or grab 5 minutes of somebody's time without sending an email.
4) Maybe I'm a boomer but the analysts are just soft now. The expectation for hours is just not what it used to be and there's no way to be as good one year in when you work 60-70 hours a week instead of 80-90 hours.
The yelling point below is valid too - you never touch a hot stove twice - but those are bygone days.
100% agree +1
I can't fully blame them, when you see every influencer, ICO gambler, streamer, youtuber, drop-shipper, and dunce with 14 braincells talking nonsensical drivel on podcasts all making hundreds of thousand to millions of dollars you get a young generation that resents the white-collar grind.
Some definitely make it and good for them, but young kids generally overlook the hundreds to thousands of hours it took many of these folks to get to where they are and focus on the end goal of making millions online and moving to LA to live the dream.
Could not disagree more on your point #4. The marginal gain in learning that you get from 60-70 hours a week to 80-90 is so minimal.
What is more important is how stressful and challenging those working hours are - are you cranking out tough analytical work for demanding senior folk under tight deadlines on live deals. The analyst that does 60-70 hours a week on that will be way ahead of the analyst working on mindless pitch deck fluff and just twiddling thumbs at desk until midnight every night.
Live deal work is the best way to learn, and, news flash, some shops you can be on a live deals and still stay under 70 hours a week and learn a lot (speaking from exp).
The framing of people valuing their personal lives more than an office job as “soft” is something else
I think the top analysts are still more or less the same quality as the top analysts before, but there's a lot more variance below that. Frankly in the last couple years there was so much M&A work banks hired a lot of candidates who never would have sniffed banking before (both laterals and from school), and the worse training only exacerbated that.
We hired an associate who was a 2nd year analyst who has been excellent. On the other hand, some of the banking analysts (even at BB's) we've been working with have been absolutely terrible.
I am hopeful like many of the other trends with COVID, which people thought were the new normal, it'll all swing back closer to what it used to be.
Wow and I’m out here studying 24/7 to try and get an internship in banking
If you ain't target, you ain't getting easy route bud
I would say it's definitely a decline but it stems from two gating items: a decline in broader academia and workplace culture. Middle school, high school, and college have all gotten much easier over the past 2 decades given emphasis on leaving no one behind and funding being correlated to school performance. So students think they are better than they are. The second is probably more relevant: work place yelling. 20 years ago, an MD or VP could openly yell at an analyst and it wouldn't be looked down upon. If you do that in the middle of the floor today, you'd have an HR violation. In short, there ins't enough disciplining towards the middle performers/low performers to literally make them do better. Also a change in the cost of housing/cost of living has made it less luxurious to be an analyst, but I think the former two are more relevant.
20 year cultural decline but like actually yelling but maybe housing...
It's 100% a cultural change in the office that is impacting people's performance. If you were nervous to make a typo vs being confident on pushing back, the results are much different. I said housing is not as relevant but if an analyst is going back to a shit hole and sees their savings be $4 at the end of every month because of inflation + high housing, yeah they might not want to stay until 4am because the money isn't there for many many years. But as I said, I think this is not the main cause.
I would agree in some sense that analysts (in my limited experience) might be less disciplined now than before bc of changing societal standards, but if your solution to that is “let’s just start yelling at them again!” then I’d say that’s a pretty lazy and shitty approach.
Much better ways to instill discipline in someone than demeaning them publicly.
To expand on your first point- I think it has become increasingly hard to know if you’re recruiting a good analyst or not. Not trying to gatekeep at all (especially as a non-target), but when all of the resources for getting into IB are as accessible as they are now, you have a lot of kids who know exactly what to do extracurricular-wise and say in interviews.
in the past the guy who had a bunch of finance clubs and competitions on his resume was more likely than not interested in the space and spent a majority of his time with those activities; nowadays you read a guide your senior year of high school and gun for certain positions in college to tick a box for a resume. Professional clout chasers are more popular than ever, partly because students during COVID realized they could cut corners and still get where they wanted to be. Both of the analysts in my group who dropped after 6 months told me straight up during training that they liked IB because “it was the best finance job.”
I know I sound like an angry boomer, but now I have to cover more bullshit because people took a job thinking it was a 9-5. Even funnier is that I’m already seeing clueless sophomores being pushed through the process
This is super interesting, I feel like the world for young people has gotten super competitive in general in pretty much every way, and this counterintuitively could have contributed to quality decline. Overall, from data and anecdotally, I think kids have much more of a pressure to perform and 'achieve' according to societal standards. And made super aware from a young age how important this all is towards being competitive for jobs in the future.
I remember my teachers in high school telling me how they got into schools like Cambridge and Oxford with a B and two Ds at A-Level (equivalent to a trash GPA nowadays, even factoring for grade inflation). Now you might not even get admissions interviews with 3 or 4 A*s. Same goes for jobs, employers used to be so much more open to hiring people who lacked the hard skills or maybe had experience in another field, but showed interest and promise, and it didn't used to be so hard to differentiate yourself from other applicants by preparing really well. Now finance employers have so much choice of polished resumes straight out of undergrad that those sorts of people wouldn't even get interviews. And I think so many people push so hard on academics and extracurriculars now, not because they have found something that they enjoy or have a genuine interest in, but because they are doing it for the reward. And it's not like that's irrational, in the past you could do reasonably well / coast when you were young and rest assured that you could land a job at a big company and be given opportunities for advancement. Now jobs at big companies are split into two classes; the majority who will rarely who earn minimal wages and will likely never be promoted, and the minority who are fast tracked and come from prestigious backgrounds. So this puts a massive pressure to 'succeed' in high school and college in order to start in the latter, at the expense of finding a genuine interest.
Add to that that the high awareness of IB career paths and exit opportunities, and you can imagine there has been a huge rise in high achieving college kids who choose IB because it pays well, offers accelerated career path / societal success, and with the full awareness or intention of leaving after a couple years - who therefore are not as committed to their firm success as analysts in previous generations may have been.
I think this is such an underrated point. Recruiting has needed to change with the times and it hasn't. The barrier to learn the... "bare minimum" to sound competent in an interview has declined substantially. Basically everyone who would be considered for a role will know the basics. But recruiting hasn't adjusted for this, at least not in America.
While employees are responsible for their behavior, the company is responsible for hiring. You can either change the hiring pool or you can change how you hire. Hint, no business or industry can change the hiring pool in the short- or medium-term. So if employee quality is a problem for your business, hiring better will be a far faster way to actually do something about it. And when it comes to finance there are so many better ways to improve the hiring process.
college admission isn't easier today....it's much hard than 10-20-30 years ago. especially at the elite schools.
well I know you didn't go to a target school because I said nothing about admissions... I said passing rates/GPA inflation. Tough look for you VP.
Fact. All the smartest kids are applying to Big 4 now.
All the smartest kids are quants making 4x the money and working half the hours, let’s not kid ourselves
Probably true there's a decline in analyst quality just because ib is no longer the highest rated/best industry to go into coming out of college. If i was a top tier college student with a great work ethic, great attitude and was super smart, I'd much rather go into tech/swe with better wlb and higher pay. No point taking lower pay for longer hours if I have the choice between the two.
Who in tech that's not a founder beats an average PE professional at 30? 650+ cash comp plus 4m+ carry that's probably couple years vested already. That rises exponentially by 35 where cash is maybe 1m or higher and carry likely triples
Username unsurprising…
Count the number of tech ppl vs the "average PE professional" and you will see why there is a higher wage for VPs + Partners in PE. The simple fact is that ppl care more about their lifestyle and spending time with their loved ones rather than stressing over work.
You have to last in PE until you're 30 though and most people don't. I just saw a post on Blind about a guy in his early thirties making ~$1mn TC at Google and working 30 hours a week. For a lot of people they would take that in a heartbeat.
I'd say facts, and there may be some good reasons for that.
1) Lower salaries compared to other available paths that require fewer hours; or lower salaries compared to pre-2008, so less talent wants to join IB.
2) Many MDs and VPs WFH, so juniors reciprocate with less effort.
3) Lower attention span because of the constant dopamine bombardments and distractions, which impact one's quality.
4) More interest in finding "purpose" or "fulfillment" in life, so less emotional investment in a job.
5) Change of perspective on what financial freedom means (older generations were more materialistic and more dependent on IB salaries, newer generations are more frugal, so they don't feel as tied to their jobs).
6) Even the exit opportunities argument to push someone in IB sounds crazy. If you have no idea what you want to do, just focus on whatever is now hot in the economy (e.g. tech or start-ups), and once it declines (as it does now), then you move into the next hot thing. Repeat that until you become a millionaire.
Still, to defend current analysts, older generations shit on newer generations, so sometimes those claims may be highly exaggerated (proof). Many analysts are better than older generations because a lot of information and resources to prepare for IB became widely accessible, but no one seems to discuss that (maybe because of insecurity or arrogance?).
Anyway, don't forget that there are also a lot of incompetent ASOs, VPs, and MDs who were promoted only for being in the right team or a boom cycle, so their incompetence could directly affect analysts.
One aspect I don’t think is being addressed is change in client demands and the ASAP nature of our deliverables to clients stemming from that pandemic flurry. It’s more difficult for a fresh analyst to step into that email/call barrage and be left alone to figure it out and carry out the work independently. Sponsors/PortCos are way more demanding clients and strategics are barely doing deals, so it’s like akin putting someone who has only topped out at 30/mph on a treadmill that is going 100/mph and expecting them to figure it out. It’s tough to train and review when the difference is a 11pm night vs a 2am night.
I think there is definitely a noticeable downward trend but I don't think it's the candidates' fault, I think it relates to the major shifts in on-the-job training. Candidate quality (at least on paper) is as strong and competitive as ever.
One example - Pre-COVID there wasn't zoom so you'd have the whole deal team huddled in an office listening in to various calls. I actually think this was really valuable because you could mute the line and the seniors/mid-levels can actively explain things as they are happening. Now, even with everyone in the office, people just work from their cubes/offices and the juniors don't really get any of that active commentary. You definitely don't retain information as well in this format and you probably aren't actively taking notes or even worse working on something else entirely.
Another example is that there is just so much less collaboration between analysts themselves and also analysts and associates/VPs. Again I think the zoom culture has discouraged sitting down with people at their desks and working through things. Now everyone pretty much goes home at 6/7pm (which don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing), but once you go home and start working you are kind of on your own. You can't ask your associate or fellow analyst to come to your desk to work through things so if you get stuck you'll probably end up sending something up the chain that is wrong, which contributes to this cycle of mid-levels not thinking analysts are competent.
Yea, this is good. I've read a bunch of comments and want to add my 2 cents:
1. The acceptance of "WFH when you can" culture. When you have the opportunity to go home at 6, 7, 8 (and expectation), the focus is getting your work done as quickly as possible (even if quality isn't as good) rather than diligently getting work done and learning, printing out your work to check, tick and tie, etc.
2. Connected to the above, the training from the mid-level. Similarly, if a mid-level can get home at 6, they're focused on getting their work done rather than training (so that when they get home they can just do emails rather than actually work). Someone mentioned above it's tough to train when that's the difference between an 11pm night and a 2am night - totally agree, but that was the expectation. It just isn't anymore.
3. Someone mentioned dopamine hits from social media. Very true.
4. Generally less of a focus on the long term. I see fewer young folks in the office talking about climbing the ranks and what it takes and more of them looking externally (i.e. let me make what I can for now but long term I want out of the industry). As someone said, maybe there's less focus on material goods. Or maybe there's more hopelessness because of how much less affordable the "wealthy lifestyle" seems. Also may be because they see a lot of young-ish but senior folks, meaning less room for them to move up. If I'm 23 and I see a huge amount of 30-34 year olds doing well, then what room would there be for me to break in at the senior ranks? As someone said, less emotional investment in the job and less pride in one's work
5. Someone mentioned "yelling" culture. I'd put it another way, which is a huge focus on allowing analysts work life balance. That used to never be talked about. The expectation as an analyst 1 was going home at 2am on average and weekend work (typically one full day and one day with a few hours to clean up). The reciprocity was training from the mid-level / senior folks. If you're now told it's bad to keep analysts late, then how are you supposed to sit with them from 6-7pm to talk through a model and how the deal team is thinking through something? It's created a culture of just getting the work done with no training. In addition, it is very hard to express disappointment in someone's work. Not impossible, but between the increased HR-related sensitivities and 360 reviews, it generally feels like giving direct negative feedback has more downside than upside
In 2023 it’s very difficult to tell an adult that he/ she “isn’t allowed” to leave until 2am for a whopping $150k total comp.
Same reason minimum wage workers nowadays seem increasingly terrible - they simply do not get paid enough to care.
Analyst position is like the top-tier McDonalds cashier. Low skill requirements, the most BS of any position, AND get paid the least. There’s too much information accessible to buy into the nonsense.
Just message them on Teams, call them, and share your screen
I think it's (1) generational- and (2) macro-driven.
(1) According to the first article on Google, 42% of Gen Z's in America are depressed, compared to 23% of Americans over the age of 25. The single biggest factor I've noticed in analysts / juniors is just not giving an f*** about work in general. I don't think it's right to say they're less intelligent (more on that below), but just have a hard time working hard for 12+ hours a day with the ADHD brought on by rampant anxiety and depression.
(2) Every business program over the last decade has reported lower interest in banking, in favor of tech or consulting. If you can solve for "analyst quality" as the "equilibrium price" between jobs available (supply) and potential analysts wanting those spots (demand), it's pretty obvious that lower demand means lower equilibrium "analyst quality"...
80% boomerism 20% fact.
Too much information about the job and alternative career paths out there to make anyone give a flying fuck about being an analyst. There are 14 year old Fortnite players making more money than a lot of MDs.
Also, no one talks about the slew of complete garbage associates and VPs. These are the same hardo colleagues who think they were a stud analyst, yet when you ask their former VPs and above it’s only horror stories.
It might not account for the entire effect, but I cannot be convinced working from home is good for junior bankers at all. It is so essential to be in the office gaining direct exposure. Such a stark difference between the bank where I interned (fully in-office in 2019) and where I've been full time. Used to be able to speak with anyone on the team all day and overhear interesting calls, client meetings were a dial-in that we all sat around, and we rarely had to email each other during the day. Now at my current bank, MDs and VPs are rarely around, I've never worked face to face with anyone, every meeting is on zoom - even internal, every deal is spread across the two offices, you never meet your deal team, and nobody comes in on Monday or Friday. How are you supposed to learn the same skillset that bankers learned in 2019? It seems like the job changed a lot
The email traffic is crazy now. I'm with you on that. Used to just talk to people. Now you email, "hey are you free to chat," they aren't at the moment and it's 5 emails back and forth to see when someone on your team is free
Email to ask if you're free to chat? You guys don't have an IM system?
Surprised nobody has mentioned anything about diversity recruiting yet. Banks have made a marked effort to create certain gender/racial quotas for intern classes which feeds into the analyst program. Hard to dictate a 50/50 gender split when the applicant pool may be as high as 80% men without sacrificing quality of final class. Similarly hard on the racial quota side for obvious reasons
Edit: I request that individuals who have participated in diversity programs refrain from voting on this post
Based. Lol everyone tryna avoid the elephant in the room to remain politically correct.
There's a good reason people don't talk about it: it's not the main issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to dodge the truth about diversity hiring. Any time you hire using criteria that is unrelated to the job, you lose some quality. That's true by definition.
But that's not the story here. Diversity hiring is older than this story. There is more recently a bigger issue about (i) generational change, softness etc that's affecting every professional service firm and (ii) and additional hit to IB which is talent drain to other industries.
You watch too much Jordan Peterson. That line of thinking only holds when you scale up the number of people you're talking about and the technical skills required to succeed in a job.
Yes, when you observe the distribution of "skill" across a large population set you're correct. Mathematically, you're lowering the quality of hires when advocating for something like 50% DEI quotas for all engineers. But that's primarily a function of 1) The sheer number of engineer slots in the job force and 2) The technical competence required to be considered a "top tier" engineer.
In an industry like IB, there are far fewer Analyst spots than in the engineer example above and the technical skills required (you'll realize this soon enough, AN1) to be a competent analyst is far below that of engineers.
I don't believe this to be accurate. If it were, then the final analyst pool would not have a segregated "skill" distribution, however, we know that is not the case. In every single analyst class, the diversity kids are generally not the ones that end up being the top performers. Agree with above point that diversity recruiting is not the only cause, but I think we need to stop pretending that kids hired through a special easy pipeline aren't inherently lower quality
Since you brought up gender, what percent of the non-males are not sufficiently good enough to get hired but for them not being men? What is the number? While I absolutely don't expect one specific number (ie - 32.54857%), since you are speaking so authoritatively you should be able to quantify this.
Or are you just making things up?
I think he was just using 80% as an estimation. You're kidding yourself if you think there's an even split between gender of applicants. Look around any finance related class at your school and see how many more guys there are than girls.
first thing i thought of but not trying to get blocked by WSO Mod
If you read the comments of the more senior folks on this thread (i.e. people who have been in this industry for at least a few years...), diversity sincerely is not what comes to mind first. Diversity hiring has been around much longer then this trend in analyst performance and it's always been a given point of controversy in the recruiting process. Analyst classes have been targeting 50/50 gender splits since at least 2015... What's new this time is the overall change in attitudes towards hard work, high performance, and "grinding" - for better or for worse.
Frankly, from my perspective, the reason why diversity is not talked about is because it really isn’t the reason that comes to mind… diversity recruiting has been around a lot longer than this change in analyst quality and that’s always been a point of controversy. What I’m noticing is definitely observable for the non-diversity hires. As mentioned above, it strikes me as much more of a generational attitude change. Less of a grind mindset and just general apathy towards high performance.
As others have said, zoom/Covid were probably terrible for industry talent in the long run.
Others have made great points already on the analyst experience (MDs never in office, everything on zoom, less emphasis on mentorship), but that works upwards as well.
Senior associates / VPs now have spent the past few years WFH / stuck on zoom as well, and I personally think that they missed a lot of the mentorship “learning” as well. When I interned not only would a VP huddle up in person with an analyst to go over a model, but an associate sitting nearby would sit up and pick up on that. That wasn’t the case the last few years, and even when good VPs/MDs took the time to teach analysts stuff, it was probably on zoom and not as visible to up and coming mid-level bankers.
Also +1 on the idea of cross-office staffing - used to never be a thing, but Covid made it easy to have an analyst in NY, an associate in SF, and a VP in London. Lots of banks are still staffing across offices even now, which makes return to office a waste and keeps stuff virtual.
I also think this all starts at the top, and Covid made it way easier for MDs to more efficiently block out their time. Used to be that for a pitch it would be a multi-hour affair in person - MDs would be in the office late preparing, travel to the pitch (often with the full deal team), and that was their focus. Now an MD can do 3 pitches and 6 other intro calls in a day and their entire calendar is booked 9-5 with zoom calls. This is great for MDs and let’s them do prospecting work much more easily. On the other hand, it Just takes away a lot of the experience of an MD saying “we’re going to Ohio on Thursday for this pitch, let’s all get in the trenches together to finish it up, meet in the hotel lobby the morning of to prep, and do a debrief in the airport after the fact to talk about next steps”
wow you actually worked hand in hand with MDs? lol
Holy shit shit it breaks my heart to hear these lazy target school kid’s who simply were admitted because of the school associated with there GPA.
Firms are soon going to realize that the academic prestige associated with target schools means so much less than it did a decade ago.
Non-targets with ethic are about to push an entire generation of lazy targets into extinction.
Inshallah
inshallah. if HR gave me full reigns for recruiting i could create the next Centerview. team would look a lot like the one from Dodgeball
Yup and I am just learning about grade deflation at targets. You will always be preferenced out from a top target (applies to those with no IB background whatsoever) even if you got that dog in you grinding at boutiques or no name shops.
It amazes me when people complain about the quality of their entry-level employees but they keep on using the same hiring processes that led to their hires in the first place. I guess intelligence, or just basic thinking skills, really isn't required for banking.
Hell naw non targo- go kick rocks at the 7/11
nvm im just too jaded
100% fact.
While people don't like the CS vs Finance discussion, it does have a huge impact on the quality of candidates that go to banks.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/11/6/concentration-data-analysi…
This data is a bit old, but the trend most likely continued to grow into 2023. The brightest always went to HF or PE straight out of college, but you see more of the middle 80 percentile go to tech. Maybe the trend reverses a little with all the layoffs but I doubt it. Banking isn't cool anymore so it's always going to seem like the 2nd or 3rd choice for people, and they aren't going to work as hard or have the ability to do so
I'm kinda shocked that no one has mentioned the COVID impacted college experience for analysts that joined these last few years. I think that's also a massive driver of the lack of interest in working. Can you imagine going two years of not having to leave your dorm room outside of eating, laundry, and social reasons? All your tests and quizzes are easy because you are in a dorm and have access to the internet, etc.. they essentially had pivotal years where you learn to be fully self sufficient and actually learn / hone in on their interests stripped away because they could just skate by doing the bare minimum (and most of them chose to)
Because of COVID, I had 2.5 years of college where I did NOT have to apply myself... and getting back in the habit of having to work hard and actually think is regretfully not easy
This is a fact. Major reasons —top talents have other choices than banking. Straight to PEVC, proprietary trading, quant research, even Tik Tok influencer — all of these places make more money than ibanking without the wlb sacrifices. Other people have also mentioned tech, but tech isn’t worth it IMAO
do you really think recruiting for banking is competing with tik tok influencer career path?
Yes I do. The special thing with Tik Tok influencer is that there’s absolutely no structure / checklist for who makes a good Tik Tok influencer. A college student sharing their life at HYPSM in the form of Vlog — that is influencer material. An attractive and sporty college student posting snippets about their Spring break trips — that is also influencer material.
The decline in analyst quality is paired with the decline of the apprenticeship nature the job used to have
My thoughts exactly. A common complaint I hear (on here and at the desk) from analysts is that the job is meaningless and mundane. It really stems from not being shoulder to shoulder with associates / VPs / directors, being part of the broader conversation and seeing the big picture behind every pitch or deal.
There are "go getters" (for lack of a better term) who take the initiative to figure that out, and the rest, the majority, who need more guidance. That's where this apprenticeship part is super important and its really been lacking since the cov hit. Doesn't help that we now have cohorts coming that have never seen the inside of a classroom, only Zoom.
Fact. Sadly.
Lots of analysts now actively playing smoke and mirrors to try to pull the wool over the staffers eyes. Laziness is a key problem.
Lots of senior analysts nowadays, even in a BB, can't do things I'd expect an analyst 2 to be able to do.
Diversity hiring has also impacted the junior pool. It's no longer a meritocracy.
I forever see associates having to step down and do analyst work. If I have an analyst help me directly then I spend a lot of my time pointing out basic mistakes I'd expect an intern to pick up.
Really a lot of ways to go about this, and I agree with what most said above.
I'd really boil it down to two points, I'd say the quality of analysts has probably dropped (for numerous reasons) but at the same time the job has become much more demanding (not to mention outside of work has become much more difficult). To quote The Wire:
Cutty: Game done changed.
Slim Charles: Game's the same, just got more fierce.
I think we see this is a lot of different fields. Take the military, they had to lower standards to get people in because most people now are overweight and untrained, while someone could also say that being a solider is probably more demanding now than it has every been. Take advertising, I now Mad Men is fictional but some truth, really advertising use to not be that difficult of a job relativity, now it probably a much more difficult job in creating pitches (that's why most commercials now are bad imo).
Regarding analyst, I think we kind of live in a time now where people are a little pampered, meaning, when they take jobs that want the good but don't necessary want the bad. Specifically in banking, that creates a culture where people want the paycheck and bonus, but don't want the crazy hours.
"Joe had his time, and Marlo put an end to that. Then Marlo had his time, short as it was, and the police put an end to that. And now, muthafucka, it's OUR time. Mines and yours. But instead of just shuttin' up and kicking in, you gonna stand there cryin' this back in the day shit. There ain't no nostalgia to this shit here! It's just the street, and the game, and what happen here today"
I agree that it's a two way street. The times of endless grinding in an office are probably done for (Joe), but the cushy/protected workplace that is revered today (limited hours, no stern reprimands for fucking up, 10% raises for literally doing your base job description) won't stay around forever (Marlo).
If we hit a big enough economic downturn or socio-cultural shit really hits the fan, people across all generations may just wake up and realize that your job is not going to give you every single thing necessary for a perfectly cushy life with zero hard times. Can't always have your cake and eat it too.
Always makes me think about the "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create bad times". We've had an unprecedented run of prosperity and (relative) peace, and I think a lot of people in America are unfortunately "weak" right now (and not just younger generations, although I'd say it's more pronounced).
The strong men / weak men quote is the stupidest thing I see keep popping up on the internet. Does anyone really think the average millennial or Gen Z has it easier than Boomers / Gen X? The fabric of this entire country was literally built to cater to Boomers post-WW2.
You could buy a house, car, and pay for college while working 40 hours a week with no college degree back then; Millennials and Gen Z are lived through 9/11, 2008, COVID, and are currently experiencing the worst COL and housing crisis we have ever seen.
Pretending that current generations have it easier and that is making people "soft" is just stupid and empirically false.
There are plenty of societies that have been perpetually going through hard times without this mythical generation of "strong men" appearing to course-correct. Russia / USSR, North Korea, Argentina, Venezuela, many countries in Africa. China pre-1978 open door policy was in a perpetual state of "hard times." When Ireland was hit by the potato famine, it didn't create a generation of "strong men" who then led the country to prosperity - half the country either died off or left, and the country's modern population is still down from pre-famine numbers (5M in 2023 compared to 8.5M in 1844). Haiti is still recovering from the 2010 earthquake.
Even thinking about this in an American context: the Greatest Generation were the strong men who created the good times, which led to Boomers who were weak men who created hard times? So it's then Generation X / Millennials who are the strong men who created good times (2000 - 2020)?
I wrote more than I meant to but I see that quote all the time and it drives me insane.
y'all are just mad that keynes was right. finally deadweight VPs and associates will actually have to do work boo hoo
It may be an isolated off trend thing, but my current crop of analysts are legitimately the best I’ve worked with as a group IB in my career (a reflection that virtually all our associates and VPs are internally promoted as A2A).
But this may not be coincidental. The reality is good cultures are set at the top but often enforced at the associate and senior analyst levels. When we were able to retain more of our analysts, they then set the culture for the incomings people and its been a virtuous cycle. I’ve seen this in other groups where the culture is strong. I think because of the burnout associated with covid and the deal boom, a lot of these mentoring links were broken at many places leading to a self perpetuating cycle of weaker analysts.
If you don't mind me asking, how explicit are you in the recruiting process about the extent to which you internally promote people? To me, if this is communicated up front, I can see that being a massive competitive advantage as I would expect that means you are getting a certain type of people that are just better then the 2 and out rat racer get. Especially if you don't recruit 18 months ahead of when they start and recruit on a normal timeline.
But maybe I am just nostalgic for some OG Weinberg career development, from janitorial assistant to running GS. But then again, one could make an argument that banks were better off when they hired entry-level employees like a normal company (ie - with the expectation that they will stay around) instead of this 2 and out rat race.
I would say that great associates are actually trained by great 2nd/3rd year analysts…sometimes to their dismay. The ones who listen tend to crush it, which is personality driven. We can all learn from each other. I think COVID led to a lack of mentorship, and we will see a decline in quality for the next several years.
Wow really? You mean now that banks are purposely limiting the number of target school kidsthat get offers(which statistically have higher average sat scores implying higher IQ SCORES) and recruiting more non target schools AND purposely hiring on the basis of sex, race and sexuality vs pure performance there is NO reason quality of analysts should be down. NONE.
With diversity hiring efforts we should have the most prepared and efficient analysts ever(that's what hr and management told me)
I understand the race/gender diversity point but what's the idea behind capping target schools?
Target schools have a higher average IQ than non target schools (the cold truth is SATs are an IQ test). When you reduce target school recruiting you are more likely to have lower IQ analysts.
I would bet my life you could test the 2023 incoming class of analysts IQ vs the 2013 class and 2003 class IQs and there would be a down trend. Part of it simply less smart kids are pursuing it at target schools, but also less smart kids are being given the chance to pursue it as well at other schools.
In essence, this all comes to IQ in my opinion(srs)
Your argument makes no sense, I go to a non-target and have a near perfect SAT.
A lot of reasons why people would end up at a state-school, with financial reasons being near the top (the type of kid who would end up being a top-tier grinder btw)
Now if your argument is that SAT should be on the resume as an IQ proxy, I can see where your going with that
Fantastic comments on here so far, 100% agree that it's a combination of factors - yes banks overhired in 2021, but Covid/wfh is as much to blame if not more so.
Speaking personally for myself - whilst the antiquated concept of face-time/hanging around in the office until midnight has gone away which is a good thing in many respects, it also sucks for analysts long-term. Of course if you'd asked me as an analyst if I could start regularly going home at 7/8pm most nights I'd have been ecstatic - however in the long-term I think it would have impacted my long-term prospects and also enthusiasm for the industry.
As a person in your early 20s, IB pre-Covid was such an absolutely fantastic learning experience - not only did you learn about excel and models, but more importantly you got exposure (if only peripheral) to very senior MDs and C-suite members of clients. Also when you work on a deal you got to see every aspect of a transaction - from the extremely mundane but still useful to learn (creating a data room and scheduling DD calls), to the very exciting (your MD rushing out of his office to your VP's desk the second that binding bids come in on a sell side mandate, finding out your client has won on a buyside deal). The problem now is so much of that learning was by osmosis - i.e. just sitting with the team and picking up things over time. Unfortunately so much of that has now gone with wfh, for all its benefits.
Equally - enthusiasm for the job. Of course working late in the office sucked - but over time you really develop a camaraderie with other analysts, associates and even your VP (assuming they're decent human beings). I remember so many times being stuck in the office till 1am with fellow analysts or an associate - whilst you were exhausted, as an early 20-something you also felt like you were "in the trenches" together, cracking jokes full of dry humour. Maybe I was just naive and/or a bit of a nerd back then, but working on a live deal actually felt pretty exciting - because it was your team slogging it out to get to the finish line. And occasionally as an analyst you'd go out with other juniors and get blasted in a bar at midnight just to let off some steam.
I think now however the job seems much more mundane - yes you have better worklife balance, but you are really just processing information most of the time in a relatively solitary environment. And as others have said, you don't get that osmosis - both because the analysts would rather just watch Netflix at home during their downtime than ask questions, and also the associates/VPs want to just finish without having to go to the hassle of specifically setting up a Teams/Zoom call to take a newbie analyst through certain concepts (previously this was all done by sitting with someone at their desk).
That aside, I agree with the cost of living point - given how much house prices have gone up over the last few years, slaving away to save up $100k doesn't sound anywhere near as exciting as it did when I was an analyst 10 years ago. I realize that's a very privileged position to take compared to most people, but nonetheless it is a fair point. I think this is further reinforced when analysts look up at associates/VPs and see that whilst they have very comfortable middle-class lives, very few of them are "ballers" - in reality they're slaving away to own a nice suburban house, maybe a nice-ish car, and put 2 kids into private school. But they're not on their way to making millions of $$ like in the 2000s. I think during 2020-21 this was probably further exacerbated by social media + the crypto boom, whereby influencers and crypto bros were seemingly making millions overnight with little effort (of course there's an enormous survivorship bias here but many young kids won't necessarily realize that).
So that's my 2 cents (really just a rehash of what others have said already, tinged with my own personal experience). About wfh/the post-Covid work environment... I'm still unsure about it. Yes it gives me a lot more freedom/worklife balance (now in PE in my early 30s), however I feel like the IB/finance environment of pre-Covid may be gone forever. And whilst there's lots of positives about that (reduction in pointless facetime for instance) it also means the job just isn't as interesting or as much of a learning experience as it used to be. I honestly don't know if I'd have stayed in finance long-term if I started as an analyst right now.
"enthusiasm for the job" is so true. or pride of ownership, whatever you want to call it. And i'll admit that this has happened to me too a bit in this post-covid world. I waver on if it is good or bad. Obviously bad in that quality of work has worsened. But you can argue somewhat good in that covid gave us a chance to step back and question if the extra work for higher quality is actually worth it, if we're spending our time valuably enough, etc. But to your point, as time goes the divergence in people quality will continue to expand. If every time after a turn you go to watch netflix rather than dig into documentation, etc...
What career would you do instead if you had to decide now?
The cost of living thing is overblown IMO. Yes there’s been inflation but “struggling” to get by as an analyst in NYC is almost a right of passage and honestly was kind of fun packing 6 people in a grimy Murray hill apartment and “balling out” on bottle service every couple months at shitty clubs. It’s not like any of that is meaningfully different these days.
Something else that I think is underrated is the effect of social media. I legitimately think things like Tiktok, IG reels, memes in general, gamification of basic tasks, etc. has turned people’s brains to mush. Coupled with limited social interaction due to COVID and the the lack of incentive to try hard in college, I think the neural circuitry of your average analyst these days is meaningfully different than it was 10 years ago.
I agree my brain is turning to mush and we get serious dopamine addiction from social media and Super HD porn
has anyone on this forum been able to avoid this? I guess the answer is deleting all the apps, but curious if there's some better strategy to get our brains back on track
COL is not a big factor out of college, but it matters much more when you are trying to raise a family. When people see younger MDs in their late 30s/early 40s living in the suburbs, sending kids to public school, and taking train to the city, they really question if all the sacrifice is worth that type of lifestyle. Sure, the MD might live in a closer-in suburb and slightly bigger house than someone on the corporate side, but at the end of the day the lifestyle is not different to someone in the corporate world living in a 1-1.5M house in NJ. The days that an MD (not from family money) can realistically raise a family in Manhattan + Hamptons are fading.
It's almost entirely driven by COVID and WFH imo. The other factors mentioned here might play some role but it's like 90% COVID driven. There was a complete step-change from before COVID to after that hasn't corrected itself yet.
The result is that you have a problem that has impacted multiple generations of juniors. To be sure there are still quality people who would excel regardless of circumstances, but I don't think most of these people had a chance. That's where I disagree with most of the takes in this topic - this exact same pool could have started in 2018 or whatever and they would have been about as good as any of the prior generations. Rebuilding will require a few more classes. You need people in the office doing real internships, those people need to stick around and train the generation after them.
Competition from tech, zoomers being "soft", diversity, whatever else you want to throw out there may have some impact but it's nothing compared to the above.
And it's not just analysts. It's associates as well.
Such a shit take lol
It's the take of basically everyone who actually saw both sides of it lol, not exactly novel. Woah people in an apprenticeship industry start to suck when you gut their ability to learn anything what a blazing hot take
people have been whining about all of the other shit forever. Some of it probably matters, none of it matters as much as a two year hiatus on the IB learning process that had been in place for decades
which part is a shit take?
Its the VPs and Ds that are declining - their superior peers went to buyside, startups, etc
There are simply more and better careers out there now. Take a second, stop running our egos, look and really think.
Given a certain candidate pool on the job market, a larger proportion of high-quality candidates are flowing elsewhere. This is not rocket science.
And this is coming from someone in IB himself !
"to the very exciting (your MD rushing out of his office to your VP's desk the second that binding bids come in on a sell side mandate, finding out your client has won on a buyside deal)"
lmao. banking is SO ExCitInG!
This is kind of the point. You can claim there is little exciting about most jobs. But part of being prideful and thus working more at your craft is "buying in" to these types of things. Yeah, for people who wanted to grow in the industry this is exciting. People who want to grow in the industry literally ask for more work. These were all seen as learning experiences and opportunities to meet new people in different verticals. It's just happening less and less now.
This whole ironic disinterest vibe in kids these days is very offputting. Feels like there’s no earnestness in anything at all and everything is just one big inside joke.
As an aside, I feel like a lot of this stems from a fear of failure. If you’re disinterested and fail, well, you weren’t interested in it to begin with so it’s not like you ACTUALLY failed.
This 10000000% these kids think it makes them so cool.. it's like a high schooler's attitude to life
If anything was going to get you excited in banking, why wouldn’t closing a deal? If you can’t get hyped about winning then wtf are you doing this job for?
Hope my MDs don’t read this, I think WFH is the best thing to happen to IB. I started in banking pre-pandemic and think the face time is over rated but maybe not everyone can just sit down and work and learn on their own. I still see great analysts who are on top of shit but also crap ones who struggle compiling a working group list, it’s probably like this in most jobs though, not everyone is going to be good, hopefully they get filtered out through annual reviews / terminations.
Tbh quality in MDs has also taken a huge dip - of course there are a few gems here and there ;)
My guess is a combination of all three.
The people who progress tend to be more competent. When you were able to do something and the person who effectively replaced you can't, that stands out. I think a lot of it is human bias. That "back in my day we used to walk up hill both ways to school." The people who complain in forums like this are especially susceptible to this one. I can virtually guarantee bias is a major factor in these forums. I am also fairly confident that their is a decline in quality. I don't think the decline in quality is as drastic as some people here suggest it is but this is a real thing happening too. Now, I am pretty confident it is COVID-related and not an actual underlying talent issue but it is a thing none the less.
I know this is a very PC answer but sometimes reality just has multiple causes.
I think it's COVID-related there were SO many subtleties and best practices that I learned in the office but I just cannot imagine starting day 1 and doing that job remote.... E.g. sitting next to someone and watching them do a model, or actually going through a markup in an MDs office - there are just things that can't be replaced. Also just overall work etiquette is learned in person so I think a lot of 22 year olds are still behaving like they're in college.
And I'm not a "get everyone back in the office" kind of hardo either -
^this. When we had our first new analysts during WFH most of what I would get annoyed about / perceive as "unprofessional" was the simple etiquette stuff you pick up by osmosis in office. It's something we take for granted because we all went through it as analysts and don't immediately flag as the source of problem.
Analyst quality will continue to decrease as buy side firms ramp up recruiting straight out of university. All the kids who started a trading account when they were 16 and started advanced accounting and modelling at 17, who 20 years ago have gone to GS are just heading straight to HF or PE. If you're actually really smart your not going to the banks to get worked 90 hours a week for a 30 grand bonus, your going to work at HRT and get payed £500,000 first year out of uni working 60 hours at most. This just will result in the analyst classes being filled with hardos that learnt what a DCF is a week before their final round because they got told if you don't know what to do and like money, be an investment banker.
Eh but I think I’d say the same thing about first year buyside analysts as well. The people here attributing it to a generational change in attitude have it right and that fact isn’t side-stepped by the greater prevalence of UG buyside recruiting.
If your fund isn't getting a look in at the top talent just say that buddy. The idea that suddenly no one is competent on technicals or willing to work hard due to attitudes towards jobs just isn't true. The fact is that the very best students from MIT, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge are just joining Blackstone, KKR, Bridgewater, DE Shaw, Point72, Citadel and the top prop shops. I promise you as someone who is going through recruitment now, there is a vast gap between the people that 6 months ago decided to be an investment banker because they go to semi target and their mate is applying and the top students from Harvard studying economics and maths that have wanted to work at a Hf since they were 16. What happens now is that the internet has so many resources that you can pass the majority of interviews on the sell side without having to think and guess what the result of that is. You get a load of people on the job that don't actually want to be there but passed interviews and it was their best option.......
Agreed on the talent funnel and top candidates starting ‘higher’ than before. I’ll add that the kids who choose to do banking now will not learn the business in the same manner they would have in 2018 and before. My experience as an analyst has been largely remote even when coming into the office (every meeting on Zoom). With an evolution away from face time for everyone up and down the bank, junior bankers just don’t have as much exposure to the subtle aspects of investment banking. If you compound this effect over the 3-4 years since Covid started it’s clear the only solution is to go fully 2018 culture on the next intern / analyst class to try to break the cycle.
PE and HF analysts would not be immune to the effect, either, but it depends on the policies in place. My impression is funds are generally smaller than banks and have more control over culture.
This 100%. Even as an incoming IB analyst, it makes a lot less sense to grind like crazy when I know how many other good options there are out there. Puts my tolerance for bullshit tasks a lot lower.
Crazy that the banks want the best talent when they have shit culture, average pay and some of the most boring work imaginable. wHy DOnt pEOpLe wOrk HaRD ANymOre. Hmmm maybe because you don't have a monopoly over high paying grad jobs anymore.
You mean non-hardos? A hardo wouldn't only learn a DCF a week before the final round. If that's what you mean
No when I refer to a 'hardo' is just someone obsessed with the image that comes from finance. Your standard 'Incoming Investment Banking analyst at Macquarie'. The majority of these people barely know how to do anything other than rope learn websites on how to pass interviews. Learning how to actually produce analysis on a stock is far more than would ever been tested in an interview. These people a week out from final rounds will be cramming everything because they don't actually understand what's going on just if they ask y I say x.
100% have experienced this and forsee deteriorating analysts for the near/long term for three main reasons. I think it all centers around the push towards "not a face time shop." For me, I did my first year pre-covid, where face time was very real. If you had nothing to do past 9 PM and your associates were still there, you'd sit around and check your work for the 15th time instead of just the 5th time. Since we were all in person, we printed everything out and read everything by paper / made comments via pen. I've defintely noticed that when you print something out vs. PDFing a deliverable, you'll catch more mistakes in the print out version. Now that analysts usually leave ~7 PM (even though they still work after) and seem to check their work less. Last, another item from the less facetime world we live in, again, if you were waiting around past 9 PM for your associates to leave, you usually get a head start on work that's not due right away instead of leaving. That leaves you more time to create a higher quality product / check it more times. Just my $0.02 cents on observing analysts underperform relative to my class / classes above me.
A trend I’ve notice from some banking friends - a good many MDs and VPs are complaining about declining analyst quality, yet they put zero effort into fostering a culture that prioritizes professional development. If senior bankers and experienced associates are only in the office 2 days a week (understandable when you have a family, and corporate has been lassiez-faire as long as you produce fees) due to their tenured comfort, new analysts are left to fend for themselves in a remote environment.
People really underestimate the impact of their daily surroundings. If everyone around you is in the office every day- focused, cranking, and amicable to helping you get your sea legs in an intense professional setting, guess what - you will grow. The 10-15 minutes of downtime someone takes to show you something serendipitously is a critical pion of junior talent development (it certainly was for me), and this stretches to everything from modeling to emulating professional courtesy.
ignore title
May I offer different pov? It seems that associate quality has been massively declining with none of my associates ever opening PPT or Excel, insisting everything be sent to them in PDF and they only communicate through some ancient lost language that is yellow comment boxes.
The yellow comment boxes are definitely brutal and make the job worse from everyone (yet another COVID issue). Back in the good old days associates would print and hand write comments, which forces you to engage much more closely with the material and add a lot more value.
Don't always agree with Dave Ramsey, but I saw a quote from him that rang true. I'm paraphrasing, but he said most people hate this generation of workers, but he loves them. They are either really really good and work hard or are just plain lazy. No in between makes talent choices a lot easier. You figure out quick what you’re going to get.
Simply put, Analysts have PE jobs lined up 3 months on the desk and have zero incentive to perform at a high level or learn. The same low-quality analysts are then entering PE, the associate pool is becoming just as watered down as banking, which is why you're seeing so many flame-outs in that field as well.
Fact. Haven't read all the other responses so I'll probs be echoing again what people have already said, but:
1) Covid for sure. And it's not just WFH that made people miss out the training they deserved, but also these analysts got a soft university experience. Mass cheating and laid-back attitude during my Covid-era uni days. Got the vibe that the uni didn't give no shits about us, so us students didn't give no shits. Collaborated like fuck in assignments and tests, many people say they've forgotten what it feels like to have a sense of urgency, intensity, groupwork, normalcy. Not just IB which suffers from having low-quality analysts but PE too as they get shit associates as some have already reported
2) Soft/ woke/ TikTok culture. Society normalizing not getting yelled at, WFH, work-life balance, 4 day workweek, no tolerance for the slightest unintentional innuendoes.
3) Talent wars with tech, startups, non-profits, all these cooler places to work than IB
4) Immense glut of college graduates. The average college graduate is nothing special now as compared to 50 years ago. Education inflation. Some of these graduates with inflated credentials and grades are bound to slip thru the recruiting ranks and become the low-quality analysts that you are referring to
5) PE on-cycle tryna outsmart their competition by pushing recruiting earlier and earlier to insane levels are backfiring and shooting themselves into the foot. IB analysts getting PE offers in the first week of starting out in banking don't give a flying fuck about performing in banking any more
Lol now it’s woke to want Work life balance? Keep grinding away for a corporation that will fire you at a moments notice without hesitation.
Option #4. The Curse of Knowledge Bias: Once we know something, we assume everyone else knows it, too.
You've been around for a while and take for granted how much you know...and how much recent college grads DON'T. Also, as you move up the ranks you have less patience for beginners...you're working on running multiple complex engagements while some 20 year old is mucking about with powerpoint formatting.
That is true. The problem is as associate I am trying to be available, answer questions and not give too much work so I can create decent experience for the analyst but at the same time I find myself re-doing most of the work even after spending time to explain step by step and then end up with either not delivering on time or not having time to do other parts of my job which are actually critical like managing the process. The senior people think I need to to tell the analyst don’t go to dinner or happy hour or whatever to get job done. I prefer to let people manage their own time but they just never do and majority don’t have decent work ethics. They end up providing bad work quality - not because they are inexperienced but because they don’t put in the time or pay attention. Then associates have to do more work, otherwise it affects the whole deal time and we keep turning comments 3.0x times more than usual
Dolores quia aliquid harum odit. Ipsam possimus et itaque. Qui sunt accusamus molestiae officia et quasi incidunt.
Ut id veniam fugit aliquam placeat accusamus recusandae. Non ut est facilis eos vero. Atque est ut quidem voluptatem rerum aperiam. Perferendis culpa fuga libero voluptatem dicta cupiditate numquam. Est et quam iusto non maiores.
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...
In id molestiae et et. Vel ex deserunt aut ex. Quibusdam sint eos eos quia quasi.
Sed aut exercitationem commodi. Magnam corrupti nam dolorum dignissimos saepe et perspiciatis sint. Corporis delectus non consequatur aut aut libero.
Iusto vel quis autem aspernatur. Perspiciatis expedita non consequatur rerum quibusdam repellat. Ad at dignissimos deserunt. Autem ut aspernatur debitis libero modi. Placeat cum expedita dolor. Et aut vel voluptatem soluta voluptatem est blanditiis.
Temporibus est possimus a adipisci id. Illum perspiciatis eveniet voluptatem quo eos sed. Non non similique perferendis sint.
Rerum voluptates ut inventore. Sit assumenda impedit sed molestiae quasi non. Hic magni vitae modi sapiente. Expedita totam placeat sed exercitationem modi quidem. Ut dolor minima illum impedit sunt minima voluptatem.
Dolorem incidunt in enim natus voluptas veniam nesciunt debitis. Illo repellendus enim nihil. Animi accusamus odit corporis eaque debitis animi culpa. Esse perspiciatis totam unde a maxime est. Sint sit voluptatum assumenda blanditiis reiciendis doloremque est et.
Magnam aliquam accusamus et ullam nam. Dolore quo reiciendis aut. Voluptatem sunt harum ea culpa magni quae eos.
Laboriosam aut temporibus nam in recusandae quae eius nobis. Vel ut ex id beatae voluptates sunt. Assumenda dolore non deleniti earum tempore. Qui sapiente maiores deleniti molestiae aspernatur et. Enim qui non earum nisi.
Unde voluptates quo aperiam deserunt laborum voluptas aut recusandae. Animi quia quia nihil et qui veniam. Sed omnis sint esse quam est quaerat optio.
Nihil in et fugit. Voluptatem illum corporis ipsa dolores.
Quo pariatur qui inventore nesciunt. Ut aut dolor quia tempora. Quae harum numquam velit non.
Hic sed dolores et sunt excepturi voluptatem. Occaecati sit aut aut ut qui voluptatum culpa. Ut eos vel est amet pariatur qui distinctio.
Iure veritatis commodi ipsum. Eius repellendus et repellat placeat sint mollitia odio.
Quis et consequatur debitis quaerat et fuga. Recusandae beatae fugit necessitatibus quod dolorum.
Ullam magni hic quidem in aut fugiat quos. Itaque dignissimos id occaecati maxime maxime voluptatem eum. Vel facilis quia ut odio maxime qui. Quia odit nam velit aut quos quae et. Veritatis voluptates distinctio sit pariatur fuga ullam et. Molestiae numquam hic asperiores.
Explicabo omnis porro est ullam cum rem animi. Quis aliquam cum iste excepturi. Laborum voluptatibus provident soluta a. Iusto quo qui esse. Ea id sit omnis dolores.
Labore porro eius dolorem ducimus. Ipsum id similique ab recusandae molestias. Voluptate quo qui dolores molestiae. Et provident qui quia eveniet ipsa voluptatem velit dolorem.
Expedita earum molestiae expedita nihil ea sed sed. Perferendis laboriosam maiores a aut ut. Perspiciatis vero placeat sequi.
Distinctio nostrum eum ipsum omnis. Distinctio cum illo dolor temporibus nam inventore nisi vel.
Architecto est ducimus eaque neque voluptatum rerum. Nobis ipsum molestiae voluptate rem tenetur. Labore commodi quia quia est aspernatur.
Possimus sed unde et voluptatem maiores soluta. Quo corporis debitis in corrupti.