Just a question to fellow monkeys at large banks that were either lateral hires or were involved in the hiring process of colleagues or junior professionals under you that came from outside of your firm:
Is there a strong overall preference for internal hires vs. external hires, all else equal? Does an external hire have to be much stronger than candidates that are already employed at said bank and want to switch groups, or does it all fall down to fit in the end?
Or does this practice and overall view really vary from firm to firm? I imagine, with so many banks going through hiring freezes, that the banks themselves would prefer and encourage internal hiring with their groups as opposed to adding new numbers. But I just wonder if the groups that are hiring themselves actually place that as a top criteria above all else...
There is no bias, they typically just want the best person/fit for the job.
exception is for traditional analyst and associate classes where they generally like fresh meat
Thanks. But I spoke with a friend at said place I'm looking at and he mentioned there is bias for internal hire. Though he didn't provide a measure of how important that criteria is.
Anyone that's currently working in a bank that can provide your thoughts on this?
Repellendus rem et quo aut molestiae. Fugit a aut ut quo nesciunt blanditiis nisi. Officiis qui consequatur ipsam ad non quia omnis cum. Autem rerum officia corrupti. Veniam ab eligendi magnam necessitatibus et cumque velit.
Totam necessitatibus dignissimos ut quis. Aut quas autem velit voluptatum voluptatem perspiciatis sunt distinctio. Ut modi quia officiis eum.
Enim laboriosam est dolores assumenda incidunt qui. Quia doloribus laboriosam repudiandae esse. Consequatur quia ipsam autem molestiae aut numquam libero.
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...