How selective are BB’s really?
Hey guys there’s always a lot of hype surrounding how selective or “elite” investment banking at certain firms are, particularly top BB’s (MS/JPM/GS) in NYC. I was wondering if anyone knew if there’s any substance to these regards in regards to acceptance rates for SA or FT roles at these firms, or if they really warrant the hype surrounding them?
Also, from first and secondhand sources it seems like these firms don’t even pay more than upper MM or lower BB banks? Does anyone have any information regarding differences in bonuses/base salary if any even exist?
I don't know what this post is trying to convey. They're the best banks you can work at in investment banking prestige-wise and exit opp-wise (even pay-wise in some cases like Qatalyst).
If you're trying to justify why it's ok to be at Citi because Goldman isn't special in any way, then go on living in your imaginary world. Whatever makes you happy. Ultimately, it's all about happiness and how satisfied you are with your life. I can show you 100 people who make 80K who are thousand times happier than most people in this forum because they care less about money and more about other things that doesn't really involve money.
Seeing how difficult people are saying it is to get into GS/MS/JPM relative to a couple other banks is honestly deceiving.
I have friends that get got dinged at GS, JPM or RBC and got EVR. I even know someone that got dinged at GS and MS but still got the Silver Lake role. The top candidate for GS is not necessarily the same as for other firms because some people are a natural fit for GS whereas others are for MF PE analyst and EB roles. So some people may have a 50% chance of getting a GS offer but have no chance of getting a EVR/PJT offer and vice versa given their network, fit and technical background.
The idea is to tailor your interview responses and mindset to each different firm and person you're interviewing with because only the best candidates at a superday get the offer and this can increase your odds. And hopefully this "best candidate" overlaps with the best person you can sell in the interview.
TLDR: Acceptance rates are deceiving and every bank on the street is competitive in their own way, regardless of brand, and you need to adjust to each one.
Super important point. There's a lot of randomness when it comes to giving out job offers at the analyst/associate level. The hiring process starts with the resume screen (high GPA, target school, referrals etc.), then a behavioral/technical screen (Is this person "smart" enough to do the job and also not a freak). Once a candidate checks all of those boxes, you're usually left with 3-4 candidates that can fill 1 spot...ultimately the bankers will choose whomever they liked the most.
Drawing from my own superday experience (6 years ago) - I nailed all the technicals/behaviorals, but ended up getting lucky because all of the bankers I interviewed with happened to be in RX; I had worked in credit during an internship thus I could talk shop about cap structure, debt, bankruptcy etc. Had I not interviewed with RX folk, it could've gone a whole other direction! Luck plays a big role, don't feel rejected if you don't get an offer. Keep pushing, it's a numbers game at the end of the day.
If I had to, I would say they are more selective than a Target Store Management internship.
Especially if you can't spell lose correctly
Has the OP ever read any investment banking interviewing post on WSO. or just broadly searched on Google? This post is taking up space.
Then don't continue to "take up" everyone else's space by eliciting a comment to bump this post. It's a forum to ask questions; not everyone came out of the womb knowing about what the top firms on the Street are or what difference it makes.
Agree OP could've been more thorough and browsed through WSO on their own time, but you don't have to degrade others or their questions just because you feel as though you're coming from a position of having more information.