PE internship, a red flag?
I have been trying to re-recruit after securing a return offer from a low BB after a SA. I have quite a strong profile I would say, with 2 BB internships, 1 MF PE, European language, target school. I was hoping to get more traction with the MF name on my CV but on the contrary seems like it’s making things worse than without it as I haven’t been invited to any interview so far.
For people in the industry, when you see a candidate with some PE internships, does that raise red flags? In the sense that you may infer that the person will most probably resign after 1-2 years?
I think you should let it serve you as a reminder of how random recruiting is, and that part of your cv is attributed to luck - I’m almost an identical profile, and have only been interviewed by 1 place (20+ apps) this cycle.
It sounds like you’re overqualified for most banks that are giving ACs to younger students with only spring weeks under their belt.
In London being overqualified is definitely a hinderance for structured SA roles at big banks (NOT OC/FT). Just the way it is. Loads of folks at LBS facing this issue as well.
We prefer overqualification for SA at my BB (MS/GS)
Is it worth applying for FT for MS/GS or are most of the analyst class hired from summers?
Sounds very Goldman.
I have been applying to FT roles only and almost always with a referral…
To be honest mate I don’t see why your profile raises any red flags at all. Could it be the formatting/wording in your CV?
For the firms I have applied for, this is definitely not the case. If anything, every SA offer I've seen has involved a prior SA either typically at an MM or boutique.
Can't give definite clarity but the randomness of London recruiting definitely is the bigger issue here.
I would like to ask OP what groups they worked in for their previous internships as some groups are definitely more in demand for SAs than others (typically weaker ones such as RE, Infra, O&G, FIG etc.) than the more common ones (Consumer, TMT etc.)
Also, successful profiles I've seen have often had step-ups in quality of firms so LMM > MM > BB. Can't recall where I read this but going from Upper BB > Lower BB can (for some retarded reason) imply lack of quality as opposed to step-ups.
For OCs however, this is completely the opposite. Having BBs on your CV is desired.
Infra, FIG and O&G are not weak. HR also does not have the brain cells to think in the average 5-10 seconds they spend reviewing a CV 'Oh yes typically in the past we have had less people picking Oil & Gas as a preference due to its granular modelling nature, and less transferable skills to a wide array of expert opportunities.Those that picked it were statistically more likely to renege on their FT offer, so i am going to strategically move this candidate forward to increase the probability of them returning to the firm'. Realistically, if no one picks O&G etc as a preference, it does not matter, someone is getting damn O&G for their SA.
I did country coverage and TMT
London recruiting is very random, possibly you are just getting quite unlucky and I feel for you. fyi, I only had one interview last SA cycle and it was with JPM/MS/GS out of 50+ apps with lots of relevant work experience.
Excepturi est et cum nisi voluptatem quia. Quos dolor iste alias dolores. Maiores tempora et vero ut corporis soluta. Ullam natus harum quia ratione.
Assumenda architecto possimus at molestiae rerum quasi quia. Et soluta expedita cum non quam sit est quia. Perspiciatis neque et magni voluptas totam voluptatem. Facilis unde quia ducimus eligendi corrupti pariatur ut possimus. Asperiores at libero quisquam sit officia tempore. Nam tempora sit quos et debitis rerum molestiae. Distinctio voluptatum modi eaque et quaerat nam provident aperiam.
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...