I keep getting told I'm "not technical enough." What's happening?
I'm a post-MBA Associate at a BB bank. I've been recruiting for PE and Corp Dev (tough jump to PE, I know).
I have a corp dev offer in hand. I've also had final rounds with four different PE funds - and no offers. For all but one, I received feedback along the lines of "we are looking for someone more technical" or "someone with more technical skills."
On the one hand, this is good and helpful feedback from interviewers - it's straightforward to keep practicing models, technical questions, etc. It's all about reps. I've been trying to up my game.
On the other hand, I don't think I'm a total idiot, although I did opt for an Assoc role at a bank, so there's that... (H/S/W MBA, top BB).
I feel like I'm really close to PE and want to keep pushing for it. What's going on? Why do I keep getting this feedback (besides the obvious, that I'm not technical enough, duh)? What can I do?
I think this is likely the case. It's clear to an interviewer if you just haven't put in the time in excel. I've seen lots of BB associates who never develop the complete technical skills package because they delegate it to the analysts, particularly if the group has strong analysts. I'd recommend on your next couple of deals that you take 100% ownership of the model, and that will get you up the curve quicker than anything.
I'm pretty suprised that you are able to recruit for PE as a Post-MBA BB ASO. Are the funds you are interviewing at established funds or are they relatively new? Who are you competing against for these roles? People in bschool with pre-MBA PE experience or other Post MBA BB ASO's?
In my opinion, the often quoted adage that "if you're getting interviews but no offers its because your qualified but you interview poorly" doesn't really apply in a highly competitive field like banking/PE. You do not need a Phd. to be a banker nor to work in PE (you don't even need to have worked in banking to work in PE anymore as firms are recruiting directly from undergrad). As such, being "qualified" is a comparatively low bar (in this case it might just be because you went to H/S/W or work at a BB). It's ultimately up to how well you stack up against the other guys you are competing with....
In your case you are getting interviews that I am pretty shocked that you are getting given the competitiveness for Post-MBA ASO positions at established funds for people that HAVE pre-MBA PE experience. I'll caveat this by saying that you've had FOUR different final rounds so maybe my understanding of the competitive landscape for these positions is flawed. That being said, it seems unlikely that you would land one of these roles even if you were extremely technically sound.
Therefore, I think the "not technical enough" is a bullshit excuse in lieu of saying they just liked someone else better because they are more "traditional" (i.e. have pre-MBA PE experience).
I just moved into PE as an MBA associate, having previously interviewed with and been rejected by more than two dozen firms, ranging from mega-funds to mid-market PEs. I think the difficulty boils down to 2 factors, technical skills and age.
Technicals - As you become an associate, your role becomes less modeling intensive and more deal management (think docs, process, chasing people for various deliverables). You need to spend time to get your modeling back up-to-speed (i.e. 3 hours for a full LBO from blank page with all bells and whistles and detailed top-line and cost build-up).
Age / Motivation - I have spoken to friends in industry (and been through numerous final round rejections myself) and my experience is that PE definitely prefers younger candidates. More eager to crunch numbers and endure long nights for another 2 years. I am definitely less keen on this compared to my analysts. So I would think hard about joining a firm which expects you to do this as your not really progressing professionally.
Overall competitiveness - I agree with Draper that PE recruiting is extremely extremely competitive. From what you have described your background is no where near the top (neither is mine), especially given the amount of talented analyst candidates out there. You need some sort of "wow factor" to outshine the other candidates - e.g. being particularly well-researched/knowledgeable about the industry the firm is in, making your pre-MBA experience particularly indispensable etc. So just stick at it and don't give up if PE is what you really want.
You're absolutely spot on. In fact I was surprised no one else brought up the "age" aspect before you on this chat. PE simply prefers candidates who are younger (this is a big, big deal) and willing to grind it out late at night for another couple yrs vs folks who may be interviewing in their late 20s/early 30s.
The other aspect is pay - and you can't disregard this. Unless you're interviewing at the large megafunds (the ones you mentioned above), there's a very, very good chance you're going to have to take a pay cut as a PE associate which is the position you will be entering the game at. This is already true for BB analysts coming into PE after a 2nd or 3rd yr as an analyst (although no one admits it on these forums or to their friends in fear of losing finance's constant dick measuring contest), and it's much more pronounced at the associate level. Unless associate comp has come down in the recent past (which I'm pretty sure it hasn't), the disparity can be meaningful.
You may not have a problem either with the hours or the pay cut, but just know that these factors definitely weigh in on the ultimate decision. You may be viewed as more of a "risk" to churn vs a pre MBA analyst, either for lifestyle or pay reasons. Unfortunately there are just too many well-trained analyst monkeys vying for those spots for them to take a risk on someone at your level.
All that said, keep grinding as the other posters have said as it certainly happens. Also apply to family offices and other non-conventional outfits where there may be an important sourcing element to the role. If there's a way you can sell those capabilities, they could easily eclipse the fund's silly "technical" concerns. Good luck!
Will echo some other posters.
There's 1) knowing technicals, then there's 2) knowing how to explain your knowledge of technicals
Think back to your worst professor in college. He/she is just about guaranteed to be an incredible talent in their field, but likely blows at explaining their field to others. The gap can be quite large, and just learning more isn't always the solution to the issue.
This is an important point. But the interviews aren't like banking interviews with loads of technical questions....interviewers usually test technical knowledge through discussion of deals you've worked on in the past + an in-office modeling test or take-home case study. I know I'm doing fine at these modeling exercises (it's just reps..) so I'm not sure what's going on.
Yeah, very true. I try not to post too many links to outside sites on WSO, because the mods like to jump all over it, but have helped my friends a ton with technicals (weren't around when I went through IB recruiting). Could be useful for running through practice technical interviews.