2023 On-cycle is a disaster
What a crazy couple of days it has been and it's not over yet. I am hearing from a lot of folks on both the buyside and from bankers that on-cycle this year has been nothing short of a disaster for both the candidates and the funds. Model test pass rates are at all time lows and candidates are significantly weaker in quality vs prior years. The result is that funds are filling a lower % of their class with on-cycle candidates.
Why am i getting interview requests from brand name funds where i (i) have not spoken to anyone there (ii) have not spoken with their recruiter and (iii) have not even dropped my resume in that recruiter's portal? The only explanation is that the candidates are crap and recruiters have to dig to find people who haven't even expressed interest in participating in on cycle.
Perhaps finally this will wake up funds that the whole process is stupid. How can a group of such smart people come up with such a stupid process? On-cycle crushes retention and you have analysts making major life decisions in a 24 hour period when half the time they couldn't name one of the fund's portcos. Of course, this is something that everyone already knows, but post covid its different now.
PE is not what it used to be. Banking has gotten better. Why make less money (ex a few funds), work more hours, and be back at the bottom of the totem pole when you can make more money, work less hours, and have an analyst below you do half the work in banking? It's a serious question that's making a lot of analysts reevaluate the entire process. "What the hell am i putting myself through this for?" "why?"
Only about a 3rd of people in my analyst class are participating in on cycle, and on top of that probably only half of those kids are actually prepared and going all in. Is anyone else seeing this trend?
Idk. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but on-cycle honestly wasn't too bad.
Most of my EB analyst class is interested in PE and had been preparing for on-cycle for a while. Sure, the timing isn't known far in advance, but the process consists of pretty much the same thing every year. I'm surprised that "Model test pass rates are at all time lows and candidates are significantly weaker in quality vs prior years.", considering that on-cycle used to be much earlier in the past. If anything, I would have thought they'd be higher. Doing interviews in the AM while being sleep deprived obv isn't ideal, but personally, the adrenalin kicked in and I'm glad the entire process was done in a day, compared to SA and FT processes that can take several stressful weeks.
Am I the only one with this view? It does help that my team has been very supportive and my analyst class has been sharing info with each other.
I do agree with you that banking is getting better, but there's no way I want to stay in banking any longer. I want to try PE for 2 years then dip into something cool
Personally a bit of an adrenaline junkie, and the stress and craziness of it all was kinda an energy boost. Don't think I've ever had such energy after not sleeping for 30 hours ever. I think on-cycle feeds into the uber-competitive nature of a lot of banking analysts. Definitely not ideal, but I have a hunch that part of their evaluation rationale is seeing how people handle stuff under enormous stress.
I certainly did not appreciate my Wednesday dinner being disrupted like that. However, if there was one message that analysts in the past have told me it was that 1. don't always believe everything HH's say. and 2. the process can happen at any time. Think this year was a reminder of how shit went before COVID.
This. Three or four years ago, OCR was ~2 months after banks hit the desks (Halloween weekend) - super early, but people still made it work. Two or three years ago, OCR was ~2 weeks after most banks hit the desk (one or two were literally days out of training) - now THAT was a disaster, and a number of funds sat that out in addition to many candidates.
With the timing this year, there's no reason candidates shouldn't be able to build a basic LBO in a modeling test that hasn't changed much in the last 5-10 years, especially if candidates with two months of experience handled it okay a few years back. I sympathize a bit with wanting as much experience as possible before you feel confident articulating your desired career path, but aside from the Covid-delayed process in 2021, this is the most normal timing candidates have had in 5+ years so candidates should have had time to get perspectives from various people, think about style/stage, etc.
The process was definitely a shit show, because it always is, but I haven't heard of funds struggling to fill classes any more than they typically do (it's not abnormal for funds to still have a few spots and fill them off-cycle). And candidates not prepared at this point should've held off for off-cycle, just as every other cohort of analysts has ever done. Aside from Wednesday night being a less-than-ideal time for it to kick, this was a pretty reasonable year.
Couldn't have summarized this clusterf*ck of a situation any better. At a strong group and over half our analyst class chose not to recruit. While I definitely felt some concern about missing out during the 24 hours (especially on a few MF opportunities I'd been eyeing), I don't regret it.
It's not worth participating until you 1) can sell your specific interest/fit for the fund, 2) actually believe you'd like it there (i.e. you've talked to people and know they're not jerks), and 3) you can handle the techs/behaviorals that come along. The lack of recruiter conversations, coffee chat/networking/info session opportunities, and little-to-no lag period between initial HH reachout to interviews made satisfying those criteria very difficult. I'd say the majority of those who went in were taking a big gamble. Great for those who made it out with an offer but unfortunate for those who let the FOMO get to them and now are out of the running at their first choices.
I'd like to think that the reduced participation this year will help firms learn, but the same thing will probably happen next year.
Why does it seem like everyone was so unprepared? Most of my colleagues also chose to skip because they weren't ready. Honestly kind of surprising given it is a bunch of smart and motivated people. Like all you need to do for prep is just grind out modeling practice for a few weekends, do some fund level research, and be likeable in an interview. Personally, felt like PE recruiting overall required way less hours vs IB recruitment in college (no months of networking, took me a lot less time to get good at technicals), so just interesting that a bunch of people who did well in IB recruiting are generally unprepared. I get balancing prep with work is tough but if you're at a group with protected saturdays, just spend a few hours prepping every weekend and you won't be super behind when the time comes.
maybe its because analyst have realized
1. doing interviews at 1am is disrespectful AF
2. doing banking 2.0 work for less pay is not appealing
3. being told after 2 years to spend 200k to attend business school is not appealing
so they either havent prepared and are kicking tires, or simply the top people have decided to go down other paths (and you are not even getting to interview them).
Got the offer I wanted Wednesday at 1am and stopped my process there. It was a really stressful process and it takes quite a bit of desperation to go through it. Don't know if PE is for me, it's not what I thought it was in college but just grateful I have something lined up. It's a mess but if you are prepared, when it hits, on-cycle is much less of a painful process than off-cycle. You can be done within a few hours. You just have to be targeted - know exactly what you want and drop everything to get it. I just wouldn't recommend relying that on-cycle is the same time every year. Some people in my group were preparing since hitting the desk and aimed to be ready for it to kick off right after 2022 on-cycle, and some were banking that it would be in Fall. Those who were banking that on-cycle would be in Fall again just weren't prepared. Don't think it is rocket science. It is a pretty simple playbook to get an offer - know the fund / its strategy and portcos, read the news a bit, know your deals and LBO technicals - that is pretty much it. They are not looking for geniuses (those people likely aren't in banking), just people who are prepared.
Gotta go anon cuz this is an unpopular opinion - I was floored when I heard which of our analysts (EB) got which offers. Literally analysts who i've had to take over modeling from - I'm an MBA Aso2 - because they couldn't deal with any wrinkle that the template didn't address, even after 9 months experience and only being staffed on 2 deals. An example - model spits out IRR in the thousands and the analyst sends it out because they filled out the inputs.
I'm not bagging on anyone for not being a modeling wizard - these kids have less than a year experience and it's my job to make sure the work gets done, whether the analyst can do it or not. What is surprising to me is the same analyst I can't trust right now just landed a job at a household name MF.
You know what tho? Fucking good for them. If they could land this awesome job on pure chutzpah and Apollo/Bx/Carlyle want them? Fuck yea - we'll get a table at Acme to celebrate and they can call me next year when they are trying to figure out a plug.
Honestly - no. All were asian/white.
maybe they just dont care about the work product they send to you(not checking it) because well....by all accounts and purposes you seem to be a huge insecure dick (just wait till they need to call me figure out a plug!...ok guy.....)
modeling isn't that big of a deal
yikes - I mean that kid asked me for a reference (which I gave glowingly), would suck if he actually hated me but I guess you can't win 'em all. The point here was more, between me and the fence post, I didn't think he'd get through the technical portion. That last part was more, I'll buy them beers and always be there if they need help - I really try to have a good relationship with these analysts and want the best for them. They get so ground down and some don't have the support they need, so I try and jump in when I can.
This guy passed the vibe check
I couldn’t agree more. Analysts that have been literally de-staffed from my deals for incompetence got huge MF offers and I was totally shocked. I think some of these funds who did their recruiting in a single night and used Ivy League UG as a proxy for ability are in for a RUDE surprise in a year lol. (Btw not hating, I did the ivy UG thing too)
The thing that really surprised me was the 2 analysts who I think are like absolute superstars - the absolute best of the best, sharp and humble people, got totally snubbed. They didn’t have the undergrad brand names (just the GS/EVR/CVP level brand name, lol) so they got passed over. In a way I’m grateful because now I get to try and drag these two analysts wherever I go next, but still you’d think these funds would do just like a little bit more diligence on who they spend 350k on next year.
Yes I am. Get back to work.
A few takes here from someone further in my career. I thought this years ago when I was considering recruiting and my opinion is unchanged:
I don’t mean to be cynical, but I have watched my friends do this path and it doesn’t end up well. Banking -> PE -> HBS/ GSB is a well worn path, but the irony is someone with an investment bank and a private equity firm on their resume is likely the least likely to benefit from another name brand on their resume. Similarly, joining a megafund after Goldman Sachs to me begs the question of wtf are you trying to show/ demonstrate to the world. You already received elite finance/ corporate training, what more are you trying to prove? From my view I see only 2 legitimate reasons—you plan to stay a long time and start your own fund (good luck with the competition and with working 90 hours a week until you are 50) 2) you plan to gain a skill set to use somewhere else (where are you going to go?)
Not to throw a wrench in your plans guys, but if you are going to take one of these roles have a plan. To others point as well, this is why off-cycle candidates are often better. If you recruit off-cycle, you likely spent time to decide why/where you really want to go and the skill set you are aiming for.
Life has lots of choices and trade-offs, keep in mind—sometimes the best decisions are the ones that let you know you made a bad decision and doing something just because everyone else is doing it or living your life on a relative basis comparing yourself to everyone is a path to misery and unhappiness.
A lot of this is purely based on opinion or “what your friends have done”. I work at a MF and I’ve felt like my team generally cares about personal development and improving WLB. Sure, there are terrible people in the industry that don’t care at all about junior team members but you have to realize, at the end of the day, this is a people’s business. Everyone likes to say there are thousands of qualified candidates, but you guys are underestimating the difficulty of ramping new employees, loss of institutional knowledge, transition of portco deal teams, etc. From what I could tell, the senior folks at my fund, genuinely care about all of the above and are trying their best to make life sustainable. Similarly, do you really think the partners at a MF sit around a table and make the call to launch the on cycle process to screw kids over at midnight? It’s very often driven by HR or one firm that actually doesn’t care and all of the others have to follow along because there is SOME truth in getting the best candidates first. The average kid at GS / PJT / MS / EVR is going to be better than the average kid at DB / Citi / RBC. There will always be outliers and interviews are an imperfect measure of a candidate’s potential on the job, but what can you do at that stage? Having been at a number of institutions (1 man M&A shops, BB banks, MF PE), I’ve felt like the PE job had the best people. It pays off for them to train junior folks because there are often enough spots for everyone to move up whereas in LMM firms, people above you need to leave for upward mobility. Just thought I would share because the majority of posts on WSO seem to paint a very bad picture about life at a MF (I’m sure a lot are bad places), but It’s not accurate to generalize. Don’t get me wrong, we work hard and you should expect to if you get paid $350K+ straight out of banking, but I’m not spreading comps or doing random analyses that go nowhere. I think what people said about MF PE may have been true pre-COVID and during COVID, but like banks, MF PE firms have made a conscious effort to improve WLB these days. All this is to say, do you own due diligence and if you’re not smart enough to figure out if the people interviewing you seem normal or not, you’re out of luck. Interviewers personalities come out in interviews as well so it’s your job to tell the difference between complete hardos with no lives and hard working individuals that enjoy private equity investing.
I actually agree with your last point. I don’t think happiness should come from comparing yourself to others on a relative basis, but from what you genuinely enjoy doing. That being said, there are happy people coming out of the 2+2+2 path. I don’t know why you all automatically assume these people are miserable. Contrary to popular belief, I’ve heard surrounding yourself with intelligent, smart, and driven people actually does make you happier. We aren’t rocket scientists or doctors, but I’ve personally liked working at some of the top institutions because of the people. I think you actually have a higher probability of people at smaller shops that have massive chips on their shoulders trying to overcompensate and wasting the time if junior teams vs. doing it themselves (just check out the IB forum with direct sources from junior employees).
Let’s be clear, it’s not a megafund problem and even so it actually still can be immensely rewarding and or worth it much in the way a banking stint can be. It also doesn’t mean the culture will always be horrible, but there’s a pretty strong correlation to exploding 15 minute offers at 3am and a firm not treating you well. I def was overly critical just because for most people I know it hasn’t been a great experience. I made a few points, but I do think most the people I see and saw recruit did so for the wrong reasons. I also have been pretty unimpressed by ex-megafund individuals in the same way ex-HBS individuals are almost comically and consistently over-confident (don’t see the same with GSB). Also, not all firms are giving exploding 15 minute offers at 3am. Further, to say that is an HR driven decision is absurd. There’s a level of accountability and culture setting that someone can come over the top and say, “stop this shit right now”. But many firms don’t do that, some actually do.
It’s a lot like banking, there could be massive industry improvements in the way things are done, but there’s a culture that doesn’t allow for it. Ultimately many of these firms are intentionally off because the leadership wants it that way—culture starts from the top, blaming HR is true for many employees, but not the leadership.
Warning: bitchy first year vent incoming. Feel free to skip.
I’m personally done with this whole process. I used to be sold on 2+2+2, but my short banking stint has completely ruined my view on that. I thought I could handle it, but it seems like this rat race never ends. I look at all the PE partners and career bankers that I once aspired to be and realize these guys are still on that same brutal course. I grinded all throughout school and interviewing thinking greener pastures were ahead, but I’m constantly reminded how I can’t settle for more than a few months.
Got into a good college? You better learn about banking right away because you’re already behind if you don’t know within the first 3 months of your freshman year. So you learned about banking? Start prepping and networking like crazy for interviews that start >2 years out from FT. Got the summer offer? Prep for your role now so you can secure FT. Got the FT offer? Start studying for GMAT now because you won’t have that much time in banking/PE. Started FT, have 0 deal experience and you’re still learning your role? Great, push that all to the side and start recruiting 2 years out for PE. You used to be the driven one in your friend group back in high school but now you’re surrounded by peers willing to spend the one day they have off networking and studying for a job they barely know anything about. PE is basically a buzzword for half of them, but it doesn’t matter because they still make you feel like a failure if you aren’t prepping now.
I gave up on that last step. Why? Because it just doesn’t end. The rat race keeps going. Once I get the PE offer, I’ll need to network and prep my ass off to get into a top 3 business school. And then 3 months into business school, I’ll have to immediately prep for summer internships. Then I’ll have to try to get FT from that internship. Now I’m 30, have a nearly empty bank account, still work a shit load, and might finally stay in one place for more than 2 years. Worst part is, none of the above is guaranteed and it can all go to shit with one misstep. Congrats to all of you who can keep going down this path. I envy you and your never-ending stamina. But for me personally, fuck this rat race and this ridiculous on-cycle recruiting process.
Gotta agree with the user above in that on-cycle really isn't too bad if you've prepared. Of course, it's absolutely chaotic and I completely agree that the inherent nature of this process is pretty insane. Lots of luck involved too. More detail is below, but really the only part that is truly difficult is the fact that there is SO much more to prepare for than banking interviews. An almost overwhelming amount. But I've found that every single one of my colleagues that actually put in a lot of time to prepare for the process ended up with an offer, even if it took a few tries / interviews. You'll get to interview at a lot of different funds during on-cycle, so it really just comes down to your ability to get the job done. On the actual interviews...