rejected - what does this feedback mean?
received some interview feedback but don't know whether it's true (or just an excuse) and where/how exactly I could improve going forward - would appreciate some insights from someone with insider experience.
context: Got to the case round after one VP round, case involved 1) writing an investment memo based on a CIM, and 2) live discussion about the case with a VP (scheduled a few days later, after they've reviewed the written response), and got rejected because my case part was "not as they had hoped in the highly competitive candidate pool". In the 45min live discussion round, we spent 20min going over standard behavioral questions/deal experience questions, and 20min on the case.
my question: based on the live discussin, seems like I made the right conclusion and hit all the major points - I asked the interviewer how he would think about this investment opportunity, and he said "pretty much the same as what you said" and then proceeded to reiterate some of the points I had made. Also since they've reviewed the written report and decided to let me do the live discussion round, it must mean that at least my written report was satisfactory?
So, is the feedback (case unsatisfactory) mainly because my live discussion/summary of the case was less-than-impressive, or the real reason could have been something else (background, didn't really hit it off, was ok but unmemorable, too risky compared to a traditional banking analyst, etc.) and unsatisfactory case was just an excuse, etc.? I do come from a consulting background and think that by itself is a disadvantage in this bad market when advancing to final rounds, but this firm did also hire a consultant from my firm last year...
Asking because I want to pinpoint whether/what exact areas of my case need improvement, so I can prepare better for future interviews - happy to share my written report with anyone willing to spend a few minuts to help take a look. When you're reviewing candidates' case studies, what do you look for/how do you evaluate/what separates good from great?
TL;DR
rejected and was given feedback "case was unsatisfactory" - want to figure out whether that was the real reason, and if so where/how I could improve. When you're reviewing candidates' case studies, what do you look for/how do you evaluate/what separates good from great?
I wouldn't read too much into this. They never want to give real feedback because it's a legal liability. It could be anything - especially if the interview was mostly standard interview questions. Cases are much more of a check the box, if you did a good job and had good discussion there's not a ton more to be done there.
It’s impossible to say from the outside. It could have been that they were only lukewarm on you as a candidate after round 1 but decided to see if you could wow them during the case. It could also have been that you didn’t go into enough depth during the case. It’s one thing to list off common investment considerations that you can see on any guide (customer concentration, cyclicality, etc.), but it’s another thing to speak fluently about those topics in the manner in which investment professionals at a fund would.
I wouldn’t read too much into it. You don’t want to overcorrect based on a guess. If you receive the same feedback after your next process, then you’ll know that your case approach needs adjusted. Remember, there is a lot of randomness in these processes so keep your head up.
thanks! could you give some examples of "speaking fluently about those topics in the manner in which investment professionals at a fund would"? for example, let's say if one of the biggest drawbacks of an investment target is the high customer concentration, or maybe it's the slow growth, how would you talk about these in a way that shows enough depth, based on information available on a standard CIM?
Recusandae impedit rerum dolore autem iusto doloribus et. Consequatur rerum velit laborum quia corrupti enim deleniti. Aut fugiat ducimus quibusdam possimus quisquam est.
Voluptate voluptatem consectetur assumenda vitae recusandae debitis. Quo a dicta saepe sed dolor pariatur. Corporis sed mollitia dolore cumque quidem soluta autem. Quasi asperiores ratione voluptate et omnis cupiditate maxime. Voluptas ea natus ab reprehenderit est nisi.
Quibusdam eos repudiandae error doloremque odit quo non. Officiis vel aliquam doloremque dolorem vel dolorem. Sequi fuga ut ipsa aut nesciunt accusantium ipsum.
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...