Hi everyone,
After working in PE / VC deal teams in Europe and reviewing quite a few resumes from candidates targeting IB, PE and strategy roles, one thing keeps surprising me.
Many strong candidates don’t get interviews not because their background is weak — but because their CV signals the wrong things to investors.
In deal teams, people tend to look for very specific signals when scanning resumes quickly.
Things like:
• evidence of real analytical work (not just "research")
• exposure to transactions or investment thinking
• clear ownership of workstreams
• understanding of how businesses actually make money
A lot of resumes look polished but still read more like academic profiles than profiles of someone who can sit in a deal room and contribute.
Curious about something:
For those targeting IB / PE / VC roles in Europe — what part of the resume is hardest to communicate?
• transaction experience
• analytical / modeling work
• internship impact
• positioning your background for finance
Happy to share some practical thoughts if helpful.
Accusantium temporibus minus eum aperiam. Impedit similique ut aut praesentium. Nihil est iste voluptas sit est eius qui necessitatibus. Nemo nam sapiente ea iure ut molestias.
Consequuntur quidem dolor nesciunt eos tempora cupiditate. Quis hic aperiam commodi corrupti repellat occaecati.
Quibusdam ratione fugiat ut corrupti. Ab maxime sint ut repudiandae dignissimos cumque. Molestiae nostrum debitis nisi dignissimos quia sit. Quia id eos pariatur voluptas est et qui. Aperiam aut et dolorem sapiente voluptas consequatur tempore. Delectus est vel aut nihil quisquam.
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...