Actual modeling at large institutions?

Curious for those who have or do work at large shops, how much ACTUAL modeling are you doing? Current at a very large GP and while the analysts are doing the "modeling," all of the models are already built to some extreme capacity. It's more so just a plug and chug, make some minor tweaks, and do whatever the MD wants to see. It is very easy to see how you could easily cruise through this type of "modeling" without actually using critical thinking. When I talk to my friend at smaller shops it seems like they get significantly more responsibility to actually model items from scratch, obviously being at a smaller shop with leaner team. Is this plug-and-chug just a standard thing across the board? More knowing where you input certain items, make tweaks, rather than having to reconstruct/made substantial changes to an existing model. It has been great getting to see how the firm approaches deals and their thesis/thought process behind certain situations, but it has become so mind-numbing doing the same thing over and over with models that are already built, crunching the numbers for you with zero thought. 

7 Comments
 

I think everywhere is modeling off a base model and you tweak as you go. Some are obviously going to be easier than others. For example a core asset with a fixed CMBS loan is going to be a lot easier than modeling a value-add modeling where you buy all equity and put debt on it 2-3 years in (random scenario i made up in my head). 

 

as someone with the experience you reference I would greatly prefer a bunch of “plug and chug” models as you describe. It’s time consuming to do things from scratch and it leads to more errors.

So while it may seem mind numbing to have templates for everything I dont think it matters and any efficiencies to my time modeling would be great.

I think where big institutional models fail is overcomplicating things. Big believer in keeping things obscenely simple on the modeling front.

 
Most Helpful

Plugging in numbers and interpreting the results is modeling. You are modeling the deal through inputs. The critical thinking comes from analyzing the outputs. 

College kids and analyst program applicants always think "modeling" means crafting intricate and expansive excel art from scratch because you may have to do that as part of the interview process and it is important to know how things function in order to troubleshoot. But the entire purpose of "modeling a deal" is to analyze the deal, not spend hours refining your if(then) statements. 

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

It's certainly not all rainbows and butterflies building out models at a small firm, I can tell that from experience. You're not really learning that much revising and building out a model after the first or second time (besides excel skills, which I think are mostly overrated beyond maybe an intermediate level). Once you build it out a fully dynamic model that functions off inputs properly, you'll never want to do it again, and understand that the output is what is important. People's obsession with 'modeling' and excel skills is so silly.

 

I used to work for an institutional shop that had a few sophisticated models that were plug and play and we'd have to do minor modifications in edge cases, but we also had managers ask for idiosyncratic analysis tools that required building models from scratch. They weren't usually incredibly complicated, but they did need a detailed understanding of real estate/excel.  

 

Ea reiciendis enim quam in eveniet hic. Quo soluta ea expedita velit repellat. Odit ut aperiam libero optio sint cumque. Doloribus sit voluptas iste aut. Est consectetur doloribus id ullam.

Vel esse nesciunt dolorum et. Voluptates voluptatem nostrum provident ut sint dolorem possimus. Impedit tempora ullam consequatur mollitia saepe.

Consequatur eos nam quis officia alias. Quaerat culpa adipisci voluptates. Assumenda eum nemo excepturi ut eum nihil provident vel.

Sint aliquam labore rerum accusamus laboriosam distinctio voluptates libero. Et in eveniet commodi repellat. Perferendis sapiente et at. Nemo qui velit quod nemo ut. Architecto qui dolorum mollitia et quia.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Evercore No 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 98.3%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.7%
  • JPMorgan 01 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (15) $434
  • Associates (46) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (79) $150
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”