Everyone is looking for a job. Nobody can find the right employee. What is going on?
I personally know 3 firms including my own that cannot find “quality” applicants for open positions.
I also have seen some postings sitting open for months, taken down, reposted in other markets, etc.
Yet, when you hear about a tight job market and see job postings with 100+ applicants, you would think its pretty stiff competition.
It seems like every employer is holding out for the perfect candidate that requires 0 training.
Why are employers preferring empty chairs over competent, trainable employees? Also, why can’t they find really strong or perfect candidates when so few places are hiring, and lots are applying?
Is anyone else seeing this? What is the deal?
Based on the most helpful WSO content, the current hiring challenges stem from a mix of employer expectations, market dynamics, and candidate behavior. Here's a breakdown of the situation:
Unrealistic Employer Expectations: Many employers are holding out for "perfect" candidates who require no training and can hit the ground running. This mindset has led to job postings remaining unfilled for extended periods. Instead of focusing on trainable, competent individuals with potential, companies are prioritizing candidates who already check every box, which is increasingly rare.
Oversupply of Polished Resumes: The job market is flooded with highly polished resumes, especially in competitive fields like finance. However, this doesn't necessarily translate to quality. Many candidates have learned the "bare minimum" to sound competent in interviews, but the depth of their skills may not meet employer expectations. This mismatch creates frustration on both sides.
Hiring Process Issues: The hiring process itself is often flawed. For example:
Labor Market Shifts: The labor market is showing signs of cooling, with increasing unemployment and declining consumer sentiment. Employers, fearing economic uncertainty, are scaling back on hiring and becoming more selective. This cautious approach exacerbates the issue of unfilled positions.
Candidate Behavior: On the flip side, candidates who fail to follow up, personalize their applications, or demonstrate genuine interest in roles may be overlooked. Employers often interpret a lack of engagement as a lack of enthusiasm or commitment.
In summary, the disconnect arises from employers' reluctance to invest in training and their pursuit of "perfect" candidates, combined with a hiring process that doesn't always prioritize the right qualities. To address this, companies need to rethink their hiring strategies, focusing on potential and adaptability rather than perfection.
Sources: End to a Rough Quarter | The Daily Peel | 6/30/22, Why are banks hiring less qualified candidates?, Why are banks hiring less qualified candidates?, My Issues with Diversity Recruiting in Finance
I think part of that issue is comp. The people who are equipped want more than what these employers are paying, especially in high-growth cities that have a big gap. It also seems like companies want a shoe-fit hire for a role that's a few years out of school ++, and would rather wait on that than deal with training. I think it's stupid, but seems like that is what it is.
This is true. Its comp that no longer makes sense in high COL markets. My firm made the shift to permanent WFH. We pay 20% less than in person counterparts in NYC and we have a line of qualified candidates for any open position. The WFH and work life balance is a huge perk. Prior to that we couldnt keep employees even if we paid them more. It made sense for us to go WFH because theres no need to be in a physical office as we have to always travel to see properties especially for the AM side.
at least for the mid level roles, employers want the lateral hire from a firm they respect but want to offer "market." most people aren't going to leave their role for a similar role for essentially the same pay. it is really dumb but is the current state of the job market.
Outside of just actual laziness and not wanting to train someone, this is more prevalent than a lot of people like to admit, some of it is lying to themselves/other to pretend the company is growing. The whole if you're not growing you're dying mantra you hear. And the mythical studs they're looking for see through the charade.
I’m an IB analyst with 2 YOE who just spent six months looking to find a job. Had 50+ interviews before I landed something and kept tabs on the processes I was the most involved in.
Out of my processes, there were multiple cases where I did final round interview and they just decided to hire nobody (job openings are still up months later). There were some cases where you could tell the company didn’t really want to hire anybody and they were just testing the waters to see if they could get someone good with a lowball salary.
In other cases, they got people with 3-4 YOE at the salary of someone with 2 YOE.
Employers want employees who are desperate and will settle for a salary amount below their worth. But if you’re actually the unicorn candidate they want, you wont accept.
Yep, I’ve also been through two interview processes where they decided to hire nobody.
Maybe this is my ego in the way, but I thought they went really well and I was a good candidate.
Its hard not to take personally tbh. Very frustrating to think they’d rather have an empty seat than have me
You’re right to feel that way. Especially since, at certain jobs, interviewing at other firms is sort of an act of treason. If you have to be in office 5 days a week and you’re on a lean team, a lot of times your manager can get a sense if you are interviewing at other shops (e.g taking private calls, taking PTO on a Tuesday/Wednesday, taking extended lunch break, etc.)
Completely agree and I have had the same experience. Multiple processes where I make it to late stages and past studies only for the fund to not hire anybody.
Feels 100x worse since you invest all this time and effort into the process, only for them not to make any decision at all.
Maybe goes to a bigger gripe of mine but nobody really wants to train people nowadays…
My view is there's roughly two camps of employees - those who've been getting reps the past 4 years and those who have not. The former group is getting experience and probably compensated and will just 'test the waters' but probably stick with devil they know over devil they don't. The latter group isn't getting experience or comp and is actually eager to interview/move. Problem is the few employers truly looking to hire only want employees with reps (and, people, please don't conflate YOE with reps).
I think it's this knock-on-effect of the downcycle.
My prediction: whenever this cycle turns (hopefully pre-2030), guys with reps will get PAID.
I think you're pretty spot on here. I've been half looking for two years, and haven't left because of the same reasons you've said.
so what do you do if you are in the latter group
Gym reps
THIS! Its all comp based. I have seen some folks take jobs, bigger titles than I think their resume justified, but they are not making as much as you'd think. Others as you said are much more experienced and are testing waters but the comp isn't there. Most of these folks still have some long term incentive tied up and there is still a ton of risk in this current climate going to a new shop where development climate is still very very tough. You start at 0 again. ALSO - lots of succession planning going on, and folks (myself included) are hanging on a bit to see these 65-70 year old's disappear to see what opens up. I know a reit out there can't hire an SVP paying $800k target comp (can swing to over $1MM easily in good years). Don't forget, making another $100k when you are making $500k plus is not that obvious of a decision. That's $50-60k after taxes to start at 0 again with no credibility at the new place.
just seems like if you aren’t doing the exact same thing at your current job you won’t get hired
Agreed. These tactics are a good way for someone to unwillingly get pigeon holed into whatever their current function is.
Agreed. I don’t really understand it. At some point it makes more sense to fill the seat and ramp up a candidate who can absorb some work immediately, than keep the seat empty
see the post in the other thread by an analyst blaming his manager for not spotting his modeling errors and you have one lens of the answer. do not equate quantity of applicants with quality. most of those applicants are completely unqualified and/or have a dogshit attitude/entitlement air about them. That does not work in this job market, know the state of the game and play accordingly and right now its an employers market by a mile. Times will get better but right now it is what it is unfortunately.
Well I can understand that.
But if positions are so hard to come by, why are there no quality applicants?
The alternative is that there are quality applicants and people are refusing to hire anything short of perfect
One has to be true, and neither makes sense to me
All these things can be true:
Anyone twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to logic their way into some spin about it being a good job market is on copious amount of copium.
Why would employers consider one who presents very strongly in terms of technical aptitude, attitude, experience and has credible hunger to do more unworthy of consideration, just because transaction volume has been lower only recently which is the case for a majority? Seems very limiting and short sighted.
It's a CYA exercise for the hiring person. If anything goes wrong, some other higher up can say 'yeah, hiring person hired guy who hasn't done a deal in 3 years and it's all gone to shit since' and everyone will be like 'oh yeah this is definitely hiring guy's fault. no deal experience in past three years, what was he thinking?' ... even if new employee's lack of experience had nothing to do with things going wrong, it just puts target on everyone's back.
If you're on the sidelines for a few years, it's a black mark and stigmatizing and wreaks of damaged goods. No it's not fair or rational, but the world is not a fair or rational place.
I'm on team where we're adding 1-2 new junior guys, whom I didn't interview/vet. You better believe I am building a dossier on their capabilities and setting them up to fail with some assignments, so I can clean my hands of anything that doesn't go well and to make myself look better by comparison when it's time for reviews. Yeah it's ruthless petty and cut throat but that's life. I don't want to end up on sidelines for a few years so I'm going to defend my own position and that means putting new guys through their paces. Which brings me back to original point - in this market, you got to hire someone who checks every single box or you're making yourself vulnerable.
I broke ground on a deal in January. I have years of experience in real estate development. I have led several successful projects from dirt to disposition over the past several years. I am networking hard and applying to every open position I see nationally. Still, traction is hard to come by. Even getting a first interview has been tough. I made it to the last round one time over the last year.
I have formally applied for 100-150 positions and informally shopped myself around to at least one new person a week while networking. Crazy time to be seeking a change in employment. It almost feels pointless but I can't imagine not applying myself and persevering.
It’s tough out there. Pricing, interest rates, municipalities tightening up on entitlements, etc. the only bright side seems to be that construction costs are stable…because the other factors.
Construction costs better be stable. Honestly no deal is penciling anymore. Nearly every deal is negative leverage and even if we own the land outright it still doesnt make sense to build. Anyone develop must really love pain or doesnt care about money.
It seems like people are a little confused and/or are speculating.
The job market has improved slightly (there are a lot of great roles at mega funds and the like open right now). That being said, employers are continuing to be a little delusional as to who they can attract. Everyone has been holding out for someone from BX (or BREDS for real estate debt roles) who will magically be okay with working at a worse firm with lower pay.
That’s how you end up in the current situation. If ALL of the job seekers are viewed as low quality, then it’s the employers’ expectations that are unreasonable. Think ugly fat chicks demanding 6’3 dudes with six packs making seven figs a year.
I agree with you for the most part but open roles mean nothing. They only mean something until someone is actually hired and working the job.
Like others have said, companies are only hiring to try and catch someone "good" for a low price. Collect resumes, do interviews but hold on the offer because they don't have the budget to actually hire. Deal flow is far and few in between, so i doubt many shops are having solid fee revenue to grow their teams. Anyone getting an offer and making it to the start date just went to replace someone who previously held the role and is needed.
We're hiring for analysts and associates for acquisitions right now. Our teams are stretched way too thin, so the bar for an associate hire is pretty high. On top of being a strong modeler, they also need to have had reps in underwriting, DD-ing, and closing deals. Tall order in a down market, when deal flow is basically a trickle. We've seen candidates from asset management, research, and/or development that would otherwise make good associates with some initial hand-holding. But we just don't have time for them right now. We can handle training an analyst, but if we also have to train an associate at the same time, we'd get nothing done.
I encourage you and your team to take a leap of faith. Real estate is really not that complicated and a lot of this stuff can be figured out pretty easily (coming from a group that hires out of IB, you really can take a smart grinder and make a star out of them). Don’t forget that you don’t necessarily have to hold their hands - they can learn from other analysts and associates as well.
The one qualm I have is there are firms stacked with people with subpar backgrounds but now suddenly believe that they deserve someone from BX who went to Wharton. You just need SOME movement and the job market can stabilize. Deal flow is picking up even if it’s slowly.
We took a few leaps of faith and backfired. 1 of 3 turned out great and the other 2 just couldn't get up to speed. That can be somewhat detrimental to a small or mid sized company. I wouldn't consider taking someone out of an IB program as taking a leap of faith though. We actually consider that our 2nd favorite type of candidate behind someone that is coming out of a high volume brokerage analyst role or a direct competitor with deal reps. I'm referring to someone that came from a more middle market shop or even a bigger one but that clearly hasn't gotten reps yet and taking shot on them based off having limited building blocks but the right attitude. Attitude is very easy to take during interviews.
I agree that real estate is not rocket science. I come from a non traditional background myself, and I’d love nothing more than to pay it forward.
But in my particular context, my team is already beyond stretched thin, bordering on burnout. I can’t (and won’t) make them take a flier on someone right now. When the team’s in a better place and market conditions improve, I will feel more comfortable taking a chance on someone.
"I personally know 3 firms including my own that cannot find “quality” applicants for open positions."
Those firms, including your own, are full of shit. They either don't know how to scan applicants, don't know what to look for in interviews, and/or are trying to undercut the market and get an A player for the cost of a C player.
"Everyone is looking for a job. Nobody can find the right employee. What is going on?"
The short answer: a lot of people are lying.
It’s a lying thing. We recently hired two people and they’re both literal fucking morons. People are getting too good at interviewing and/or ballsy.
For what type of firm and position/experience level? What types of questions are you asking in the interview process? The bar has been raised on general soft skills perhaps, but you should be able to prod with more technical questions where the way they answer, even if there is some logic to it, could be able to reveal some truth.
Equalizer is asking them to run through their deal sheet. If they are lying, it is easy to tell and easy to get caught.
If your firm is asking softball technicals and the like, then yeah, you will get subpar candidates who fleeced your hiring process.
To be fair, as someone hiring, it was rough. We had a couple of back-of-house closing roles open, and got some of the most ridiculous applicants that didn't fit at all.
But yes most roles I've applied to and interviewed at, they already had a internal hire or a person on their radar, so just going through the process. Been at it about 2.5 months now and its hard interviewing. I get the auto rejections and a couple months later the role is reposted. I'm like I check even 3/4 the preferred qualifications, but can tell the resume wasn't even reviewed. No way with 100+ applicants they reviewed my application in 2 business days to determine yay or nay.
Best had a role I applied to, got a auto rejection but have a contacct at the company and their boss had my resume and wanted to interview me, but was away from the office overseas for business and HR rejected my application and the CIO was like WTF guys.
I just went through a process with a prominent developer in Denver. Turned down the offer after negotiating pay due to the contract. It’s more critical than ever to pay attention to contracts. Once the group showed me their hands, I dug in a little more and best path forward was to walk away! Some scum bag billionaires sponsors out and about looking to take advantage to talent.
It's brutal out there. Managed to secure an offer letter last week from a mid size REPE in a bigger market, but it was a nothingburger. I applied through a job board posting because they bought some really great assets at a good basis recently, and I didn't have any prior connections into the firm. Their comp offer was almost exactly 50% of "market comp", which I confirmed through friends and a REPE HH active in the market. I countered them aggressively at 25% higher than their offer (still at a discount to market), and their response over the phone was - and i quote - "your compensation expectations are a gating issue for management" and "we were hoping we could pick you up for a discount." They went dark since and effectively rescinded the offer letter.
The craziest part.. The hiring manager recommended two neighborhoods for me to tour for SFR after my onsite interview to evaluate as part of my relocation. Those neighborhoods' asking rents were nearly 60% of what my net take home pay would have been from the offer. There wasn't a single opportunity to spend less than 50% in any of the SFR listings in those neighborhoods. There is zero shot I would ever feel comfortable to spend 50% on housing alone.
Learned my lesson to talk numbers up front in the process.
What a joke. Probably dodged a bullet.
2. Companies don't want to train new hires.
Simple as.
Private equity / lp side of industry:
A lot of junior employees don’t have good experience given the market the last few years. It’s actually shocking interviewing young folks from name brand firms. Some don’t know how a real estate deal works.
On the mid-level / senior side no one wants to pay good talent what they want/need/deserve to make a move. Even successful firms are extremely parsimonious with economics (little/no carry). Cost of living is insane. Inflation 30% plus since before covid, yet people trying to pay flat / down.
Go to a new gig and partners expect you to work all hours grinding on legacy problems, then get mad at you as if you made the investments. Oh and by the way you just got told that deal that you were never a part of is going to impact your comp.
Partners are very greedy these days and struggle to realize that as tech has equalized pay with finance that capable people will self select out of the industry, etc. (not necessarily going to tech, though certainly at jr. levels, but only losers do this job for base + bonus at the upper levels. And honestly the lump sum bonus is super dumb when folks in other industries make the same comp but paid monthly! Talent wants a path to actually getting paid one day. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of mediocre folks at the top of these PE funds punting on deals).
Ultimately, industry will shrink and comp will change since people in the seats, not the name on the door that was last relevant 10 years ago, drive returns. Real estate also has an incredible amount of truly mediocre people who don’t realize how mediocre they are (sometimes the job feels like adult day care for children from real estate families who were too dumb to do something else).
/ rant
Amen brother. Spot on.
It's all levels. I know a guy who got promoted to Managing Director of a name brand firm without ever seeing a deal through from inception to disposition. He spent two years as an associate one place, two years as a VP at another, and then became a MD.
Good on him for winning the corporate game, but what the hell is he going to be teaching an analyst about the intricacies of deals?
Agreed on all points. There was an epically long real estate bull run and this is the hangover and it's the right-sizing process in action. Employers are pushing their advantage and being stingy because they have to. We have to remember that our compensation is closely tied to the performance of the underlying asset and while we've gotten accustomed to these new interest rates, they absolutely kill real estate economics. Some young guys have never seen a cycle, and can't cope and it shows in these pages.
Important lesson: make hay while the sun is shining. And chop wood and carry water.
Agree with you. Only thing I would say is that boomer aged partners who don’t contribute anything to P&L need to realize that they cannot eat the entirety of the carry pool. It’s not just a bull market thing, lots of old hats are incredibly greedy and probably don’t realize that even in a bull market nominal economics aren’t worth killing yourself for.
At end of day this is just professionalization of the industry but some employers need to decide if the product they sell LPs is a team of well credentialed paper pushes or a team that generates P&L.
I have a lot I want to say but you all just got suck it up and keep going! Quit your b$tching. This is coming from somebody that looked for almost 2 years before I secured a new role in December 2025. Stay positive you all. We have awhile before real estate resembles the good ole days. No reason to overthink it. It just is what it is.
How did you support yourself for 2 years?
I had a job over that two year period. The job that I had was adjacent to the role I really wanted. It just really took some time to get into a role. That was a good fit. Welcome to working in real estate post Covid…
I am struggling to understand the copious amounts of roles that are certainly sought after, but are constantly posted over and over. The Brookfield Capital Markets Analyst/Associate, PGIM Investment Associate, and Macquarie Junior RE Associate postings are great examples.
How tf have they not filled those roles yet? They are up every fucking week.
Rem vero modi unde corrupti minima est. Iusto voluptatem quibusdam cumque. Ab nemo quibusdam adipisci suscipit. Consequatur blanditiis blanditiis nisi quidem. Enim iste asperiores laborum repudiandae.
Temporibus incidunt soluta non quos est. Aspernatur placeat dolorem mollitia et veritatis voluptate. Accusantium eligendi delectus saepe aut quo.
Illum corporis ipsum ut maiores sit. Hic nobis ex natus quo vel. Id alias enim nisi voluptatibus soluta distinctio.
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...
Velit minima nostrum esse corporis. Aut distinctio et beatae minima. Qui cumque atque consequatur sunt est qui at. Aspernatur qui ad et quia dolores rerum sint.
Dignissimos suscipit voluptates enim quisquam beatae sapiente assumenda. Quis ea ut rem enim ipsum saepe et. In neque et accusamus quo vel est. Iure rerum est consectetur possimus consequatur saepe magnam. Perspiciatis voluptates et accusantium officia ut suscipit atque. Nulla illum aut tempore harum aspernatur.
A voluptates autem cumque explicabo corrupti vero. Aut et consequatur aspernatur iste autem et. Magnam vel ut et cupiditate.
Et culpa iure et dolorem sed eum. Veritatis quisquam et architecto minus sunt eligendi id quam.
Doloremque autem culpa inventore consequatur et eaque voluptatem. Rerum et sed sint aperiam. Veniam aliquid qui esse aspernatur. Aut tempore nihil ratione earum ab aliquid tenetur quia.