As some context, I have a non-traditional background (M&A then traditional long/short) but ended up in a prop trading role at a name brand quant firm (think like Citadel, Optiver, etc) albeit in a weird capacity (not like a typical quant or trader, but a sort of semi-systematic strategy that's fairly unique).
I'm interviewing at a bunch of other firms and I've noticed most of my interviews are all about what I did in my previous role. Of course these are normal questions in most interviews, but what's weird is the proportion of the interview taken up by this topic. Like in normal interviews, there's a lot of classic behavioral questions like "whats your greatest weakness" or "where do you see yourself in 5 years" etc. Or perhaps even technical questions like "hey do this probability problem." But I would say 80% of the questions are literally just about what I did day to day in past roles.
What I don't understand is the subtext or underlying motivations behind these questions, particularly given that they take such a substantial share of interview time.
Is the intention just to see how much I fit in with their style of trading? If that's their motivation, how do I assure them that I can adapt? (since after all what I did was fairly unique?)
Is this some kind of weird test to see how much info they can get out of me?
Are they hoping I just mention skills that they are looking for? (If so, why do they need this much detail?)
How do other people answer these types of questions in a proper way?
Will provide my thoughts. This is basically the process we use.
1) Evaluate resume, I assume you have a very strong resume. If we choose to an interview in our minds the person can already do the job.
2) Initial call with direct PM/head-of-desk essentially the direct boss. Spend first 10mins, talking about firm/role (aka selling candidate). Then directly ask “what did you do last and what you want to do now.” Want to make sure your story lines up with results from resume and ultimately if we can offer what you seek. Sometimes the strategy does not fit, culture, style so no point to talk further. Then the final 10-15 mins we sell you again on how everything you did/want can fit.
3) Move candidacy to others in the firm, either possible coworkers same thing, risk team, senoir management. Now we just want everyone to try to poke holes in your story or see if you really fit the firm culture.
4) Fly-in/in-person, focus now is hardcore technicals and we no longer even talk about the past focus is fully on the future and the strategy/resoruces.
So yah its a very different process to other jobs we could careless about your weaknesses, the resume says all we need. Yah I care where you going in 5 years but I more care if I can give you everything you need next year first.
Also amount of times I have interviewed someone who had an interesting resume to learn they cannot build the models they use from ground-up…
This is super helpful color. Thank you so much!
To make sure I understand, essentially the subtext / "underlying question behind the question" for all these "What did you do before" questions is stuff like the following:
1) "Will this person actually want to do something similar to what we do? Can we make something work with this person?"
2) "Did the person actually do something that can fit in with what we do?"
3) "Did the person mostly do things that were dependent on resources we don't have?"
If I understand this correctly, my impression is that I should probably also answer these implicit questions in my answers. So perhaps good answers to these questions emphasize how I can adapt to their style, make use without resources the new firm doesn't have, and am looking to grow in ways more similar to the firm? Usually, my finding has been that these implicit questions are often not directly asked. Do a lot of good candidates kind of proactively answer them even when not directly asked? I am sort of aspie so honestly I miss a lot of these social cues unless I think about them logically lol.
Yup, you got it pretty much. Asking these questions directly is tough at times cause realistically the candidate is also talking to various shops and till we see what they are about could confuse them, mislead or just be too aggressive.
Truly, it all depends some people are super niche, some people need more capital, some people want to trust management more, some people see lack of transparency so on. So would not say so much as to adapt or force answers just be prepared that you are essentially verbalizing a business plan.
Things to consider about the strategy you want to implement or join.
-resources, what resources you used previously and how to get access to those resources again. Or possibly lack of resources held you back.
-liquidity/scalability/capital, maybe you prefer more liquid products or possibly not why/why-not.
-transparency, be it around costs, sharing models/resources, central execution.
If you say you need a logical process (critical thinking) then take time and write down how you want/deal with all the above. Then when you are speaking to this question will feel more natural possibly.
This makes a lot of sense, thank you so much!
Aut ab veritatis est ut id ratione quidem. Et quae vel doloribus et voluptates quibusdam. Doloremque sequi dolorem asperiores est vitae non magnam. Rerum in tempora maiores accusantium qui.
Eligendi voluptatem minus ab quas. Sequi cupiditate molestiae ex et et mollitia magni. In qui sapiente nostrum temporibus veniam.
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...