Lateral Recruiting in CRE Finance
Hello all,
Have a question/dilemma via a old-coworker/good friend (who isn't on WSO) that wanted input on a situation that he/she is in:
This person has been working at a bank in their real estate finance group for the past ~5 years. However, this is via Situs (consulting / headcount firm) - reason being that this lender in particular normally folks (excluding first year analysts/former summer analysts) 'externally' - meaning via a headcount firm like Situs.
I wasn't aware of this practice or how it really benefits the shop but from what I am told, it is fairly common at some of the banks (and non-banks) and is used to reduce the actual 'headcount' number for accounting purposes (and hence any 'costs' associated with having higher headcount).
Now having a decent amount of real estate finance experience (lending/origination/underwriting) this person now wants to see what else is out there in 2019, basically noting that this 'external' set-up is limiting his/her upward mobility/growth vs. folks who are 'full-time' employees and there is a policy restricting conversion of 'external' folks to full-time.
Basically had 2 questions/concerns regarding interviewing:
1) The person is worried that, despite having good deal experience, potential employers will consider him/her an 'inferior' candidate compared to folks who are 'full-time employees'. Have folks heard/experienced this before? What in your opinion is the best way for my friend to show that he/she is at the same level, if not better, than a number folks at the lender (a lot of his/her experience is around fairly well-known transactions - think Hudson Yards type financings) and that the 'external' label is just a 'bank hiring technicality' that doesn't really mean anything?
2) The lender itself is a big name in the space, and while interviewing with other lenders with a smaller presence/'less prestige', what would be the 'right' way to respond to the question 'Why leave lender X when it is a top player'. I say 'right way' because I'd imagine that telling a potential employer that you want to leave because of 'no growth opportunities' is likely a red flag? Or would you think that this would be overthinking things, or is there a better way to phrase this?
Thanks guys, looking forward to your responses.
Classification as an employee shouldn’t matter. Put the name of the bank on the resume and if anyone presses the matter, they can explain further how the bank employee structure works. As long they got exposure to good deals and had meaningful responsibilities, it shouldn’t make a difference.
Explaining why you want to leave should be easy. A lot of large “prestigious” banks have rigid corporate structures, large amounts regulatory BS that they have to deal with, and often times very specific and/or low risk appetites. They could easily say they’d like to move to a bank where they have more freedom and flexibility in deal structuring, more room to grow, and less corporate/regulatory BS to deal with. My first job was at a community bank who had many big bank veterans, who left for the exact reasons outlined above.
Nobis autem vel quia doloremque et. Ut ut nostrum omnis. Voluptas earum reiciendis rem est accusamus quia nemo.
Eum ut ipsam qui aut vel laborum et sunt. Consequuntur eos unde consequuntur vero et. Voluptates praesentium provident asperiores saepe et. Dolor id voluptatem aut omnis. Ut dolore et ut et reprehenderit. Dolor sint aut et impedit.
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...