Wise idea to position oneself for only one industry group? (NatRes/FIG/RE)

No. If you're about to enter college, then you're most likely =

My internships in college was with a healthcare company, then with a pharmaceutical company, and then finally healthcare IB. I have stayed in the healthcare space ever since. Has it been helpful for me in terms of getting jobs? Definitely. Has it pigeonholed me? Perhaps - Although I never tried leaving the healthcare space.

Instead of jumping straight into finance, why not do an internship at natural resources company and what you think. Plus, you gain a lot of valuable experience on the more operational side of things.

I would instead try to focus on maximizing your options and maximizing the number of things you can be good at- hopefully one of those things will be something you enjoy or at least don't hate.

Industries go in a boom/bust cycle and if you're already positioning yourself for IBD, you are getting very specific and really putting yourself at the mercy of the market.

@CodeBlue, IlliniProgrammer, I understand what you guys mean - there is no way I can entirely know for sure which industry I am interested in beforehand but I'm really just wondering about a "what-if" scenario, to see if specializing oneself directly for one group is beneficial/worse in terms of recruiting.

Basically if you were an interviewer, and you came across an applicant's resume that just screams NatRes (or any niche group such as FIG/RE for that matter) and has a story focusing around that particular industry, will he/she stand out more than another applicant who is more "well-rounded" and just looking for M&A (or any IBD group) in general? I'm asking this especially if the applicant is coming from a semi/non-target school..

I would say that it probably is best to build a broader skill set at this point unless you are absolutely sure that the industry you would be specializing in is your passion/something you would want to do full-time and long-term. I might be wrong, but as an undergrad, I doubt you are sure about this - most people 2-3 years into their career aren't.

To give you some perspective from my own experience, when I was in undergrad, I spent three summers (freshman, sophomore and junior year) in the same department for my internship. I thought it would benefit me for full-time recruiting since each summer I was able to get a lot more responsibility compared to someone who went to different roles each summer, but it actually made it much more difficult. A common question asked during full-time recruiting was why I staid in the same department for three summers. This was something that I had to spend time formulating a good answer to, especially since the department I interned in was not something I wanted to do full-time. As a disclaimer, the internship was also in a back-office role, so this contributed to making things more difficult. That said, I was able to get a great position as a full-time analyst in another department, so not terrible if you make one decision vs another, but I think the process was much more onerous compared to some of my fellow classmates (another disclaimer, I went to a high target school, so this probably helped).

i mean, it's dumb to limit yourself this early. however, if you know what you want, you know what you want.

i'm always upfront that i'm a TMT guy, because i'd rather go back to my old bank than be doing something like RE at GS.

The idea of industry expertise before even starting your full-time career is silly.

The negative resistance is strong with this one. But we will break it.

Dude if you had wanted Energy, you would have studied engineering and spent two years working on oilfields rather than getting a Finance/Business major.

I'm just creating a "what-if" scenario to see how you would view these types of applicants.

I mean from the applicant's point of view, you could say that this is very naive, to intentionally pigeonhole oneself like this for PE exits (which is admittedly the holy grail for most in this forum).

But I'm asking more on your perspectives in the interviewer's point of view - would you view a specifically focused on NatRes/FIG/RE applicant aiming for the corresponding industry group in a more favorable light than another applicant with more of a generalist background aiming for IBD M&A in general (not a specific group)?

^ Just to give an example on above I'd like to create an example:

Applicant 1a: Majored in petroleum engineering, interned at oil/gas company, ER internship focusing on NatRes sector aiming for IBD in Nat Res group.

Applicant 1b: Majored in Business/Finance, interned at commercial bank/insurance firm, ER internship focusing on FIG sector, aiming for IBD in FIG Group.

Applicant 1c: Majored in Business/Finance/Real Estate, interned at REIT, ER internship focusing on RE sector, aiming for IBD in RE Group.

vs.

Applicant 2: Majored in Business/Finance, interned at ER/IBD boutique internships in diversified sectors, aiming for IBD Generalist (preferably M&A group).

vs.

Applicant 3: Majored in Art History/Visual Arts from Princeton, created painting auctioned off for $10m to the Louvre, studied abroad in Paris where you got scouted to sponsoring designer company, which ended up getting acquired by a larger firm, sparking your interest in M&A. Currently aiming for IBD Generalist position.

Between Applicant 1a/1b/1c and Applicant 2 all things constant, would you view one as being more competitive/having a more compelling story than the other? Or really in the interviewer's eyes, will he not care?

^I think Applicant 3 would win, Applicant 1 and 2 would be a tie.

To be honest, I don't think interviewers will really care that you're focusing solely on a specific group, unless the analyst/associate interviewing you is in that same group. And even if the person is, that's not exactly a good thing since all it means is that they're now allowed to grill you on industry-specific technicals - stuff that they'd never ask to regular IBD applicants.

Unless your story is really unique and interesting (like that of Applicant 3 you described above) then I think it'll hurt you more to specialize in one sector, in terms of recruiting. Assuming you're an undergrad, keep your options open and go the "regular" IBD route. This way, you can network with literally any individual in IBD - something you can't do if you're "specializing" in let's say FIG (it'll be awkward networking with any person outside of FIG, if you state upfront that you're dead set on FIG and only FIG, hence you decrease the range of bankers you could potentially network with.)

Just my 2 cents.

Bump

NorthSider:

monkeyleverage:

Well, I wasn't asking for my "chances" of getting the job offer (that's almost 100% based on the interview). I'm asking about the chances of landing an interview in the first place.

My question really is, does showing a specialization in one specific industry sector have any advantages when it comes to networking and landing the interview? Or is it actually disadvantageous?

When you're 22 years old, the degree of "specialization" you possess is virtually meaningless in terms of getting an IB interview. The only reason that pursuing internships in a particular industry would give you a leg up is because it is a bona fide example of your interest in the industry. That said, if you're shooting for a BB position, banks tend to interview for generalist offers. Only Energy (because it's mostly in Houston) recruit separately.

Just curious but is there no such thing as industry specific recruiting at the analyst level? Or are all students at the analyst level interviewed only for "generalist" hires?

Houston groups recruit separately

Winning Squared:

Houston groups recruit separately

What about other groups like Real Estate, Tech, FIG, Healthcare etc?

Best intern in my generalist group knew a shit load about real estate. He wasn't great socially and his work product wasn't phenomenal, but because he was so good in real estate that MDs would ask him for his thoughts and advice on pitches and investing, he was the top intern.

In short, specializing is good. Making yourself indispensable is always wise.

monkeyleverage:

Definitely sounds like a position I would like to be in.

I'm just curious how interviewers (in a non-RE group) will view a candidate who shows he's specifically aiming for the RE group, when he's interviewing for a "generalist" SA position. (since there are no group specific interviews for SA positions, other than for energy/Houston).

One hand interviewers could view him as focused and with a clear goal (as opposed to other applicants who are just looking at IBD "in general"). On the other hand, they could view that candidate in a negative light, since he's not being more "open-minded" especially if they're in a group that is different from the group the applicant is aiming for.

I'd like to hear more from people's experiences with these type of applicants, who were in either side of the table.

You're over-thinking to the point of inanity. The amount of meta- meta- meta-psychoanalysis that you're implying is done by the interview selection committee is ridiculous.

The people who select candidates for interviews are an assortment of Analysts and Associates with far too many resumes to look at and far too little time to give as much consideration as you're suggesting to each applicant's work experience. The average resume probably receives 5-10 seconds of of review time before being tossed in the "ding" pile or in the "spend a bit more time on this one" pile.

In that time, the very very last thing that's crossing through my mind is "well, did he do all of the RE work to be 'focused'? Or maybe he's just 'close-minded'?"

When selecting candidates, 99% of people are looking for superior academic performance, solid work experience (regardless of industry) and a set of ECs that illustrate your interest in the field. Having industry-specific experience might be good if you're applying to a firm / satellite office that specializes in that industry, but it's almost certainly not going to enter into the interview equation for a pool of generalist candidates. If your industry-specific experience is better than another candidate's "less focused(?)" experience, then sure, you're getting the interview. But that has nothing to do with your industry specialization.