^ Good point Bro, three weeks over Christmas isn’t the same as three weeks mid-February. Patience. And can’t you Americans just turf employees at will? What’s the hold up in just hiring a guy and punting his ass in three months if he isn’t a fit? This isn’t France or what not where a job is your job until you leave it.
5 rounds? 7 rounds? 8 rounds? 30 rounds? So ridiculous. How can it possibly be neccessary to have that many rounds for any role? I can’t envision any sort of realistic scenario where more than even 4 would be neccessary. 30 has to be a joke. how long does that even take to do?
It depends on the contract and the state. A lot of contracts these days are “at will” which means it’s fairly easy to chuck people for any reason or no reason at all.
Regarding the hold up, there is none at some firms. The place I worked kicked 80% of its analysts to the curb in the first 6 months. There are only a few of us that made it longer than that, but everyone has killed it. This level of attrition is excessive IMO, but it’s not easy to put together a championship team and this is one way to do it. Hiring is very difficult and you don’t know how someone will actually behave and perform once they are on board. This wouldn’t apply to most jobs, but there is really only a small % of people who are really cut out to be professional investors, and I’m sure that number is <1% of the general population. It’s similar to sports in that respect.
Tha t is because IB requires no unqiue skillset. Anyone can kill it, if they have a decent IQ. No Bacherlor degree required, although you have to know how to write an essay on SAT level. So… when you have a pool of candidates that you cannot differentiate from, that is what you get
so, basically analysts are hired into a glorified internship position. They probably don’t call it an internship because then the pool of candidates you get is usually much poorer. not a bad idea
^ I think it should be expressed to the employee that there is such a high attrition rate. Not really fair imo to just blindside guys with a firing out of the blue after 3 mos.
of course you should ask and call. They also need to think that you need an answer fast because you might accept the offer of the bank across the street
I think i will give it one more week and then call them. Will it be ok if i point out this rude behaviour to them if i found out that they had all the results and feedback and they were just not concerned to tell it to me or it would be just like hitting my head against the wall???
+1
OP…
are you interviewing with GS?
No the expectations are made clear – 6 month internship to prove yourself. If you are excellent you can stay. If you suck you are out. Given the track record of the firm the quality of the pool is very high and it weeds out all kinds of candidates you wouldn’t want. Think about whether you would take a 6 month shot at getting to apprentice with the best performing fund in the country over the last 20 years. If you were ~25 or younger, you know the answer is yes.
No, it’s not OK to tell them that directly. What you can do though is describe your experience anonymously on online employment sites like glassdoor.
huh. sounds like Citadel
lol @ Citadel having a top track record tho… you can’t lose 60%+ of your capital in one year and ever again be considered a top hedge fund. It doesn’t work like that, even if you manage to make it back several years later.
You generally sound like you know what you are talking about but Citadel is still considered a top hedge fund.
I disagree. If you lose >50% of your capital in one year for any reason at any time, you are no longer a top fund. It does not matter what you have done before or what you do after, you have lost that distinction. How in the f–k do you lose that much money in one year? We can talk about how rich Ken Griffin is and that’s true, but he doesn’t run a top fund anymore.
In the same way Robbie Fowler/Fernando Torres is still considered a top striker. OH SNAP
Well, we can agree to disagree.
I won’t post any numbers here, because I don’t have a relationship with Citadel and they seem a very secretive organisation but if you have access to these, then I would argue that their current level of assets is at the very least indicative that hedge fund allocators do consider them to be a top manager. Whether this is true or not is another matter.
My conclusion would be that the firm is currently one of the top hedge fund organisations and I base this on factors such as level of assets, historical performance, headcount, reputation etc. I don’t know of many which have performed better since the crisis. Yes, they had a severe drawdown/risk management problem in 2008 but that doesn’t mean the firm hasn’t evolved since.
ken griffey runs a hedge fund? tight