| Topic Name: |
Lots of misinformation |
| Message Name: |
Supplement |
| Date Posted: |
05/27/2000 |
| In Reply To: |
Never said that KKR hires undergrads--I was referring to their hiring of people who had 2-3 years of ibanking experience as analysts. That is a fact that I know from people who have been hired, and if you still doubt it, just check out their web site, which even mentions that they've started hiring people with 2-3 years of ibanking experience.
Doesn't matter where the top people went. Several of the founders of my firm went to neither HBS nor Stanford, yet when they look to hire post-MBA candidates, will ONLY look at HBS and Stanford students. Is that because they think that their former alma maters are not worth it? I doubt it. It's simply that without private equity shops don't have full recruiting staffs like ibanks do. They don't have the time/people to sift through hundreds of resumes. That's why they 1) limit their search to the places with the best reputations (knowing full well that they could be missing superstars from lesser known ibanks) and 2) use headhunters.
You're right, maybe my experience isn't that great. Not every analyst gets to work with a top LBO shop while an analyst. Or should I say, the vast majority of analysts don't get the chance to work with top LBO shops.
Talk to any analyst who's about to go to a private equity shop or has joined one in the past two years. Gurantee you that the vast majority used a headhunter to get in the door.
I never said that it was an absolute requisite that an analyst be from GS/MSDW. But I know from my own personal experience and the personal experiences of dozens of other former and current analysts who are working/going to work at either top or middle tier LBOs, and it is very true that 1) some firms will only look at people from the top BBs and 2) it is not as easy to even get into the door if you're not from one of those BBs.
To those who are criticizing me, it seems that you're still in ibanking. Do any of you have any private equity experience? I work in a private equity firm. Most of my friends are in private equity firms. Why don't you simply talk to the analysts in your firms, and ask them, "Is it harder (I didn't say impossible), to get into a top LBO if you are at Bear Stearns vs. Goldman Sachs?" Talk to the people who actually go through the job search process, or the people who have gotten the jobs. Also ask them "Do most analysts use headhunters?"
I will agree that once you have gotten your foot in the door, it doesn't matter where you went--interviewing ability puts everyone on the same level. A guy from Bear with a great personality will almost definitely win the job over a staid GS analyst. But my point is that the guy from Bear will not have as many chances to get his foot in the door.
Also, I'm not trying to make a point that GS is better than Bear. I agree that it's unfortunate how hiring is so skewed and biased, both at the private equity level and the ibanking level. I don't support that in any way, but want to make people aware of the reality. Just like SAT scores are in no way indicative of how successful someone can be, and SAT scores can be boosted by paying $700 to take a prep test course, they are nevertheless used as a benchmark in college admissions. You can argue all you want that the SATs are meaningless (and even I agree), but then should a high school student stop trying to get as high of a score on the SAT as possible?
|
| Message: |
Not being from a top-tier school, one of the observations I have is that I think one of the reasons why top tier graduates are heavily recruited because of the 'network' their alma mater institution provides them. All else being equal, top-tier grads are going to have a support network which is a bit more substantial and integrated into the banking community than a star performer from University of Illinois.
It helps in minor ways which can add up. If I ask for analysis regarding multiples financial buyers are using in a certain industry and he calls a buddy of his that is working as an analyst in XYZ buyout firm and gets the straight dope from the horses mouth, that's definitely value added. Granted I still want the analysis done, but those little things help. I honestly have found that analysts who go to the top schools are very saavy at making a couple of phone calls and finding out key information. Just another thing to consider.
In the long run, however, I definitely believe that a person's character will determine their success. The characteristics of intelligence, persistence, team-player and endurance are things that can't be taught at any institution...
|
|
