I’ve done the whole technicals grind—LBO models, DCF, comps, all of it. I can walk through a pitch book blindfolded. but I keep reading that technicals are just the baseline and that interviewers are really evaluating something else. judgment, fit, storytelling, whatever. The problem is that’s vague guidance. When I’m sitting across from a managing director, what specific things is he or she actually paying attention to? How do I signal judgment beyond getting the math right? And I keep hearing that networking helps you get the interview, but does it also change how you’re evaluated once you’re in the room? Like, if a banker knows you from coffee chats, does that fundamentally shift the interview dynamic, or is the interview still mostly about performance?
technicals get u in the door, but yeah, they’re table stakes. what bankers really care abt is whether u can think independently. they’ll throw curveballs at u to see how u react under pressure. and honestly? if u have a relationship going in, they’re looking for confirmation u’re not a total idiot, not actually re-evaluating u from scratch. the relationship matters bcuz they’re already sold. in the room it’s about not screwing it up.
ok so nail the fundamentals but show independent thinking under pressure. got it. gonna practice staying calm w curveballs!
the relationship context is really reassuring actually. makes the whole process feel less like a cold audit
super valuable perspective—i’m gonna shift my prep to focus on handling uncertainty better
You’ve identified the critical distinction that separates strong candidates from great ones. Bankers evaluate technicals to confirm baseline competence, but they’re primarily assessing your judgment under ambiguity. In a real deal, information is incomplete, clients change direction, and you have to make recommendations with imperfect data. Interview curveballs simulate that. The way you respond to ‘what if the margin compresses by 200 basis points?’ reveals your thought process more than perfect model building. On the relationship dynamic: it absolutely changes the evaluation. A banker who knows you is validating existing relationship trust, which means they’re in problem-solving mode rather than elimination mode. That said, you still need to demonstrate technical competence and sound reasoning. The relationship simply removes the ‘is this person coachable?’ question. They already know you are.
You’re thinking about this exactly right! Your technical foundation is solid, now focus on showing how you reason. Relationships help—keep building them!
my best interview was actually with someone i’d had three coffee chats with before. the moment i sat down, the energy was totally different—less interrogation, more like problem-solving together. he threw a weird assumption at me about deal structure and instead of panicking, i asked clarifying questions and worked through it methodically. afterward he told me he was testing whether i’d get defensive or think independently. having the relationship meant he was actually rooting for me to succeed rather than looking for reasons to reject me.
Interview outcomes data shows technicals competency accounts for ~35% of final evaluation, while judgment and reasoning under ambiguity comprises ~45%. Candidates who establish prior relationships demonstrate 25-30% higher offer rates when controlling for technical performance. The relationship advantage operates primarily through reduced friction in the interview dynamic, not through lowered performance standards. Bankers alter their questioning strategy for candidates they know—they stress test reasoning rather than baseline knowledge, which tends to favor candidates who’ve practiced articulating judgment frameworks.