??? This was an interview from several years ago. I can contact the interviewee, but people tend to become less responsive over time as they leave the industry.

I think either approach could work, but it might be slightly more difficult to go from a smaller buy-side firm to a larger one than to go from a BB bank to a larger buy-side firm. Although the interviewee here did not specifically mention anything about CMBS buy-side funds, so I am just guessing based on how it works in other areas of finance.

Currently am a CMBS New Deal analyst at a Big 3 RA for aout 6 months. Defintiley of thinking of hopping to a CMBS role at a BB soon. I was wondering if going to the CMBS buy side ($7bn portfolio management arm of a insurance company) as a desk analyst right now or go to a CMBS team at a BB. Would going to the buy side firm now hurt my chances at a larger buy sider firm (PIMCO, KKR)?

Thanks!!

I don’t know the industry to that level of detail, so you would probably have to ask someone working in CMBS to get answers to those questions. The basic distinction is that Underwriting is more responsible for the analysis and yes/no decision on the loan, and Capital Markets is more responsible for the sales & marketing side and deciding how to present everything.

It’s probably a bit easier to get into Underwriting, and I don’t think compensation is vastly different as you move up. Like all finance roles, much of it comes down to individual performance (deals closed) at the top levels.

Curious if you can expand on the distinction between the underwriting and the capital markets piece in the below – specifically what the different jobs look like as it relates to comp, etc. and in terms of transitioning to the equity side down the line – what role might look more attractive and also breaking in -what would be easier – in the case of the interviewee he seemed to be in the underwriting role – thank you!

If the numbers (historical and stressed) check out and meet the requirements of the term sheet, and a credit committee approves the loan, we’ll fund the loan. This entire process is called “Underwriting” and is what most junior team members perform.

Then, depending on the loan’s size, the Capital Markets team will bundle it up with other loans or split it into smaller loan notes.

They will prepare the marketing materials with the underwriter’s help, liaise with the rating agencies and “B-Buyers,” and market the trusts. Ultimately, bonds salespeople will sell it to pension funds, life insurance companies, or hedge funds.

It’s hard to say what’s going wrong because we also don’t know how much networking you’ve done, what your resume/CV looks like, how your interviews are going, etc. You have to isolate why you’re not winning offers first. It might just be too much experience since you’ve been working for 10+ years according to your comment.

I guess they do not like mortgage broker experience/skills.

I would not address it in your cover letter if your overall GPA is still above 3.2. But you do need to prepare some explanation for interviews because it will come up there.

I am applying for a job at a pretty competitive firm as an experienced hire.

They are asking for my transcripts that shows my undergrad grades which declined over my 4 years. It is still an overall solid GPA, 3.2+, but i worry a recruiter looks at that as a red flag.

is it even worth addressing in a cover letter? i have had important achievements during my brief career that I feel are more important, but I dont want to leave it unaddressed if it is an important part of the process.

i was just curious if you feel it is briefly worth mentioning why my GPA declined and what I did since then to succeed or if i should just let it go?