One of the things that challenges a lot of candidates initially can be concluding and recommending consistently. And I completely understand why and so this is a bit difficult advice to give.
You’ve done a quant or some other part of the case, and you know it’s wrong. You know the simulation wants you to head down another path but for whatever reason you cannot get your quant to agree. You get some ridiculous number. For example, the simulation asks you to create a retirement plan and your quant says the client is so rich they should have retired 10 years ago. I’ve been here and it sucks.
This is a tough situation to be in but in general, the advice out there, is that you should be consistent overall with your response. Don’t start inserting what-if paragraphs that are inconsistent with your response.
- Your quant will likely be marked based on what you are including/excluding in it in most cases. So even if you reach the wrong conclusion, you may still include 3 required items in your calculations and perhaps you just missed another one which would have made it correct. You can still get an RC or maybe even a C with an incorrect conclusion.
- Inserting what-ifs is likely to just waste your time and add no value. I have never heard advice where what-if scenarios add value to a simulation response. This is the tough part to accept.
- The simulations are setup in ways that will still allow you to score pretty well despite a bad quant. You’ll be put in positions where you can offer advice despite your quant conclusion, these are still worth the same despite your bad quant. Try to remember that.
Bottom Line: Conclude and recommend consistently based on your findings. Don’t go down the what-if path as it usually just leads to wasted time.
What do you think?