I completed eight interviews before I was turned down for the role. This included six 30 minute interviews with different team members, one 45 minute excel test, and one 30 minute case study presentation with two team members I'd previously interviewed with. The process started out positively, but several red flags presented themselves: 1. During the initial informational interview, I was told the process would involve two more steps - a 30 minute interview with a VP and the 45 minute technical. I ended up having six additional interviews after this, including a case study. I never would have agreed to the process if I knew it would involve eight interviews. 2. I was sent multiple "final step" emails. 3. It wasn't super clear what they were looking for. I'm not sure they even knew. It was hard to get into any detail in 30 minute interviews, especially when the goals seemed to be shifting. 4. One interviewer was blatantly disrespectful of my time - first, they showed up 15 minutes late to our 30 minute interview slot, and admitted it was for no other reason then they lost track of time. Subsequently, they also showed up late to my case study interview and seemed disinterested and unprepared. I don't want to put one person's mistakes on the whole company, but when a company is this small, it speaks to the culture of the company as a whole if an employee thinks this is acceptable workplace behavior. Most of the people at Finley seemed lovely, but overall I got the vibe that they're a bit all over the place. I know that's somewhat to be expected at startups, but that doesn't excuse unprofessional behavior like showing up late to interviews and being misleading about the interview process.

I interviewed with the capital markets teamd and they shared three articles on borrowing bases and credit facilities ahead of time, which suggested the technical portion would be more conceptual and centered around data feeds, not heavily Excel-based. However, the interview focused on building a borrowing base report in Excel. I’ve worked on several complex credit facilities over the past five years at a direct competitor, and my standard approach, which is common in capital markets, is to first understand the numbers and expected outcomes before optimizing formulas that feed reports. You can’t build a reliable formula without validating what the correct output should be. Despite this, the interviewers emphasized formula optimization without first aligning on the target results, which ultimately prevented me from finishing the exercise. I concluded the call by explaining how I would solve for each field, and they acknowledged my approach was conceptually sound. In a real work setting, I would also have access to internal resources. I didn’t move on to the next round, which was surprising given my relevant experience. My references, including department heads and senior managers, were ready to confirm that I’m considered a subject matter expert in credit facility management. It’s worth noting that the role has remained open for several months after the interview.