Anyone heard back from Macquarie? WOuld be particularly interested in knowing context of second round and how technical it was?Salaries, start dates - choice of office?Any other info appreciated! THanks!

Ian,This is a consultancy forum. I do not believe Macquarie is anywhere near a consultancy, infact it is a bank. Thus I suggest you look elsewhere and stop unnecessarily flooding this forum.FYI If it is graduate round interviews you are refering too - then Macquaires pretty much filled their positions. Sorry mate !

how do you know the places are full ?

I find the question perfectly legit.There are myriads of people in this forum that call themselves 'consultants' just because their work pertains an advisory aspect. Macquarie provides advice - and thus consultation. Just as much, ahem, as someone like KPMG.

Indeed. PE botiques and some corporate finance branches are more 'consultants' than many would think. This said - we could all benefit from knowing some good stuff on Macquarie. I hear that Thames Water kicked out a few consulting companies ( McKinsey and BAS to name a few), after the bid.

well macquarie has its own consulting/management arm to run the companies after it is bought. So not surprised about kicking out consultants and prob the same reason why consulant types would be interested in working htere

If so, and if you were a minority shareholder, you might question whether Macquarie are better consulting advisors than McKinsey.If you worked htere!

They are certainly likely to be an awful lot cheaper....considering they are internal and probably of the same quality as McKinsey people

'hmmmmmmm': im curious as to why you say they are similar in quality to McKinsey. I believe so too - but am interested in your point of you. Can you expand?

Well I have worked with both (as a former consultant, and now a client)They both seem capable of delivering the analysis and insight that is required, its the style that is differentMcKinsey: Tend to be less easy to communicate with when trying to understand the process they are following. But will get the job done to timescales whatever. So the result can become more important than the process.Macquarie: More process orientated, very strong FS expereience & can tend to have first hand experience based upon work for the bank. Makes communication a bit easier.As an ex consultant it is always easy to spot the standard tools and techniques, and both are equally profficient at using them!*caveat: have not worked with everyone in both firms so these views might be slanted

hmmmmm I think your points are interesting. But:- cheaper does not necessarily mean better- quality in one field does not necessarily mean quality in another- Macquarie bid for LSE was not a success. Now I'm sure there are reasons why the downside had an upside etc....but the importance of top strategic advice does show why it is critical to at least question who provides it.

What an interesting topic to talk about Macquarie actually. Being someone who comes from Australia (where Macquarie HQ is), I have to say Macquarie is a fantastic bank in Australia. Whilst saying that, I am not 100% sure how good it's operations are in the UK. The truth of the matter is, Macquarie doesn't have the strongest brand anywhere else apart from Australia and that makes it tough to attract quality candidates. Many of the employees that work in Macquarie transferred from Australia.Even so, it's hard to compare it against McKinsey, it's speciality and expertise (I personally believe) is different. Either way, Macquarie treats its employees extremely well so if you get an offer from them, I would seriously consider it.

HI W, Why do you say Macquarie treats its employees seriously well? Do you have some examples?Macquarie outside of Australia does not operate like a bank - its 'bankers' are mereley corporate finance specialists that advise its private equity fund. They do not offer 3rd party advisory ( well, very very rarely) - so its more of a PE house than anything. And it is the biggest and best PE fund for infrastrucuture in the world - controlling 37 billion of equity. Im aware though, that this will be knowledge only to a few people. However if you could expand on your knowledge about them, especially why they get treated well, that would be excellent! Thank you

Have to agree with what A says in terms of being the biggest in the infrastructure side of things. In terms of treating staff well, I'm basing my opinions on the Australian side of things, I do not know the UK side unfortunately. But I know quite a few people who work in Australia and one key point that I noted is that none of my friends have left the bank even after so many years! Even if they're tired of banking, many of my friends have transferred divisions rather than leave the bank which is a good sign of the culture of the companyThey are generally quite generous with their bonus structure and the pay is very competitive in comparison to the big brands out there (e.g. GS, ML, CS etc). The social side of things is fantastic, they seem to always go out and party! Whilst they work hard, they also do support a general work/life balance (if that's possible but they do not work for the sake of working) but I'm not sure whether that is just the aussie culture or otherwise.Hope it helps