Rigorous, intense, and unnecessarily long. I had a recruiter screening and then several rounds of panel interviews over a period of two and a half months. Thought it went well and was rejected because I lacked the finance and direct experience with their funds. I did express that I did not have these core qualifications to the recruiter and the panel at the beginning of the process and I was told that an eager to learn candidate was important. That core investment and fund experience was not absolutely needed to excel in the role. This was the second time I interviewed with this company and felt strung along. I noticed immediately after I was rejected they reposted the role repeatedly. When I reached out to the recruiter she expressed that they wanted finance, investment, and fund knowledge so I suppose in their hiring practices it's not unusual for them to go through multiple candidates and multiple rounds over a period of 6-18 months. I wish they had been more respectful and clear of their expectations rather than asking candidates to jump through multiple hoops while they themselves are unsure of what they want. I had a similar negative experience interviewing for this company years prior with the same drawn out wishy washy we want a unicorn approach. At the very least, they're consistent in their approach. It did give me pause for this second role as to how the company operates -- if they do this for candidates and recruitment -- is the company operating in a similar fashion? As in what should be a clear trajectory and take six (eight max) weeks becomes a circuitous superfluous bureaucratic process with no clarity that keeps evolving so there's no end in sight?