Sergio Ermacora

CFO and Cofounder

I help firms find the right finance expert remotely within 24 hours: focus on investment talents, VC, PE, FP&A, Controllers, Financial and Data Analysts

Sergio through Nexteam helps investment banks, Family Offices, Private Equity, Venture Capital funds and corporate development departments with the selection of the best dedicated remote investment analysts and associates. All the candidates have gone through Nexteam's proprietary bootcamp or upskilling program. 

Nexteam is the premium network for top talents in the finance industry. We identify the best analysts and associates in emerging markets (primarily Latin America and Eastern Europe), train and mentor them through our proprietary bootcamp or upskilling program to select the best of the best.
Only the top 1% of analysts and top 7% of associates get into the network.
We have trained more than a 1000 analysts/associates and are working with 100+ clients in the US, the UK and the EU.

NEXT STEPS: The first step is to schedule a complimentary Business Strategy Session (up to 30-minutes) with me to discuss your business goals and challenges. This is NOT a "free consulting session" but rather a powerful opportunity to find out how we can help you and your business achieve your goals.

WHAT OTHER SAY?
"The junior analyst provided by Nexteam has been an amazing addition to our team, bringing professionalism and dedication beyond her years. She started work on Day One in fully operational mode and demonstrated a combination of technical know-how and dynamism which make it a pleasure to work with her. Nexteam's analyst also demonstrates drive and initiative well above expectations, and has managed to add value working with everyone within the team, all of whom are much more senior to her. She is an amazing addition to our team!”." - Charles C, Managing Partner of a Spanish investment bank

"It took us 3 days from the moment w reached out to Nexteam to the moment we hired an associate in Argentina. The guy is smart, quick and experienced our industry (energy) and has already integrated seamlessly in our team" - John, Managing Director of a US-based PE fund

READY TO TALK?
Contact me to via Linkedin to schedule your Business Strategy Session

Managing Director

Nexteam is the premium network for top junior talents in the investment industry. We identify the best analysts and associates in emerging markets (primarily Latin America and Eastern Europe), train and mentor them through our proprietary bootcamp or upskilling program to select the best of the best.
Only the top 1% of analysts and top 7% of associates get into the network.

A Morgan Stanley interviewer asks this question in final-round interviews:

“You’re running a fund with two portfolio managers.

Both have the same mandate.
Both trade the same universe.
Both operate over the same time period.

Manager A beats Manager B in up markets.
Manager A beats Manager B in down markets.

Yet at the end of the year,
Manager B has the higher total return.

No leverage tricks.
No reporting errors.
No hidden assets.

How is this possible?”

Before jumping to an answer, here’s why this question is brilliant.

It tests whether you can:
• spot misleading aggregates
• reason about exposure and weighting
• resist intuitive but wrong conclusions
• explain why numbers can deceive

In interviews, most candidates:
• start recalculating returns
• argue compounding
• debate benchmarks
• insist it’s impossible

Very few step back and question the structure of the data.

That’s the difference interviewers care about.

This isn’t a math problem.
It’s a judgment problem.

Think you have a valid explanation?

👇 Share your reasoning in the comments.
Bonus points if you explain why others might get it wrong.

I’ll highlight the strongest responses later.

#FinanceInterviews
#InvestmentBanking
#ProblemSolving
#CriticalThinking

undefined undefined

Finance Hiring → Frictionless. For Busy Leaders Who Need Results, Not Resumes. Helped 234 companies in North America and Europe hiring remote finance experts

Want to know why BlackRock pays quants $400K+? This interview question reveals what they're really looking for (hint: it's not your math skills).

A field. 100 murderers. One bullet. Here's the question that separates great quant candidates from the rest:

'You are guarding 100 murderers in a field with a single bullet. If any murderer has a non-zero probability of surviving, he will attempt to escape. If a murderer is certain of death, he won't try. How do you stop them from escaping?'

🧠 Most Candidates:
• Start calculating probabilities
• Try to determine optimal shooting strategy
• Consider game theory matrices
• Get lost in the mathematical weeds

💡 What Elite Candidates See:
The elegant solution requires zero calculations:
Don't shoot anyone. Simply announce you'll shoot randomly if anyone tries to escape. Since no one can have certainty of survival (the key constraint), and they only attempt escape with non-zero survival probability, no one will risk it.

This Question Tests:
• Can you spot critical information in a sea of distractions?
• Do you default to complexity or seek elegant solutions?
• Can you explain complex logic simply?
• Do you understand human behavior beyond the numbers?

🎯 The Real Lesson:
BlackRock isn't just paying for your mathematical ability. They're paying for your ability to:
• Think creatively under pressure
• Challenge basic assumptions
• Find simple solutions to complex problems
• Communicate clearly and confidently

That's why they ask questions like this - and why they pay top dollar for those who can answer them well.

What's the most unexpected interview question you've encountered? Share below 👇

Found this valuable?
🔄 Share to help others prep for quant interviews
❤️ Like for more interview insights
➡️ Follow for daily finance wisdom

#QuantInterviews 
#Finance 
#BlackRock

A hedge fund interviewer asks this question:

“You’re offered two roles.”

Role A

Guaranteed €120,000 per year
Same work every year
No upside, no downside

Role B

50% chance of earning €300,000
50% chance of earning €0
You can take this role once per year
You can stop and switch to Role A at any time

You are 28 years old.
You have no dependents.
You are financially stable.

Which role should you take — and for how long?

There is no trick.
No hidden assumptions.
No leverage, no taxes.

Before answering, consider why this question is asked 👇

It tests whether you:
• understand risk over time, not in isolation
• think in distributions, not averages
• can separate fear from decision-making
• reason about optionality and reversibility
• understand when not to optimize for certainty

Most candidates answer too quickly.

Some say “A” because it’s safe.
Some say “B” because the expected value is higher.

Strong candidates pause.

They realize the real question isn’t A vs B.

It’s:
👉 How long do you stay exposed to upside before locking in certainty?

Drop your reasoning in the comments — not just your choice.

I’ll engage with the most interesting arguments.

🚨 Another successful hire — M&A Associate 🚨

A U.S.-based investment firm just hired a remote M&A Associate through us.

📍 Based in Los Angeles
🌎 Talent: Based in Brazil
📁 Focus: Technology sector deals
💼 Role: Supporting end-to-end M&A process, from deal origination to closing

What made this candidate stand out?
✔️ Strong financial modeling skills
✔️ Sharp commercial acumen
✔️ Proactive, deal-oriented mindset
✔️ Excellent communication with cross-border teams

This is how smart firms build global deal teams — top-tier talent, hired faster, without borders.

—

💡 At Nexteam, we help investment firms scale with vetted M&A analysts and associates from Latin America and Eastern Europe.

Want to see talent like this?

👉 www.nexteam.io


#hiring #investmentbanking #mergersandacquisitions #remotework #latamtalent #dealflow #nexteam 💼🌎📈

Aida Agic

Why strong finance candidates still don’t get offers
(and no one tells them why)

This happens every week.

Smart candidates.
Solid experience.
Good interviews.

And then:
“We’ve decided to move forward with another candidate.”

The problem usually isn’t skills.



✖ It’s not culture
✖ It’s not communication
✖ It’s not even competition

It’s this:

Hiring managers don’t hire the best candidate.
They hire the least risky decision.

Especially in remote roles 🌍

From their side, the questions sound like this:

Will this person ramp without hand-holding?
Will they need constant clarification?
Will they create work for me—or remove it?
Can I trust them when I’m not in the room?

Most candidates never answer these questions.

They talk about:
• past roles
• responsibilities
• tools
• achievements

All useful.
But incomplete.

What’s missing is projection 👉

Hiring managers need to see you in the role before they can justify an offer.

That’s why so many strong candidates stall after good interviews.

They never reduce uncertainty.

What works better—especially in remote finance hiring:

✔ Showing how you’d approach the first 30–60–90 days
✔ Outlining priorities before being asked
✔ Walking through how you’d solve their problems
✔ Sending material that helps them decide, not just remember you

One candidate we worked with did exactly this after interviews went quiet.

Instead of following up, he sent:
✔ a short execution plan
✔ a sample target list
✔ example outreach and workflows

The decision moved within days.

Not because he was “more qualified”.
Because he made the decision easier.

Remote hiring doesn’t reward potential.
It rewards clarity.

If you’re interviewing remotely and relying only on answers—you’re leaving the hardest part undone.

The remote finance job market is brutal.
Most candidates still act like it’s 2020.

Here’s the reality nobody likes to say out loud:

📉 Remote finance roles = limited
📈 Applications per role = exploding
🎯 Standards = higher than ever

We routinely see 200–500 applicants for a single remote FP&A, IB, or PE role.

Most get rejected before a human even slows down.

Why?

Because they all do the same things:

❌ Send a generic CV
❌ “Follow up” with no substance
❌ Talk about experience instead of impact
❌ Hope the interview will save them

The top 5% do something very different.

They don’t just apply.

They prove value before they’re hired.

Here’s how they stand out 👇

✅ They show how they’d think in the role
✅ They map what they’d do in the first 30–60–90 days
✅ They research the business, not just the job title
✅ They proactively solve a real problem
✅ They make the hiring decision easier

One candidate recently followed up after interviews with:
– a 90-day execution plan
– a target client list
– draft outreach emails
– clear KPIs he’d own

He didn’t “check in”.

He forced clarity.

In remote hiring, visibility is earned — not requested.

If you want a remote finance role in 2026,
being qualified is no longer enough.

You have to be obvious.

👇 Curious: what’s the hardest part of landing a remote role right now?

A cheat sheet for hiring investment banking analysts remotely.

Most firms try to replicate on-site hiring — just on Zoom.

That’s usually the mistake.

Remote IB hiring works well when you screen for signal, not proximity.

Here’s what actually matters.

What to screen for first (before technical depth):
✔ ability to structure thinking clearly
✔ comfort working with limited guidance
✔ written communication quality
✔ ownership mindset (not task execution)

What to deprioritize early:
✖ perfect brand names
✖ identical deal experience
✖ excessive modeling tests
✖ long interview loops

In remote setups, execution risk comes from ambiguity, not lack of skill.

That’s why the strongest remote analysts and associates:
• explain assumptions clearly
• flag issues early
• document decisions
• think one step ahead

If you hire for those traits first,
technical skills compound fast.

If you don’t,
no model test will save the hire.

Remote IB hiring isn’t about lowering the bar.
It’s about adjusting what the bar actually measures.

Average candidates talk in generalities. Top remote hires talk in specifics.

That difference decides who gets interviews — and who gets ignored.

Most candidates sound polite, vague, and interchangeable.

Hiring managers don’t reject them because they’re bad.
They reject them because nothing stands out.

Strong remote candidates do something different.

They:
• anchor answers to real business problems
• speak in outcomes, not responsibilities
• reduce uncertainty instead of adding it
• make the decision easier for the hiring manager

Below are real examples I see every week in remote finance hiring.

Save this.
Study it.
Then fix how you present yourself.

Your wording decides your leverage.

After recruiting hundreds of finance professionals for remote roles, one pattern is impossible to ignore…

The job isn’t about:
✖ Excel
✖ models
✖ tools
✖ certifications

It’s not even really about finance.

It’s about knowing what decision needs to be made —
often before the question is fully formed. 🧠

The strongest remote finance professionals don’t just deliver numbers.

They:
✔ anticipate what leadership will ask next
✔ know which details matter — and which don’t
✔ translate complexity into direction
✔ reduce uncertainty for people with limited time

That’s why two candidates with similar backgrounds can perform very differently.

One reports.
The other enables decisions ➜

In remote roles, this gap becomes even clearer.

When you’re not in the room:
✔ clarity matters more than effort
✔ structure matters more than speed
✔ judgment matters more than detail

That’s what hiring managers are really screening for — even if they don’t articulate it well.

And it’s why many “strong on paper” candidates stall.

Not because they lack skills.
But because they haven’t shifted from output thinking to decision ownership 🎯

Most candidates think remote finance jobs are hard to get because of competition.

That’s only half the truth.

The real reason most people never get hired remotely 👇

❌ They apply like employees
❌ They interview like juniors
❌ They wait for instructions
❌ They optimize their CV instead of their signal

Remote finance hiring works differently.

When a U.S./EU hiring manager looks at a remote candidate, they’re silently asking:

✔ Can this person operate without hand-holding?
✔ Will they move things forward, or wait?
✔ Do they understand outcomes—or just tasks?
✔ Can I trust them when I’m not in the room?

Most candidates never answer those questions.

The ones who get hired do this instead:

✅ Show how they think, not what they did
✅ Propose solutions before being asked
✅ Frame their experience in outcomes, not tools
✅ Treat interviews like working sessions
✅ Act like owners from day one

Remote roles don’t reward effort.

They reward clarity, autonomy, and trust signals.

That’s why two candidates with the same CV
can have completely different outcomes.

And why “remote is impossible”
is usually a skill gap—not a market problem.

If you’re serious about remote finance roles,
stop trying to look impressive.

Start trying to look reliable.

AI won’t get you hired in finance.

But used correctly, it will get you noticed.

Most candidates are already using AI.

That’s not the advantage.

The advantage is how you use it.

In remote finance hiring, AI should do one thing:
👉 reduce uncertainty for the hiring manager

Here are practical AI use cases I see working for strong candidates:


1️⃣ Interview preparation (not answers)

Weak use:
✖ generating “perfect” answers

Strong use:
✔ stress-testing your reasoning
✔ asking AI to challenge your assumptions
✔ simulating a skeptical interviewer

If your answers don’t survive pushback, neither will your interview.



2️⃣ Role-specific positioning

Weak use:
✖ rewriting the same CV for every role

Strong use:
✔ mapping your experience to this company’s problems
✔ translating your background into their language
✔ identifying gaps before the interviewer does

AI is excellent at exposing misalignment early.



3️⃣ 30–60–90 day plans

Weak use:
✖ generic onboarding templates

Strong use:
✔ drafting role-specific execution plans
✔ pressure-testing priorities
✔ identifying early wins that matter to managers

This alone can move decisions in remote hiring.



4️⃣ Follow-ups that add signal

Weak use:
✖ “Just checking in”

Strong use:
✔ summarizing key discussion points
✔ sending a short execution outline
✔ sharing how you’d approach a real problem

AI helps structure clarity — not chase responses.



5️⃣ Case & modeling prep

Weak use:
✖ copying outputs

Strong use:
✔ validating logic
✔ sanity-checking assumptions
✔ improving structure and explanations

Hiring managers don’t fear AI.
They fear candidates who can’t explain their work.



The uncomfortable truth:

If AI makes you sound like everyone else,
you’re using it wrong.

Remote finance hiring rewards:
✔ clarity
✔ structure
✔ decision-enabling thinking

AI should amplify those — not replace them.

Most companies don’t fail at hiring remote finance talent because of candidates.
They fail because of how they hire.

After working with hundreds of CFOs, partners, and hiring managers, one pattern keeps repeating 👇

❌ Generic job descriptions that describe everyone and fit no one
❌ Slow processes that lose strong candidates
❌ Interviews that test CVs, not thinking
❌ Vague expectations about what “good” looks like
❌ Senior expectations at junior prices

And then comes the conclusion:
“Remote doesn’t work.”

Here’s what actually breaks remote finance hiring:

🚫 Long interview loops with no real case context
🚫 CV-heavy screening instead of signal-based evaluation
🚫 No clarity on first 30–60–90 day outcomes
🚫 Comparing candidates to each other instead of to the role
🚫 Treating remote talent as a risk, not a lever

What works instead:

✅ Clear scope > fancy titles
✅ Speed > perfection
✅ Signals > pedigree
✅ Proof of thinking > years of experience
✅ Alignment before salary discussions

Remote hiring doesn’t fail because talent isn’t good enough.

It fails because the process isn’t designed for remote.

And the best candidates?
They’re watching how you hire.

Most CFOs compare remote finance hiring to onshore hiring the wrong way.
That mistake quietly costs them speed, quality, or both.

Remote hiring isn’t a cheaper version of onshore.
And onshore isn’t automatically higher quality.

They are different operating models — with different trade-offs.

Here’s the comparison most finance leaders never get clearly:

Remote finance hiring works best when:
✅ The scope is clearly defined
✅ Outcomes matter more than optics
✅ Work can be planned and documented
✅ Speed and flexibility are strategic advantages
✅ Performance is measured by results, not presence

Onshore finance hiring works best when:
✅ Work is highly ad-hoc and reactive
✅ Decisions require constant in-room context
✅ Stakeholders expect daily face time
✅ Roles are shaped by proximity
✅ Management relies on observation

Where companies get into trouble is assuming:
❌ Remote is just “onshore, but cheaper”
❌ Onshore automatically means better judgment
❌ Seniority replaces structure
❌ Time zones don’t affect execution
❌ Control equals performance

Remote finance hiring doesn’t fail because the talent is weaker.

It fails when companies:
– don’t redesign the role
– manage availability instead of ownership
– expect autonomy without giving clarity

When done right, remote hiring is a leverage model.
When done wrong, it’s frustrating — just like any hire.

The real question isn’t remote vs onshore.

It’s whether your role, expectations, and management style fit the model you’re choosing.

And strong candidates notice the difference immediately.

'I rejected a candidate with 10 years of PE experience for someone with 2 years. The difference? Preparation,' a Blackstone Partner told me last week. Here's what separates those who land dream roles from those who don't.

Working with investment professionals who consistently secure roles at top PE firms, I've noticed they share one crucial trait: methodical, exhaustive preparation.

The candidate who secured the role? They spent three months:
Analyzing every portfolio company in detail
Building models for comparable deals
Studying the firm's investment thesis
Preparing industry-specific insights

The senior candidate who didn't? Experience alone. No deep preparation.

I see this pattern repeatedly. The professional who joined KKR? They analyzed 50+ deals before the interview. The Associate who moved to Apollo? They could discuss market trends across three sectors in detail.

What looks like natural talent in PE interviews is usually hours of unseen work:
Understanding portfolio companies inside out
Knowing recent deals and their rationale
Preparing thoughtful investment theses
Building relevant case studies

The Managing Director concluded: 'Give me someone who prepares like their life depends on it over someone who relies on experience every time.'

Best part? This isn't about innate ability or years of experience. It's about the work you're willing to put in before the spotlight moment.

Want to know how our candidates prepare for life-changing PE interviews? Follow me!

#PrivateEquity
#Careers 
#Investment

The harshest lessons in remote finance hiring are the ones nobody warns you about.

Here are the truths candidates only learn the hard way:

1.) Remote roles don’t reward effort.
They reward clarity.

2.) Silence after an interview is already feedback.
It means uncertainty.

3.) A strong CV won’t save a weak signal.
Relevance beats pedigree.

4.) Certifications don’t explain how you think.
Execution does.

5.) “Culture fit” often means “we weren’t convinced.”
Not that you weren’t good enough.

6.) Hiring managers don’t look for the best candidate.
They look for the least risky decision.

7.) Remote interviews are judged faster than on-site ones.
There’s less patience for ambiguity.

8.) Good answers don’t win offers.
Clear mental models do.

9.) If you wait to be told what to do, you lose momentum.
Especially remotely.

10.) “Just checking in” follow-ups hurt more than they help.
They add no signal.

11.) Past responsibilities don’t matter.
Outcomes do.

12.) If they can’t picture your first 30 days,
they won’t picture you in the role.

13.) Most candidates are filtered out before the final round.
They never know why.

14.) Remote hiring magnifies weaknesses.
Not strengths.

15.) The best candidates don’t ask for decisions.
They enable them.

16.) Getting hired remotely is less about being impressive
and more about being obvious.

If these feel uncomfortable — good.

They’re not meant to motivate you.
They’re meant to recalibrate you.

Remote finance hiring isn’t broken.
Most candidates are just playing by the wrong rules.

taplio

Sergio Ermacora's Linkedin Analytics

Sergio Ermacora

Performance ScoreSergio Ermacora's LinkedIn Performance

Sergio Ermacora's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Sergio Ermacora's Linkedin Analytics

Sergio Ermacora

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Sergio Ermacora's LinkedIn Performance

Sergio Ermacora's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Sergio Ermacora's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreSergio Ermacora's LinkedIn Performance

Sergio Ermacora's Best Posts (last 30 days)