And investment banks, for as long as they’ve existed, have been spectacularly good at doing so. The evidence for this claim? Simply: they still exist.  But their forms of today would be largely unrecognisable to someone of a few decades ago – they have grown and diversified, driven and guided by an inherent eye for opportunity, beyond recognition, though without a change in moniker.  What percentage of an investment bank’s headcount these days is taken up by traditional investment bankers? A fraction – one which continues, on the whole, to decrease. 

And there have been threats to their existence – or at least to their more recent diversified models. Tighter margins, increased competition, more abundant automation and similar minutiae chip away at their edges, but credit crunches, London Whales, and subprime mortgage collapses represented genuine existential threats which would have torn less adaptable entities apart and scattered their pieces into the wind.  Not investment banks, though. A Chinese Wall here, a Volcker Rule there, and, although it’s never quite ‘business-as-usual’ afterwards, it never takes investment banks long to redefine what ‘usual’ actually is.

But there are casualties along the way: while investment banks as entities in themselves may be impervious to all change, their employees are not.  And, perhaps, nowhere is this more apparent than in the teams of front-office salespeople, diligently covering their given client segments on their given product suites. Irregardless of whether they are hedging a German corporate on their macro exposures, selling a corporate/government bond to a UK Asset Manager, or providing a bespoke long-dated ALM ‘Solution’ to an Italian insurer, it’s these groups of sales people who seem to encounter the strongest buffeting from the winds of time.

The reason for this is, perhaps, that, as a sales person within an investment bank, these winds really are coming at you from all angles. Automation is increasingly commoditising products which historically would have required a bespoke human input; regulation stifles (with good reason) sales avenues which may otherwise have been open; ‘efficiencies’ allow a smaller number of salespeople to cover a larger number of clients; the increasing sophistication and autonomy of the end user client segments reduces their reliance on obtaining that sophistication from a 3^rd party.  The list goes on.  These developments may be great news for IT developers, risk managers, or people proficient at spamming emails – but they’re all to the detriment of the front-office, ‘high touch’, relationship driven salesperson. 

And sentiment on the role itself is also in a constant state of flux, and varies from bank to bank.  Are salespeople a partner or poor cousin to their respective trading colleagues? Do they provide invaluable intelligence and flow, or are they often an unnecessary intermediary between investor and trader?  Is it the name of the salesperson or the name of the bank for which they work which is really facilitating the dialogue? 

It’s developments and variations of opinion on questions such as these which have driven a huge amount of the change I have witnessed during my 17 years of recruiting fixed income sales people for investment banks. Clearly the structures of the teams for which I’ve recruited have changed, but, every bit as seismic, is the change in interpretation of what constitutes a sales person of ‘calibre’. In 2010, a sales person was largely judged on the scale and portability of their network. Other considerations, while not immaterial, were considered very secondary.  Who cares if he/she only got a 2:2 at university so long as his/her clients like him/her?  Not a mathematical genius? If it’s not a problem for their clients, then it’s not a problem for us!  Who needs our salespeople to be able to speak more than one language fluently so long as their clients don’t need them to?

Those days are long gone – partly because of similar developments on the customer side, and partly due to a general shift in recruitment policy across all levels. Graduate recruitment, clearly, could never use relationship scale/depth as a metric for calibre, but there has been a demonstrable change in perception of what ‘potential’ looks like when it comes to candidature for sales roles. An indefinable ‘je ne sais quoi’ in isolation is not enough – it needs to be supported by hard data: a top mathematical or technical degree from a leading university; demonstrable excellence in an extracurricular activity; evidence of a charitable mindset; and, of course, fluency in enough foreign languages to suggest an actual physical presence when work stopped on the Tower of Babel. And things are constantly changing at the senior level as well: as the customers’ recruitment values have changed, the suspicion on how portable their relationship really is with a given salesperson has grown. What’s considered more fundamental now is how well the general style/demeanour of the salesperson reflects the institutional self-perception of the hiring entity. While it’s not been a linear progression across all banks, it’s undoubtedly the case, especially within the tier one community, for banks to increasingly consider their salespeople as cogs in the relationship mechanism, rather than the mechanism operators themselves. There has been a growing belief that the customer relationship is held entirely by the institution and not the individuals within it – the individuals just need to reflect the preconceived identity of the institution because, apparently, the customer is on the phone with the institution, not the individual.  

It’s this sentimental shift which is driving one of the key personnel trends of the past 15 years: Juniorisation. In the early 2000s, when a bank lost an MD (in sales, but not just in sales), there was an MD level gap to be filled – not necessarily with an external hire, maybe an internal transfer/promotion. Same at Director level. How different things have been since 2010, however. Since 2010, departures from sales teams have almost always been motivated by, and certainly resulted in, a more junior contingency solution. Losing someone they didn’t want to lose is always a bitter pill to swallow for any investment bank, but the opportunity to bring in a more junior replacement is invariably at least half a spoonful of sugar. The relationships didn’t leave with the salesperson anyway, right?  A more junior/cheaper salesperson could be just as effective at reflecting our identity, right?

The so forth ad absurdum end point of this juniorisation is not a world in which newborns are pitching complex hedging solutions to FTSE 100 Treasurers – it is a world where sales teams simply don’t exist at all.  A non-human identity or image doesn’t necessarily need a human to proliferate it through a human hivemind – attractive, abundant and consistent branding, coupled with competitive pricing and seamless execution will achieve that. But that really is ad absurdum. As long as there is competition in a market, sales will remain perhaps the most important and sought-after skill in professional services – even if a salesperson’s impact on the likelihood of a trade executing is minute, it could, nevertheless, be the difference between that trade happening or not.  And in the binary, all or nothing, world of finance, that difference is often worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds in revenues. 

But are the banks right, up to a point? Does it really matter if they aren’t?  The answer, which may sound like a cop out but isn’t, is: it depends. And knowing why and on what could really benefit anyone who is looking to work for one. In an interview, display yourself in a way that reflects the platform and the situation. This may sound obvious, but it flies in the face of the ‘wisdom’ you may be given elsewhere. ‘Focus on your strengths’, for instance – surely that’s ubiquitously good advice, right? Well, not always. Sounder, or at least more fleshed out, advice would be ‘Focus on your strengths which best reflect and satisfy the specific context of the role you are interviewing for, and the institution that role is with’.  Realise that apparent strengths in one context may actually be weaknesses in another.

Clearly, the suggestion here is not that you need to be a totally different person for each interview, but chameleons, never mind how many appearances they can adopt, do, nevertheless, only have one face. There are multiple ways of expressing the truth – and choosing the most appropriate one is likely much more important than you’d think. 

If you’re an Associate interviewing to be junior on a 6 person pod at a tier one US investment bank, the early client exposure you obtained by being the no.2 on your two person current pod isn’t going to appeal as much as you might think. If you’re interviewing with a boutique or broker, don’t expect your spotless track record of production at a bulge bracket to be enough to land you the job – you may have been pitching a very different identity, and your face may not fit.  

And if it’s been more than 10 years since you last looked for a new job?  Bear in mind that the times have ‘a-changed’ – and you may need to make some ‘a-changes’ too. 

The post Selling from the Sell Side. A turning point or the end of the road? appeared first on Armstrong International.

Different Investment Models, Same Talent Challenges
At first glance, PE and VC firms seem to operate in different worlds. VCs invest in high-growth start-ups, often run by founder-led teams who need to transition into a more structured leadership model. PE firms, on the other hand, acquire more mature businesses, focusing on profitability, operational efficiency, and leadership upgrades.

But despite these differences, both models rely on one key driver of value: the right leadership team at the right time.

For VC firms, the challenge is helping founders transition from scrappy operators to leaders who can scale an organisation. This means hiring growth-stage executives (a seasoned COO, a strategic CFO, or a VP of Sales) before the company hits a breaking point.

For PE firms, the focus is on optimising leadership teams post-acquisition—often replacing or supplementing existing management with experienced operators who can drive EBITDA growth and prepare for an exit.

In both cases, waiting too long to fill these gaps leads to lost momentum, operational inefficiencies, and lower valuations.

Beyond the Job Description: The Bigger Picture in Portfolio Hiring
One of the biggest mistakes I see firms make is hiring based on a checklist instead of a holistic strategy. I’ve worked on countless executive searches where, on paper, a candidate might tick all the boxes—but they weren’t the right fit for that specific company, leadership team, and stage of growth.

The best approach is always to look at the bigger picture. It’s not just about hiring a star player—it’s about building the right team. That means considering:

How will this hire complement the existing leadership team?

Does this person bring the right mix of strategic vision and execution ability?

Are they the right cultural fit for the company and its investors?

These nuances don’t show up on a CV. They require deep collaboration with the internal team, the investors, and a hiring partner who understands not just what looks good on paper, but what actually drives success in a portfolio company.

How Top PE & VC Firms Win with Talent
Too many firms rely on personal networks and last-minute searches when filling executive roles in their portfolio companies. This approach is outdated and risky. Instead, leading PE and VC firms are adopting a structured, data-driven approach to portfolio hiring that gives them a competitive edge.

Here’s how:

Integrating Talent Strategy into Due Diligence

PE firms assess financials and operations pre-acquisition—why not leadership too?

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the existing team before the deal closes allows firms to plan immediate leadership upgrades post-close.

VCs can assess whether founders have the skill set to scale or if they will need an experienced COO or CFO within 12–18 months.

Building a Pre-Vetted Talent Bench

Instead of waiting for a crisis, top firms map talent ahead of time, identifying candidates for CEO, CFO, COO, and CPO roles before portfolio companies need them.

Having a pre-vetted shortlist means faster placements, less disruption, and stronger post-investment execution.

Partnering with Specialised Portfolio Hiring Experts

This is where firms like Armstrong International come in. Instead of taking a transactional approach to executive search, Armstrong works holistically across entire portfolios, helping PE and VC firms build custom talent strategies that align with their investment thesis.

We don’t just look at CVs—we work in partnership with internal teams, understanding the business, leadership dynamics, and future goals to find the best talent for the situation, not just the best on paper.

Embedding Talent Strategy into Portfolio Support

Firms that actively support their portfolio companies with hiring resources—rather than leaving it up to founders or management—see better long-term performance.

Offering structured talent development, leadership coaching, and succession planning increases retention and stability across the portfolio.

How Armstrong International Helps PE & VC Firms Gain a Competitive Edge
My most successful hires have always happened when:

We’ve ensured a talent roadmap that aligns with the value creation plan.

We’ve thoroughly mapped and built strong pipelines (proactively and ad-hoc) and not just a curated shortlist.

We’ve worked as a true partner, not just a search firm, by going beyond the job description.

We’ve used data to give us market insights and challenged the process if it wasn’t working, ensuring both client and candidate experience—because it always takes two to tango.

The Bottom Line: Hiring is a Value Creation Strategy
Whether in VC or PE, winning firms understand that hiring is not just an HR function—it’s a core value creation strategy. The best investors don’t just fund great companies; they build the leadership teams that turn them into success stories.

The post Portfolio Hiring: The Overlooked Competitive Advantage for PE & VC Firms appeared first on Armstrong International.

There are 12 million small businesses in the UK and most of them are, from a tax point of view,  stitched up super tight but I do feel by allowing a little bit more fiscal flexibility. It could change things significantly. If 12 million small businesses had an extra £100,000 to spend on expenses that’s £1.2 trillion of money moving around the British economy 

Tax loopholes, the very phrase sounds dodgy, like something muttered in the back of a Mayfair members’ club over a glass of warm brandy. But before we jump to conclusions, let’s pause for a moment and ask a slightly uncomfortable question, what if tax loopholes – or more kindly, *creative allowances*- are actually good for the economy?

Imagine this, I take a client out for a day’s fishing. Not because I’m angling for a trout, but because I’m trying to build a relationship, talk shop, and yes secure more business. But who really benefits? The chap who owns the boat, the company that provides the food, the bloke who drives us there, the pub we hit on the way back. That single expense ripples outward and supports a web of small businesses.

In the current climate, though? None of it’s allowable. Not unless the fish we caught also signed a consultancy agreement. The tax rules are so tight, so joyless, that unless you’re holding a meeting in a broom cupboard with receipts signed in blood, it’s not deductible.

This wasn’t always the case. Back in the post-war boom of the ’50s and ’60s, you could wine and dine, hire a car, wear a sharp suit, and put it all on the books—as long as you were doing “business.” Were some people taking the mick? Absolutely. But the money kept moving. Restaurants were full. Drivers had fares. Hotels had guests. Florists, caterers, tailors, events people – they all had work. And that wasn’t fraud. That was flow.

Take company cars, for example. These days, the tax on a vehicle benefit is so steep, it’s practically a deterrent. But more cars on the road means more jobs for mechanics, more fuel sold, more tyres replaced, more MOTs booked, more sausage rolls from the service station café. It’s all part of the grand machine. Why punish a business for choosing to participate?

The problem is, we’ve swung so far in the direction of “tightening up” that we’ve strangled the very thing we claim to support – enterprise. As Churchill said, ‘some people think free enterprise is a tiger to be shot, others think it’s a cow to be milked but it’s actually the horse that pulls the cart of society along’.

Small businesses, in particular, are being forced to shrink their spend and every time that happens, it’s the little guys who suffer. The independent restaurant that doesn’t get the booking, the driver who doesn’t get the fare, the boutique hotel that sits empty on a Wednesday night.

Letting businesses be a bit more… interpretive about what counts as an expense isn’t about encouraging fraud. It’s about encouraging confidence, it’s about keeping the cash flowing. Every pound spent, even under the comforting umbrella of “business development,” is a pound that ends up in someone else’s till. And that’s good for the economy.

So yes, “tax loopholes” may sound grubby. But many of them – especially the old-school, high-street, take-a-client-for-a-decent-lunch kind – weren’t just loopholes. They were lifelines.

Let’s stop punishing ambition and start celebrating it again. It’s time to bring back the art of the tasteful write-off and inject some much-needed life back into the economy.

The post In Praise of the Tax Loophole: A Love Letter to the Business Expense appeared first on Armstrong International.