The role requires analysts to produce accurate, polished materials for senior bankers, so employers want evidence that you can receive direct corrections without becoming defensive and can quickly apply the standard.
Use a brief STAR structure: name the feedback clearly, explain your immediate correction and any system you created, then close with the improved result. Never criticise the senior person's tone.
Start by naming the exact feedback you received, not a vague summary of it. Say plainly that your senior pointed out a specific error, such as a formatting inconsistency in a pitch book or a missed data point in a financial model, and that the correction came with a blunt tone. Then explain your immediate response, which should be to acknowledge the issue in one or two sentences, thank them for the catch, and state precisely what you will do to fix it. Avoid the reflexive Taglish apology that many candidates fall into, like sorry po, mali po ako agad, because that signals panic rather than professionalism. Instead, follow up with one focused question, such as whether they prefer a particular template or a set review checklist, so you show you are learning the standard rather than just absorbing criticism. Then describe the concrete system you built afterward, maybe a self-check list for every deliverable or a peer review step before sending anything to senior staff. Close with the result, like no repeat errors in the next three submissions, and note that the same senior later trusted you with higher-stakes materials. Keep your tone calm and measured throughout, as if blunt feedback is simply part of the job, because in investment banking it is, and your composure is part of what you are proving.
Many Filipino candidates over-apologize and say 'Sorry po, mali po ako agad' then wait for reassurance, which reads as lacking confidence. Instead, acknowledge the specific issue, state what you will fix, and ask one focused follow-up question.
Situation
During my summer internship at a financial advisory firm, my supervising analyst reviewed my first draft of a weekly market update deck and told me outright that the formatting was messy and the summary bullets were too vague.
Task
I needed to revise the deck before the afternoon send-out, correct the specific shortcomings, and show my supervisor I could absorb direct criticism without becoming defensive.
Action
I asked which three slides were the worst offenders so I could focus on the most visible fixes first, then rebuilt the summary bullets using the firm's previous decks as a reference. I also kept a checklist of the feedback points and applied them across all remaining slides. After reducing clutter and standardizing fonts, I sent the revised file back within two hours and requested a second check.
Result
The supervisor approved the deck with only minor edits, and I was later asked to prepare the same weekly update on my own for the next three weeks.
Blunt feedback is a shortcut to the standard expected, so separate the tone from the correction and fix the work fast.
Write your own answer, then get instant AI feedback graded against:
Get AI feedback on your answer — free.
3 free AI-graded answers + 1 free mock interview, no card needed.
Sign Up FreeAlready have an account? Log in
Sign in to join the conversation.
No answers shared yet — be the first to show how you'd approach this.