This was for RBC Capital Markets as a software developer. I was messaged on LinkedIn, had a phone call with the recruiting agency, and they submitted my resume for review. RBC then called me in for a first-round one-on-one interview, which I did not pass. Interviewer stated things that were directly at odds with what the recruiting agency told me. Recruiters said that they had a position open for a few months, and that due to not finding good candidates at the higher experience levels, they opened up the floor to less experienced candidates. Recruiters also said that their contact (my interviewer) explicitly mentioned that RBC Quant lagged behind other financial firms like TD and Citadel. Even without hearing this, it is difficult to imagine that RBC is able to trump competitors that have formed their entire raison d'etre around software-empowered trading, like Jane Street or Two Sigma. I brought these points up during my interview - specifically asking "Why not a developer with, say, 10 years of experience"? The interviewer implied that they were never looking for someone with such depth of experience, as they were looking to "innovate and not replicate". And unprompted, he described wanting to better RBC's Quant team - despite already being "the best". After my interview, I talked to the recruiter to see if I could learn why I received information that directly contradicted the recruiting team's information. It is impossible that this was a miscommunication through management, as the recruiting agency's source of information was the interviewer himself. I received no explanation for why this happened, and was not asked to come in for the next round.