Brief phone screen with recruiter followed by on-site interview. On-site interview was scheduled to be an hour with the other VP of QA (they were looking to hire a second VP of QA) and then an hour with the CTO. Ended up being with the VP only (although longer than the scheduled hour.) General impression I got was that the VP in place was not really interested in hiring another one. When I asked him to describe the existing development process at Envestnet, his comment was "That's not really the way I expected the interview to go." One of his stated criteria for an ideal candidate was that they'd help improve the existing process, and he was reluctant to give any information about what that process is so the candidate could address it? I have a degree in finance, six years with one of the world's largest accounting firms and several years developing financial software for a leading brokerage, all of which was dismissed because I didn't have a background *specifically* in RIA-type portfolio management. I've got no problem not getting jobs where there's clearly not a good fit between the employer's needs and my skills. It's bothersome to be in an interview where the interviewer is clearly searching for things to object to.