Equity Research interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

72

Firms

45

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsMorningstar12Man Group6Balyasny Asset Management5BLBlackRock5FTFranklin Templeton5MSCI5Jefferies4CSCredit Suisse3Fidelity Investments3Moody's3Perella Weinberg Partners3Point723S&P Global3The Vanguard Group3WMWellington Management3Advent International2Apollo Global Management2Bank of America2Carlyle Group2DED.E. Shaw2Houlihan Lokey2HSBC2Piper Sandler2Sequoia Capital2SSState Street2Viking Global Investors2WBWilliam Blair2ACAQR Capital Management1BGBaupost Group1BMBNY Mellon1Centerview Partners1Coatue Management1Goldman Sachs1GSGuggenheim Securities1HWHarris Williams1Insight Partners1Invesco1Mizuho1Moelis & Company1MSMorgan Stanley1PIMCO1SCSchroders1Scotiabank1T. Rowe Price1TSTruist Securities1

Topic

All topicsResearch process9Stock pitch6Company analysis8Investment philosophy5Valuation14Modelling2Portfolio and risk8Macro8Sector knowledge2Accounting8Career and fit12Industry knowledge6Quantitative research1Sector: technology3Sector: consumer1Sector: healthcare1Sector: energy1Sector: financials2Sector: industrials1Case and estimation2

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalCaseFitBrainteaserMarket view

1. 009Why did you take a variant view on the multiple you applied to that company, relative to street expectations?ValuationHardsuperdayFTFranklin TempletonOil and Gas · San Mateo · 2024

   Say this

   Because the multiple should reflect the durability and the capital intensity of the earnings, and I think the market is applying a mid-cycle multiple to earnings that are not mid-cycle. Say what the street assumes, then why that assumption is wrong.

   Then walk it

   1. First, state the street's implied assumption in numbers. 'Consensus applies 6 times to a refiner on peak crack spreads, which implies they believe those spreads persist.'
   2. Then your disagreement and its basis. 'I apply 4.5 times because I think those spreads normalise within 18 months as capacity comes back, so I am valuing normalised rather than trailing earnings.'
   3. For a cyclical this is the whole game: the multiple and the earnings must be consistent. A low multiple on peak earnings is a value trap; a high multiple on trough earnings is often the correct entry.
   4. Support it with something observable: capacity additions, inventory levels, forward curve, historical spread ranges. The evidence has to be external to your own model.
   5. Then the discipline point: I would show the valuation across the cycle rather than a point estimate, and say what spread assumption is embedded in today's price. Reverse-engineering the market's assumption is the most persuasive thing in a research note.

   Where candidates lose it

   Justifying a multiple by peer comparison alone. That is circular. The multiple has to be defended by the economics, and for cyclicals specifically by where in the cycle the earnings sit.

   Expect next

   • What earnings are you applying that multiple to?
   • How do you normalise a cyclical?
   • What is priced in today?

   Reported by candidates at Franklin Templeton (Oil and Gas, San Mateo, 2024). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 042How do you normalise earnings for a cyclical company?ValuationHardtechnicalFTFranklin TempletonOil and Gas · San Mateo · 2024

   Say this

   Estimate what the business earns through an average cycle, not at either extreme. Take mid-cycle volumes and mid-cycle margins, adjusted for any structural change since the last cycle, and value that.

   Then walk it

   1. Method one: average the margin over a full cycle, usually seven to ten years, and apply it to current revenue. Simple and defensible.
   2. Method two: estimate mid-cycle volume and mid-cycle price separately, then rebuild the income statement. More work, but it lets you adjust each independently.
   3. Method three: normalise on the balance sheet instead, using return on invested capital through the cycle applied to today's capital base. Useful when volumes have changed structurally.
   4. The critical adjustment: has anything structural changed since the last cycle? Capacity closures, consolidation, a new cost position, or demand substitution mean history is not a clean guide. This is where the analysis is.
   5. Then apply a mid-cycle multiple to the normalised figure. The common error is applying a peak multiple to normalised earnings, or a normalised multiple to peak earnings; the two must be consistent.
   6. And show the earnings range rather than a point. For cyclicals the honest output is a value at trough, mid and peak, with a probability view on where in the cycle we are.

   Where candidates lose it

   Normalising the earnings but not the multiple, or ignoring structural change and treating the last cycle's average as destiny. Consistency between the earnings base and the multiple is the whole discipline.

   Expect next

   • How do you know where in the cycle you are?
   • What has structurally changed in that industry?
   • Why do cyclicals look cheapest at the top?

   Reported by candidates at Franklin Templeton (Oil and Gas, San Mateo, 2024). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

Firm tags come from public, anonymous candidate reports on Wall Street Oasis: strong signal, not sworn testimony. Firms are named as the places a question was reported, not as partners of Fin Maverick. Answers are written for this page to show how to think out loud; they are not scripts to recite.