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. 035Tell me about a time someone questioned your integrity.Career and fitHardsuperdayBMBNY MellonEquity Research · New York · 2022

   Say this

   Choose a case where the challenge was reasonable given what the other person could see, and where you resolved it by showing your work. The point is how you respond to being doubted, not that you were vindicated.

   Then walk it

   1. Pick something real but bounded: a number in your analysis that someone thought was wrong, a result that looked too good, a process someone thought you had skipped.
   2. Explain why the doubt was reasonable from their position. Starting with 'they were being unfair' reads badly and misses the point of the question.
   3. Then the response: you showed the working, walked them through the source data, or invited them to check it. Transparency rather than argument.
   4. Then the outcome, and if you had made an error, say so. Admitting a mistake here is stronger than a clean vindication, because it shows how you behave when you are actually wrong.
   5. Then the lasting change: how you document or communicate differently now. In research, where your entire product is a claim, being auditable is the whole professional standard.

   Where candidates lose it

   Getting defensive in the retelling, or choosing an example so serious that it raises new questions. Regulated firms ask this to see whether you respond to scrutiny with openness or with resistance.

   Expect next

   • What if you had actually been wrong?
   • Tell me about an ethical dilemma you faced.
   • How do you make your work auditable?

   Reported by candidates at BNY Mellon (Equity Research, New York, 2022). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 082How would you handle publishing a sell rating on a company your bank has a relationship with?Career and fitHardsuperdaySell-side research

   Say this

   Publish it, and rely on the structures that exist for exactly this: research is separated from banking, the rating is based on documented analysis, and compliance reviews it. The answer is process, not courage.

   Then walk it

   1. Start with the structural point: research and investment banking are separated by information barriers, and the analyst's rating is not subject to banking sign-off. That separation exists because of past abuses and is enforced by regulation.
   2. Then the professional standard: the rating must follow the analysis, and the analysis must be documented so it can be defended. If the work supports a sell, the rating is a sell.
   3. Then the practical handling: make sure the note is factually impeccable, put the reasoning in the open, and give the company the chance to correct factual errors, not conclusions.
   4. Acknowledge the real cost honestly, because pretending there is none is naive: you may lose management access, which degrades your product. That is a genuine professional cost and it is why the skew exists.
   5. Then the escalation path: if you were pressured, you raise it with compliance and supervisory analysts. Knowing there is a channel is the answer they want.
   6. And the credibility argument: an analyst who never publishes a sell has a rating scale worth nothing. The value of your buy recommendations depends on your willingness to say sell.

   Where candidates lose it

   Either an idealistic 'I would just publish it' with no awareness of the structures, or a suggestion that you would soften the view. Name the information barrier and compliance explicitly; this is partly a regulatory-awareness question.

   Expect next

   • What if a senior banker called you about it?
   • Why do so few sell ratings get published?
   • How do you maintain company access after a downgrade?

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.