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. 006What areas of competitive advantage does this company have? Does it have barriers to entry, and can it sustain its revenue growth?Company analysisIntermediatecase studyMorningstarEquity Research · Chicago · 2023

   Say this

   Test the moat against the numbers rather than asserting it. A real competitive advantage shows up as returns on invested capital above the cost of capital, sustained for years, with stable or rising market share.

   Then walk it

   1. Name the source, and be specific. Intangibles like brand and patents, switching costs, network effects, cost advantage from scale or process, and efficient scale in a market too small for two players. Those five cover almost everything.
   2. Then prove it with evidence: ROIC consistently above WACC, gross margin stable through a downturn, pricing taken above inflation without volume loss, and customer retention.
   3. Then test durability directly. Ask what a well-funded competitor would have to do to take a customer, and how long it would take. If the answer is 'offer a lower price', there is no moat.
   4. On sustaining growth, separate the sources: price, volume, mix, new products, new geographies, and acquisitions. Growth from price and mix is high quality; growth from acquisitions is bought and should be valued differently.
   5. Then the honest test for a research note: is the moat widening, stable or narrowing? Morningstar's own framework is built on exactly that trend judgement, and it drives the fair value estimate far more than this year's earnings.

   Where candidates lose it

   Listing Porter's five forces as a memorised frame with no company-specific evidence. The grader wants the link from the qualitative claim to a number in the financials. No ROIC, no moat.

   Expect next

   • Is the moat widening or narrowing?
   • What return on capital does it earn against its cost of capital?
   • Would you rather own a low quality business at a great price or a high quality one at an okay price?

   Reported by candidates at Morningstar (Equity Research, Chicago, 2023). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 028How would you perform a whitespace analysis?Company analysisHardtechnicalViking Global InvestorsQuantitative Research · New York · 2024

   Say this

   Map what the company currently sells to whom, map the total set of customers and products it could serve, and the gap between them is the whitespace. Then test whether the company can actually reach it.

   Then walk it

   1. Build the current position first: revenue split by product, by customer segment, by geography. You need the base to measure the gap from.
   2. Then size the addressable set honestly, bottom-up. Number of potential customers times realistic spend per customer, not a top-down market report number that includes everyone.
   3. The whitespace is the difference: customers in the addressable set who do not buy, and products the existing customers buy from someone else. The second is usually the higher-probability opportunity, because the relationship already exists.
   4. Then the feasibility test, which is where most whitespace analyses fail. Does the company have the product, the sales capacity and the right to win? Whitespace that requires capability it does not have is not an opportunity, it is a wish.
   5. Then quantify what the market is paying for. If the current price implies the company captures a third of the whitespace, and your work says it captures a tenth, you have a short. That conversion from market map to expectation is the actual investment output.

   Where candidates lose it

   Producing a large total addressable market number and calling it whitespace. The analytical value is entirely in the feasibility filter and in converting the result into what is priced in.

   Expect next

   • How do you size a market bottom-up?
   • How much of that is in the price?
   • How would you verify penetration rates?

   Reported by candidates at Viking Global Investors (Quantitative Research, New York, 2024). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

3. 085How would you analyse a company with related-party transactions or a controlling shareholder?Company analysisHardtechnicalIndian research desksEmerging market research

   Say this

   Treat governance as a valuation input rather than a footnote. Map every related-party flow, ask whether value is leaking out of the listed entity, and apply a discount if minority shareholders are not being treated equally.

   Then walk it

   1. Read the related-party transactions note in full and map the flows: who sells what to whom, at what price, and is there an independent benchmark for that price.
   2. The question is always whether the listed entity is transacting at arm's length. Buying raw materials from a promoter-owned entity above market, or selling output below it, transfers value out of the listed company.
   3. Watch for the classic structures: royalty or brand fees paid to the parent, shared services agreements, loans and guarantees to group companies, and asset purchases from related entities.
   4. Check pledged promoter shares. A promoter who has pledged a large proportion of their holding has an incentive problem and a forced-selling risk that can hit the stock independently of fundamentals.
   5. Look at the board: how many genuinely independent directors, who the auditor is, and whether auditors have resigned. An auditor resignation is one of the strongest negative signals available.
   6. Then price it. A governance discount is real and persistent, so the honest output is a lower multiple rather than a refusal to cover. But if you cannot verify that the cash belongs to minority shareholders, the correct answer is to avoid it, and saying that is a legitimate conclusion.

   Where candidates lose it

   Treating governance as a qualitative aside. In emerging markets it is frequently the dominant driver of returns. Naming pledged shares and auditor resignations shows real familiarity with how these situations actually unfold.

   Expect next

   • What is a promoter pledge and why does it matter?
   • How would you size a governance discount?
   • Would you ever refuse to cover a company?
4. 097What do you think about a company like Google starting to pay a dividend?Company analysisHardtechnicalS&P GlobalDebt Capital Markets · Chicago · 2022

   Say this

   It is a signal about the reinvestment opportunity, and that signal cuts both ways. It says the company has more cash than it can deploy at high returns, which is maturity, but it also broadens the shareholder base and imposes discipline.

   Then walk it

   1. The positive reading: a commitment to return cash imposes capital discipline and reduces the risk of value-destructive acquisitions. It also makes the stock eligible for income and dividend-focused funds, widening the buyer base.
   2. The negative reading: initiating a dividend is an admission that the company cannot reinvest all its cash above the cost of capital. For a growth company that is a signal of maturity, and maturity usually means a lower multiple.
   3. Dividends are sticky in a way buybacks are not. Cutting one is punished severely, so initiating it is a long-term commitment that reduces flexibility.
   4. The alternative use question: if the shares are cheap, a buyback returns more value. If they are expensive, a dividend is the better instrument. So the choice itself tells you what management thinks about its own valuation.
   5. For a technology company specifically, there is a tension with stock-based compensation: paying a dividend while issuing shares to employees means returning cash with one hand and diluting with the other.
   6. So my read would be: mildly negative for the growth narrative, mildly positive for governance, and the market reaction usually depends on which of those two the shareholder base cares about more.

   Where candidates lose it

   Answering only 'it is good, shareholders get cash'. The interesting content is the signal about reinvestment opportunities and the stickiness of the commitment. Argue both sides and then take a position.

   Expect next

   • Would a buyback be better?
   • What does it do to the shareholder base?
   • How would a credit analyst view it?

   Reported by candidates at S&P Global (Debt Capital Markets, Chicago, 2022). 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.