Financial Analysis interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

42

Firms

28

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsMoody's7Bain Capital3SSState Street3AMAres Management2BLBlackRock2DED.E. Shaw2MSMorgan Stanley2Oaktree Capital Management2S&P Global2Bridgewater Associates1Citadel1FTFranklin Templeton1Golub Capital1HWHarris Williams1Houlihan Lokey1J.P. Morgan1Jane Street1MWMarshall Wace1Millennium Management1Morningstar1PIMCO1Sycamore Partners1TSTruist Securities1Two Sigma1Vanguard1WMWellington Management1Wells Fargo Securities1Wolverine Trading1

Topic

All topicsThree statements9Accounting policy and standards5Working capital and cash7Ratio analysis8Forecasting and budgeting9Variance and management reporting7Unit economics and costing8Capital budgeting7Cost of capital and valuation7Markets and rates5Modelling, Excel and data8Business partnering6Brainteasers and estimation4Fit and career10

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalCaseBrainteaserMarket viewFit

1. 022Walk me through a DuPont analysis.Ratio analysisCorephone / first roundCorporate FP&ARating agencies

   Say this

   DuPont breaks return on equity into net margin times asset turnover times the equity multiplier. Three levers: how much you earn on a sale, how hard you work the assets, and how much of it is borrowed.

   Then walk it

   1. Net income over revenue, times revenue over assets, times assets over equity. The revenue and asset terms cancel, so it is arithmetically just ROE, but each term tells a different operating story.
   2. The five-step version splits margin further into tax burden, interest burden and operating margin. That is the one to use when you want to know whether a margin change came from operations, funding or tax.
   3. The value is in the comparison. Two companies at 18 percent ROE: a branded FMCG business gets there on 15 percent margin and low leverage, a distributor gets there on 2 percent margin and turnover of six times. Same ROE, completely different businesses and completely different risk.
   4. So the diagnostic question is which term is doing the work. ROE held up by the equity multiplier is fragile, because leverage amplifies downturns as neatly as it amplifies returns.
   5. Then the limitations. ROE uses book equity, so a company that has bought back a lot of stock or written off goodwill can show a flattering ROE on a shrunken denominator. And it ignores the cost of equity entirely.
   6. That is why I would pair it with return on capital employed, which is leverage-neutral, and compare the two.

   Where candidates lose it

   Reciting the formula and stopping. The question is a diagnostic tool, so the answer must say which term explains the change and whether the ROE is quality or leverage. Add one comparison of two businesses with the same ROE.

   Expect next

   • Which of the three levers would you push first in a distribution business?
   • Why pair DuPont with ROCE?
   • ROE is 25 percent and rising. When does that worry you?
2. 024What is common-size analysis, and what do you actually look for when you run one?Ratio analysisCorephone / first roundKPO research supportBig Four

   Say this

   You express every P&L line as a percentage of revenue and every balance sheet line as a percentage of total assets. It strips out size so you can compare a 200 crore company with a 20,000 crore one, and compare five years of one company on the same basis.

   Then walk it

   1. On the P&L I read it top down: gross margin, then each cost block as a percentage of sales. What I am looking for is which line moved, not that profit moved.
   2. A live example: operating margin down 150 basis points. Common-sizing shows gross margin held and employee cost went from 12.5 to 14 percent of revenue. Now you have a question for HR, not a vague margin discussion.
   3. On the balance sheet it shows structural shifts: inventory rising as a share of assets, goodwill becoming a third of the balance sheet, the debt-to-total-capital mix drifting.
   4. Trend analysis is the sibling: index everything to a base year at 100 and watch the divergence. Revenue at 160 with receivables at 240 is the story, and neither number alone tells it.
   5. Where it misleads: a revenue denominator that changed because of an accounting reclassification, gross versus net presentation, or a large acquisition mid-year. Then every percentage moves and nothing operational happened.
   6. So common-size gives you the question. The driver analysis behind it gives you the answer, and I would never present one without the other.

   Where candidates lose it

   Defining it and not saying what you look for. The answer has to end in a specific finding, like employee cost up 150 basis points, because that is the output an interviewer wants to see you produce.

   Expect next

   • How would you present this to a business head?
   • What would make a common-size comparison invalid?
   • How do you common-size a balance sheet for a bank?

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.