Investment Banking interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

100

Firms

46

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsTSTruist Securities10Rothschild & Co8Centerview Partners7CSCredit Suisse7HWHarris Williams6Houlihan Lokey6Lazard6Mizuho6Barclays5Citi5Deutsche Bank5Evercore5Moelis & Company5MSMorgan Stanley5Piper Sandler5RCRBC Capital Markets5Goldman Sachs4Nomura4TD Securities4Bank of America3GSGuggenheim Securities3J.P. Morgan3Jefferies3Moody's3Perella Weinberg Partners3WPWarburg Pincus3WBWilliam Blair3HSBC2Lincoln International2Scotiabank2TPTPG2UBS2Wells Fargo Securities2Advent International1Apollo Global Management1Bain Capital1Balyasny Asset Management1BLBlackRock1BPBNP Paribas1General Atlantic1Invesco1Morningstar1PIMCO1STSociété Générale1SSState Street1WMWellington Management1

Topic

All topicsAccounting14Valuation21M&A10Markets and deals10Capital markets3LBO8Leveraged finance3Restructuring2Credit3Debt capital markets2Capital structure2Case and estimation11Brainteasers6Fit5

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalCaseBrainteaserFitMarket view

1. 021What are the main valuation methodologies, with the pros and cons of each?ValuationCoretechnicalCenterview PartnersInvestment Banking · Menlo Park · 2026Piper SandlerInvestment Banking · New York · 2026InvescoAsset Management · New York · 2023

   Say this

   Three core ones: comparable companies, precedent transactions and DCF. Comps tell you what the market pays today, precedents tell you what buyers paid including control, and a DCF tells you what the cash flows are worth on your own assumptions.

   Then walk it

   1. Trading comps: fast, market-based, easy to defend. But no two companies are truly comparable, and if the whole sector is mispriced your answer inherits that.
   2. Precedent transactions: captures the control premium and what strategic buyers actually paid. But deals are stale, each had its own circumstances, and disclosure is patchy.
   3. DCF: the only method grounded in the actual economics, and it forces you to state your assumptions. But it is enormously sensitive to WACC and terminal value, so it can be made to say almost anything.
   4. Situational ones sit alongside: LBO analysis for a floor value a sponsor would pay, sum of the parts for conglomerates, NAV for asset-heavy or real estate businesses, and dividend discount for banks.
   5. In practice you show all of them as a football field and argue for a range, because the overlap between methods is more persuasive than any single number.

   Where candidates lose it

   Listing the three and stopping when the question explicitly asked for pros and cons. Also, claiming DCF is 'the most accurate'. It is the most theoretically sound and the most easily manipulated, and saying both is what makes you sound credible.

   Expect next

   • Rank the four methodologies from highest to lowest value and explain why.
   • Which would you weight most for a company like this?
   • When would you not use a DCF at all?

   Reported by candidates at Centerview Partners (Investment Banking, Menlo Park, 2026); Piper Sandler (Investment Banking, New York, 2026); Invesco (Asset Management, New York, 2023). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 030Walk me through what happens to WACC when leverage rises, and tell me whether shareholder value actually changed.ValuationHardsuperdayCenterview PartnersInvestment Banking · New York · 2026

   Say this

   WACC falls at first, because you are swapping expensive equity for cheaper tax-deductible debt, then rises again as distress risk takes over. So there is a U shape. Whether shareholder value changed depends on whether the tax shield outweighs the distress cost.

   Then walk it

   1. Early leverage lowers WACC because debt is cheaper than equity and interest is deductible. The tax shield is a genuine transfer of value from the government to the capital providers.
   2. But as leverage rises, equity gets riskier, so cost of equity climbs. Lenders also reprice, so cost of debt climbs. Eventually both swamp the tax benefit and WACC turns back up.
   3. In a world with no taxes and no bankruptcy costs, Modigliani-Miller says the value of the firm is unchanged and you have only reshuffled claims. That is the reference case.
   4. In the real world the tax shield adds value and financial distress subtracts it, so there is an optimum somewhere in the middle. That is the whole theory of capital structure.
   5. So the honest answer to the second half is: shareholder value changed, but not because WACC fell. It changed because of the tax shield net of distress and agency costs. Falling WACC is a symptom, not the cause.

   Where candidates lose it

   Saying 'WACC falls so value goes up, therefore infinite leverage is optimal'. The interviewer asked the second half specifically to catch that. You must separate the mechanical WACC effect from the economic source of value.

   Expect next

   • So what is the optimal capital structure?
   • Can debt ever be more expensive than equity?
   • Why does Modigliani-Miller not hold in practice?

   Reported by candidates at Centerview Partners (Investment Banking, New York, 2026). 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.