Investment Banking interview preparation
Every question below is either traced to a named firm from a public candidate report, or tagged at desk level when we could not trace it. Answers are written the way you would actually say them out loud — answer first, then the mechanism, then the limitation.
100 questions, mapped to the firms that asked them
- Questions
- 100
- Traced to a firm
- 100
- Firms
- 46
- Updated
- September 2026
022Rank the valuation methodologies from highest to lowest and explain why.NomuraInvestment Banking · New York · 2026
Say this
The usual ordering is precedent transactions highest, then DCF, then trading comps, with an LBO analysis lowest. But I would say upfront that this is a tendency, not a rule, and I can construct cases where it inverts.
Then walk it
- Precedents sit highest because they include a control premium and often synergies a strategic buyer was willing to pay for.
- DCF usually sits above trading comps because sell-side forecasts tend to be optimistic, and because you are capturing the full life of the cash flows.
- Trading comps reflect minority stakes with no control, so they exclude the premium.
- LBO analysis is normally the floor, because a sponsor needs a target return and cannot pay for synergies it does not have.
- The inversions are the interesting part. In a frothy market, trading comps can exceed precedents from a downturn. And a strategic with real cost synergies can beat any sponsor, which is why the sponsor floor is not always the floor.
Where candidates lose it
Delivering the ranking as gospel. Interviewers ask this specifically to see whether you understand the logic or memorised a ladder. Name the ordering, give the reason for each rung, then volunteer a case where it flips.
Expect next
- Give me a case where trading comps exceed precedents.
- Would Blackstone or Nike pay more to acquire Adidas?
- Who typically pays more, a sponsor or a strategic?
Reported by candidates at Nomura (Investment Banking, New York, 2026). Source: Wall Street Oasis.
040Would Blackstone or Nike pay more to acquire Adidas, and why?NomuraInvestment Banking · New York · 2026
Say this
Nike, on economics. A strategic buyer can pay for synergies a sponsor cannot: overlapping supply chain, shared distribution and marketing scale. Blackstone only has financial engineering and whatever operational improvement it can drive alone.
Then walk it
- Nike's ceiling is intrinsic value plus synergies. Procurement, logistics, retail footprint and back office overlap are all real, so the synergy pool is large.
- Blackstone's ceiling is whatever price still clears its target return, typically a low-to-mid twenties IRR over five years. No synergies, so the value has to come from leverage, multiple expansion and operational improvement.
- So on paper the strategic wins, and that is the standard answer.
- But the deal would never happen for Nike. Combining the two largest athletic brands would be blocked on competition grounds in every major market. A buyer who cannot close cannot be the highest bidder in any real sense.
- So the honest answer is: Nike can pay more and will not be allowed to; Blackstone can actually transact. And a sponsor can sometimes win anyway on speed, certainty and no antitrust review, which is why sellers do not always take the highest nominal number.
Where candidates lose it
Giving the textbook 'strategics pay more' answer without noticing that this particular pairing is an antitrust impossibility. The firm names were chosen deliberately. Spotting that is the whole test.
Expect next
- Who typically pays more, a sponsor or a strategic?
- Who would be a realistic buyer then?
- When does a seller take the lower bid?
Reported by candidates at Nomura (Investment Banking, New York, 2026). Source: Wall Street Oasis.
075What are you seeing in your coverage sector right now, and where is the opportunity over the next 12 to 24 months?LazardMergers and Acquisitions · New York · 2026NomuraGeneralist · San Francisco · 2026
Say this
Answer like a banker pitching, not a student summarising. Name the structural change in the sector, then the deal type it generates, then the specific companies you would call.
Then walk it
- Open with the structural driver. Something like: the sector has too many subscale players and a cost base that only works above a certain revenue level, so consolidation is inevitable.
- Then name the deal type that follows. Structural overcapacity means mergers of equals and take-privates. A regulatory change means carve-outs. A technology shift means acquisitions of capability.
- Then be specific about targets and buyers. Two or three names with a reason each. This is the part almost nobody does, and it is the part that gets you the offer.
- Then the constraint. What is stopping these deals from happening today, financing cost, a valuation gap, antitrust, a founder who will not sell? Naming the blocker shows you are thinking commercially.
- Close with the actual pitch: 'so over the next year I would expect the mid-cap names to be taken out, and the call I would make is to X.'
Where candidates lose it
Giving a sector summary with no deal thesis. Coverage bankers get paid to originate. If your answer does not end with a transaction and a name, you have answered a different question.
Expect next
- Who would buy them?
- What is stopping that deal today?
- Pitch me a company.
Reported by candidates at Lazard (Mergers and Acquisitions, New York, 2026); Nomura (Generalist, San Francisco, 2026). Source: Wall Street Oasis.
077Why is crypto lagging gold when both are meant to be hedges, and how is AI affecting equities and rates?NomuraGlobal Markets · New York · 2026
Say this
Because they are not the same hedge. Gold is a long-duration store of value with central bank demand behind it. Crypto has traded as a high-beta risk asset, correlated with tech, not as a haven.
Then walk it
- The empirical point first: crypto's correlation has been with the Nasdaq, not with gold. It sells off when risk appetite falls, which is precisely when a hedge is supposed to work.
- Gold's bid is structurally different. Central bank buying, particularly reserve diversification away from dollar assets, is price-insensitive demand that crypto does not have.
- So the narrative of digital gold has not been validated by the correlation data, and that gap is the answer.
- On AI and equities: it has concentrated index returns in a handful of names, so index-level valuation is misleading. It has also turned a capital-light sector into a capital-heavy one, because hyperscaler capital expenditure is now enormous.
- On AI and rates: that capital expenditure is increasingly debt-funded, which means real issuance and upward pressure on yields at the long end. And the longer-run question is whether AI raises productivity enough to lift potential growth, which would raise the neutral rate.
- If I had to give one view: the AI trade has shifted from a margin story to a capital intensity story, and that is why it now shows up in credit markets as well as equity.
Where candidates lose it
Accepting the premise that both are hedges. The question contains a false assumption and the right move is to challenge it with the correlation evidence. Then pick one clear view on AI rather than describing both sides.
Expect next
- So would you own either?
- What would change your view on crypto's correlation?
- How is AI capital expenditure being funded?
Reported by candidates at Nomura (Global Markets, 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.