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. 089Given a 20x P/E, 10x EV/EBITDA, $20 of interest at a 5 percent rate, $200 of market cap and $20 of depreciation, calculate the tax rate.Case and estimationHardsuperdayEvercoreMergers and Acquisitions · San Francisco · 2026

   Say this

   Work backwards from the multiples to build the income statement. Net income is $10, debt is $400, so enterprise value is $600 and EBITDA is $60. EBIT is $40, pre-tax income is $20, so tax is $10 on $20 — a 50 percent rate. That is above any statutory rate, so I would flag that the inputs are inconsistent rather than just hand you the number.

   Then walk it

   1. Net income: market cap $200 at a 20 times P/E means net income of $10.
   2. Debt: $20 of interest at a 5 percent rate implies $400 of debt.
   3. Enterprise value: $200 equity plus $400 debt is $600, assuming no cash. At 10 times EV/EBITDA, EBITDA is $60.
   4. Then EBIT is EBITDA less depreciation, so $60 less $20 is $40. Pre-tax income is EBIT less interest, so $40 less $20 is $20. Net income is $10, so tax is $10 on $20, which is a 50 percent rate.
   5. I would then flag it: 50 percent is above any statutory rate, which usually means the question contains rounded or inconsistent inputs, or there is a non-operating item I am not being told about.
   6. The way to handle this live is to lay out the chain clearly, state the answer the arithmetic gives, and then say what would make it plausible: cash on the balance sheet would lower enterprise value and therefore EBITDA, and minority interest or a one-off charge below the line would change the bridge.

   Where candidates lose it

   Either freezing on the arithmetic or reporting an absurd tax rate with a straight face. The test is whether you can chain multiples backwards into an income statement, and whether you have the judgement to flag an implausible output rather than just handing it over.

   Expect next

   • What if there were cash on the balance sheet?
   • Which assumption are you least comfortable with?
   • Redo it with $100 of cash.

   Reported by candidates at Evercore (Mergers and Acquisitions, San Francisco, 2026). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 090You have a rope 30cm long and another 45cm long. Each centimetre takes one minute to burn. How do you measure exactly 25 minutes?BrainteasersHardtechnicalMoelis & CompanyInvestment Banking · New York · 2025

   Say this

   The only tool you have is that lighting a rope at both ends halves its time. With these two lengths the times you can construct are 15, 22.5, 26.25, 30 and 37.5 minutes — 25 is not one of them. I would show you that working and tell you the puzzle as stated has no exact solution.

   Then walk it

   1. The single insight: a rope lit at both ends burns out in half its length in minutes, regardless of where it burns unevenly.
   2. Light the 30cm at both ends and it is gone at 15 minutes. Light the 45cm at both ends and it is gone at 22.5.
   3. Best combination for something near 25: light the 45cm at both ends and the 30cm at one end at time zero. At 22.5 minutes the 45 is gone and the 30 has 7.5cm left. Light its second end and it burns out 3.75 minutes later, at 26.25.
   4. The other combination goes the wrong way: light the 30cm at both ends and the 45cm at one end. At 15 minutes the 45 has 30cm left; lighting its second end gives 15 more minutes, so you land on 30.
   5. So the reachable set is 15, 22.5, 26.25, 30, 37.5 and the un-halved 45. There is no route to exactly 25.
   6. In the room, say the halving principle immediately, construct the timings out loud, then say plainly that 25 is not reachable and 26.25 is the closest. Interviewers garble the lengths on this puzzle constantly, and catching that scores better than forcing a wrong answer.

   Where candidates lose it

   Forcing an answer because you assume the question must have one. Narrate the halving principle, build the reachable times, and say if the target is not among them. Confidently asserting a solution that your own arithmetic contradicts is the actual failure here.

   Expect next

   • What is the general set of times you can construct?
   • How much water can you measure with a 3-litre and a 4-litre bottle?
   • What angle do the clock hands make at 3:15?

   Reported by candidates at Moelis & Company (Investment Banking, New York, 2025). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

3. 098Would you deliver an analysis on time with 90 percent confidence in the numbers, or delay it to get to 100 percent?FitHardsuperdayGoldman SachsInvestment Banking · New York · 2025

   Say this

   Deliver on time, and flag exactly which parts I am not confident in. In banking a late answer is often useless, but an unqualified wrong number is worse. The professional move is to hit the deadline with the uncertainty labelled.

   Then walk it

   1. Start by rejecting the premise that those are the only two options. The third path is to deliver on time and say precisely where the 10 percent of doubt sits.
   2. Then the judgement: it depends on what the number is for. A directional figure for an internal discussion can go out at 90 percent. A number going into a fairness opinion, a public document or a signed agreement cannot.
   3. So I would triage: is this decision-critical and irreversible, or is it an input to a conversation that will iterate?
   4. And the escalation point, which is what they are really testing: I would tell my associate before the deadline, not after, so they can decide whether to take the risk or buy more time from the client. Hiding the uncertainty is the only genuinely wrong answer.
   5. Then close with the practical habit: I would send it with a short note saying which two assumptions are soft and what I would need to firm them up.

   Where candidates lose it

   Picking one horn of the dilemma and defending it absolutely. Both extremes are wrong. The answer is on time, with the uncertainty disclosed, escalated early, and the threshold set by what the number will be used for.

   Expect next

   • What if your associate tells you to send it without the caveat?
   • Tell me about a time you were in an ethical dilemma.
   • Tell me about a time you fell behind schedule.

   Reported by candidates at Goldman Sachs (Investment Banking, New York, 2025). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

4. 100Why should we take you over the other candidates from your university with exactly the same experience?FitHardsuperdayRothschild & CoInvestment Banking · Milan · 2025Houlihan LokeyInvestment Banking · New York · 2026MorningstarGeneralist · Chicago · 2024

   Say this

   Do not claim to be smarter or more driven, because everyone in the room says that. Name one specific, verifiable thing you have that they probably do not, and connect it to the work.

   Then walk it

   1. The honest framing first: on paper we are similar, and I would not pretend otherwise. So the answer has to be something specific rather than an adjective.
   2. Then the differentiator, and it should be concrete. Depth in one sector nobody else in the class has looked at. A language and a market. A technical skill like Python or SQL you have actually used on a dataset. Having run something with real accountability and real money.
   3. Then tie it to their business, not to your CV. Something like: your industrials team does a lot of cross-border work in Italy, and I can read Italian filings and speak to a management team without an interpreter. That is useful on day one.
   4. Then the evidence, in one line, because the claim is worthless unless it is checkable.
   5. And avoid the two failure modes: listing adjectives, which is unfalsifiable and forgettable, or disparaging other candidates, which reads badly in a business where you will spend your life in a small team.

   Where candidates lose it

   Answering with 'work ethic' and 'passion'. Every candidate says both and neither can be verified. Pick a specific, checkable capability and connect it to something their desk actually does. Specificity is the entire answer.

   Expect next

   • What is something about you that is not on your CV?
   • Why this group, and what do you add that someone else cannot?
   • What is one thing you wish had gone differently today?

   Reported by candidates at Rothschild & Co (Investment Banking, Milan, 2025); Houlihan Lokey (Investment Banking, New York, 2026); Morningstar (Generalist, Chicago, 2024). 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.