Private Equity interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

83

Firms

40

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsAdvent International6Apollo Global Management6Audax Group6Carlyle Group6EQT6Silver Lake6Vista Equity Partners6WPWarburg Pincus6HIH.I.G. Capital5Oaktree Capital Management5Platinum Equity5TPTPG5General Atlantic4AMAres Management3Blackstone3Clayton Dubilier and Rice3GSGuggenheim Securities3Insight Partners3Invesco3Lazard3Neuberger Berman3NUNuveen3TSTruist Securities3Bain Capital2HWHarris Williams2Kohlberg Kravis Roberts2Millennium Management2Moody's2Rothschild & Co2WBWilliam Blair2Bessemer Venture Partners1Citi1Evercore1FTFranklin Templeton1Houlihan Lokey1HPS Investment Partners1KKR1Mizuho1MSMorgan Stanley1Sycamore Partners1

Topic

All topicsLBO mechanics7Value creation5Returns2Fund economics9Investment judgement18Valuation6Firm knowledge2Credit and financing9Operations4Due diligence8Career and fit11Sector knowledge4Accounting2Deal structuring7Industry knowledge3Brainteasers3

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalCaseFitMarket viewBrainteaser

1. 036Why would a distressed company have a high equity value?ValuationHardtechnicalSilver LakeTechnology, Media and Telecom · San Francisco · 2022

   Say this

   Because equity in a levered company is a call option on the enterprise. Even when the option is deep out of the money, it has time value, so the market prices the chance that the business recovers before the debt comes due.

   Then walk it

   1. Equity holders have limited liability and a residual claim, which is exactly the payoff of a call option struck at the face value of the debt.
   2. So when enterprise value is below debt, the intrinsic value is zero but the option still has time value. Volatility and time to maturity both increase it.
   3. That has a counterintuitive consequence: higher volatility increases equity value in a distressed company, which is why shareholders of a failing business rationally prefer risky strategies. The lenders bear the downside.
   4. There are also more mundane explanations: the market may disagree with the accounting distress, there may be a valuable non-operating asset, or a rescue refinancing may be expected.
   5. And sometimes it is just a small float with retail buyers and constrained short interest, which is a market microstructure story rather than a valuation one.
   6. The practical read for an investor: a distressed equity with meaningful market value is a levered bet on recovery, and it should be sized like an option, not like equity.

   Where candidates lose it

   Answering that the market is simply wrong. The option framing is what the question is testing, and the follow-on insight, that volatility helps distressed equity and hurts the lenders, is the part that shows genuine understanding.

   Expect next

   • So what does that imply about management's incentives in distress?
   • How does that affect the lenders?
   • How would you value the fulcrum security instead?

   Reported by candidates at Silver Lake (Technology, Media and Telecom, San Francisco, 2022). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 038An oil company loses $40 million of market cap because of litigation and sells an asset to pay for it. Is the stock price drop justified?ValuationHardsuperdaySilver LakeTechnology, Media and Telecom · San Francisco · 2022

   Say this

   It depends on two things: whether the expected liability is genuinely $40 million on a present-value basis, and whether the asset was sold at fair value. If both hold, the drop is justified. If the asset went at a discount, the drop should be larger.

   Then walk it

   1. First, size the liability properly. A $40 million settlement paid today is worth $40 million, but a $40 million liability payable over ten years is worth considerably less. The market should discount it.
   2. Then, is the litigation over? If the settlement establishes precedent for further claims, the true liability exceeds the headline number and the drop should be bigger.
   3. Second, the asset sale. If the asset was sold at fair value, the transaction is value-neutral: cash in, asset out, liability settled. The whole $40 million is the litigation cost.
   4. But a forced seller rarely gets fair value. If the asset was worth $50 million and went for $40 million, the company destroyed another $10 million and the drop should be $50 million.
   5. Then the operating consequence: does losing that asset reduce future cash flows? If it was producing, you have lost the associated EBITDA and the drop should reflect the capitalised value of that, not just the cash.
   6. So my answer would be: $40 million is the floor. The justified drop is $40 million plus any discount on the forced sale, plus the capitalised value of the lost earnings, less any tax benefit on the settlement.

   Where candidates lose it

   Treating it as a simple one-for-one. The examinable content is the forced-sale discount and the lost earnings from the disposed asset. Both make the justified drop larger than the headline number.

   Expect next

   • What if the asset was non-producing?
   • How would you value the litigation tail risk?
   • Is the settlement tax deductible, and does that change your answer?

   Reported by candidates at Silver Lake (Technology, Media and Telecom, San Francisco, 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.