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. 004Do a paper LBO. EBITDA of $100, bought at 10 times, five turns of leverage, exit at the same multiple in five years with EBITDA at $150.LBO mechanicsHardtechnicalBain CapitalGeneralist · Boston · 2024WPWarburg PincusPrivate Equity · New York · 2014Clayton Dubilier and RicePrivate Equity · London · 2026

   Say this

   Entry equity is $500. With about $250 of debt repaid over five years, exit equity is $1,500 less $250, so $1,250. That is 2.5 times the money and roughly a 20 percent IRR.

   Then walk it

   1. Entry: $100 EBITDA at 10 times is $1,000 enterprise value. Debt at five turns is $500, so the sponsor writes $500.
   2. Cash generation: EBITDA ramps from $100 to $150, averaging about $125. Interest on $500 at 8 percent is roughly $40. Less CapEx of $25, working capital of $5, and cash taxes on EBIT.
   3. That leaves around $50 a year to sweep, so about $250 of debt repaid. Ending debt is $250.
   4. Exit: $150 at 10 times is $1,500, less $250 of debt, equals $1,250 of equity.
   5. Return: $1,250 on $500 is 2.5 times. Using the standard grid, 2.0 times over five years is about 15 percent, 2.5 times is about 20 percent, 3.0 times is about 25 percent.
   6. Attribution: EBITDA grew 50 percent and debt halved, with no multiple expansion assumed. That is the version an investment committee likes, because the return does not depend on the exit market.

   Where candidates lose it

   Reaching for a calculator or chasing decimal precision. Round hard, state every assumption out loud, and know the IRR grid cold. Also announce your interest rate and CapEx assumptions rather than letting them appear silently.

   Expect next

   • What if you exit at 8 times?
   • What return does the fund actually need?
   • How much of that return came from each driver?

   Reported by candidates at Bain Capital (Generalist, Boston, 2024); Warburg Pincus (Private Equity, New York, 2014); Clayton Dubilier and Rice (Private Equity, London, 2026). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 008Pitch me a business that would be a great LBO candidate, covering market drivers and both financial and non-financial qualities.Investment judgementHardsuperdayClayton Dubilier and RicePrivate Equity · London · 2026GSGuggenheim SecuritiesHealthcare · London · 2026

   Say this

   Pick a real company, ideally mid-cap and slightly unglamorous, and structure it as: why the market works, why this asset wins in it, what you would do differently as owner, how you would fund it, and how you would exit.

   Then walk it

   1. Market first: growing or at least stable demand, fragmented enough to consolidate, with a driver you can name, regulation, outsourcing, demographics, infrastructure spend.
   2. Then the asset: recurring revenue, contracted or repeat, gross margin stability, customer concentration low enough to be safe, and a defensible position you can describe in one sentence.
   3. Then the value creation plan, which is the part most candidates skip. Be specific: pricing that has not been touched in years, a sales force with no CRM discipline, three acquirable competitors in adjacent geographies, a non-core division to sell.
   4. Then the financing: what leverage the cash flow supports, what the interest burden looks like, and whether covenants would be comfortable in a downside case.
   5. Then the exit: who buys it in five years and why. Name actual acquirers, and say what the asset would look like at exit compared with today.
   6. Then the risks and what would stop you. A pitch with no acknowledged risk reads as a sales document rather than an investment case.

   Where candidates lose it

   Pitching a household name that is far too large or obviously not leveragable. Pick something with a realistic enterprise value for the fund you are interviewing with, and lead with the value creation plan rather than the financials.

   Expect next

   • How much leverage would it support?
   • Who buys it from you in five years?
   • What is the biggest risk?

   Reported by candidates at Clayton Dubilier and Rice (Private Equity, London, 2026); Guggenheim Securities (Healthcare, London, 2026). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

3. 010Here are the financial statements of three companies with no names. Tell me what type of business each one is.Investment judgementHardtechnicalHPS Investment PartnersSpecial Situations · London · 2021

   Say this

   Read the structure, not the numbers. Gross margin, asset intensity and working capital give away the business model almost immediately, and each combination points to a specific type of company.

   Then walk it

   1. High gross margin, negligible inventory, large deferred revenue, heavy R&D and sales spend: software.
   2. Low gross margin, high inventory, high fixed assets, thin net margin: manufacturing, distribution or retail. Split them by inventory turns and receivables. Retail collects immediately so receivables are near zero; distribution carries both inventory and receivables.
   3. Very high fixed assets, high depreciation, high debt, stable margins: utilities, telecom or infrastructure.
   4. Large receivables, no inventory, high staff cost as a share of revenue: a services or consulting business.
   5. Negative working capital, meaning payables exceed receivables and inventory: a business collecting from customers before paying suppliers, so restaurants, supermarkets, subscriptions or airlines.
   6. The systematic way to run it out loud: common-size everything as a percentage of revenue, look at the three biggest lines, compute working capital days, then name the model and say what evidence drove the conclusion. Getting the reasoning visible matters more than being right on all three.

   Where candidates lose it

   Guessing silently. This tests whether you can read a set of accounts structurally. Narrate the ratios you are computing and what each rules out; the process is being graded more than the identification.

   Expect next

   • Which of them would you lend to?
   • Which would make the best LBO?
   • What working capital profile would you want as an owner?

   Reported by candidates at HPS Investment Partners (Special Situations, London, 2021). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

4. 011Give me a purchase price for this company, given that the acquisition will generate an extra million of EBITDA.ValuationHardtechnicalAudax GroupPrivate Equity · Boston · 2021

   Say this

   Price the standalone business on its own multiple, then decide how much of the synergy you are willing to hand to the seller. In a buy-and-build you want to pay for the asset as it is and keep the synergy for yourself.

   Then walk it

   1. Start with standalone value: the target's own EBITDA at a multiple appropriate to its size and quality. Small bolt-ons trade well below platform multiples, often six to eight times against twelve for the platform.
   2. Then the synergy. That extra million of EBITDA, capitalised at your platform's exit multiple, is worth ten or twelve million of enterprise value to you.
   3. The negotiation is about how much of that you concede. A disciplined buyer pays little or nothing for synergies it creates; a competitive auction forces you to share some of it.
   4. So I would express it as a range: I would open at the standalone multiple, and my walk-away is the price at which the deal stops clearing my return hurdle after synergies.
   5. Then check the maths on the multiple arbitrage: buying at seven times and having it valued at twelve inside the platform creates value immediately, and that arbitrage is the core of any buy-and-build.
   6. And I would probability-weight the synergy. Cost synergies in a bolt-on are largely deliverable; revenue synergies rarely are, so I would underwrite only the former.

   Where candidates lose it

   Adding the synergy to the target's EBITDA and paying a full multiple on the combined figure. That hands the entire value creation to the seller before you have done any work, and it is the error the question is designed to find.

   Expect next

   • How much of the synergy would you pay away in a competitive auction?
   • What is multiple arbitrage?
   • How do you underwrite synergies in diligence?

   Reported by candidates at Audax Group (Private Equity, Boston, 2021). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

5. 027How would you underwrite a carve-out from a large corporate?Investment judgementHardsuperdayPlatinum EquityPrivate Equity · Los Angeles · 2014

   Say this

   The core problem is that the carve-out financials are not the real financials. You have to build a standalone cost base, including everything the parent was providing for free, and then underwrite the separation itself.

   Then walk it

   1. Start with the standalone cost base. The division has been receiving IT, HR, finance, legal, procurement and possibly premises from the parent. Allocated corporate costs in the carve-out accounts are almost never what standalone will actually cost.
   2. Usually standalone costs more, because you lose the parent's scale in procurement and have to build functions from nothing. Sometimes it costs less, because the allocation was punitive. You have to build it bottom-up either way.
   3. Then the transitional services agreement: what the parent will provide, for how long and at what price. The TSA is the bridge, and running out of TSA before you have built the replacement capability is the classic carve-out failure.
   4. Separation costs are real cash: systems migration, rebranding, new contracts, recruitment. These are often 5 to 10 percent of enterprise value and must be funded on day one.
   5. Commercial questions: which contracts transfer and which need customer consent, whether the division sells to the parent, and whether that relationship continues on the same terms.
   6. The upside case is what makes carve-outs attractive: these businesses are typically under-managed and under-invested because they were non-core. Freed of the parent's bureaucracy and given a dedicated management team, margin improvement is often substantial. That is the thesis, and the separation risk is the price of admission.

   Where candidates lose it

   Modelling the division's reported EBITDA as if it were standalone. Stranded costs and the TSA are the whole substance of a carve-out, and separation costs are real cash that must appear in sources and uses.

   Expect next

   • What is a TSA and what happens when it expires?
   • How do you size stranded costs?
   • Why are carve-outs attractive to sponsors?

   Reported by candidates at Platinum Equity (Private Equity, Los Angeles, 2014). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

6. 033How would you pitch the fund to an endowment versus a fund of funds?Fund economicsHardsuperdayKohlberg Kravis RobertsInvestor Relations · New York · 2025

   Say this

   Both want returns, but they are solving different problems. An endowment is building a long-horizon portfolio and cares about strategy fit and access. A fund of funds is selecting managers for its own clients and cares about differentiation it can explain.

   Then walk it

   1. Endowment: long horizon, permanent capital, sophisticated in-house team. They care about how you fit their existing exposures, whether you give them co-investment rights, and whether the relationship compounds over multiple funds. They will diligence the team deeply and negotiate on access, not just fees.
   2. Fund of funds: intermediary with its own investors to satisfy. They need a clear, communicable differentiation because they have to re-sell you internally and to their clients. Track record consistency and attribution matter more, because they are defending a selection decision.
   3. Also different: an endowment may take a larger ticket and want an advisory board seat; a fund of funds may take a smaller one but bring repeat allocations across vintages.
   4. Common ground: both want return attribution that shows skill rather than leverage and multiple expansion, a stable team with aligned economics, and evidence of loss discipline.
   5. The practical difference in the pitch: for the endowment I would lead with the strategy's role in their portfolio and the partnership over time. For the fund of funds I would lead with what makes this strategy distinctive against the peer set they are comparing us to.
   6. And both will ask the same hard question: why will the next fund perform like the last one, given you are now bigger?

   Where candidates lose it

   Giving one generic pitch. The question is explicitly about tailoring, and the underlying test is whether you understand that different limited partners have different decision processes and different internal accountability.

   Expect next

   • What would each one push back on?
   • How do you answer the fund-size question?
   • What is a co-investment right worth to them?

   Reported by candidates at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (Investor Relations, New York, 2025). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

7. 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.

8. 046How would you diligence a founder-run business?Due diligenceHardsuperdayAudax GroupPrivate Equity · Boston · 2021HIH.I.G. CapitalPrivate Equity · Paris · 2024

   Say this

   Assume the reporting is weaker than it looks and the founder is more central than anyone admits. The two questions are what the real earnings are, and what happens to the business when the founder steps back.

   Then walk it

   1. Financial reporting is usually thin. There may be no audited accounts, no management accounts by segment, no unit-level profitability. Budget more time and money for quality of earnings than you would for a corporate carve-out.
   2. Personal expenses run through the business are standard: cars, travel, family on the payroll, property. These are legitimate add-backs but each needs verification, and they are also a signal about controls.
   3. Founder dependency is the core risk. Which customer relationships are personal? Who actually makes pricing decisions? Is there a second layer of management, or does everything route through one person?
   4. Test it concretely: ask what happened when the founder took a long holiday. Ask the customers who they call. The answers are usually revealing.
   5. Related-party arrangements: property leased from a founder-owned entity, supply from a family business, loans in both directions. All need to be put on arm's-length terms before closing.
   6. Then structure around what you find. Rollover equity and an earnout keep the founder engaged; a transition agreement with defined handover milestones; and building the second layer of management is usually the first hundred days priority.

   Where candidates lose it

   Treating it like a corporate diligence. The distinctive risks are informal reporting, personal expenses and founder dependency, and the answer should end with how you structure around them rather than just listing them.

   Expect next

   • How would you structure the founder's rollover?
   • What if the founder wants to leave immediately?
   • How do you value a business where the owner works unpaid?

   Reported by candidates at Audax Group (Private Equity, Boston, 2021); H.I.G. Capital (Private Equity, Paris, 2024). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

9. 053If you had $100 million to invest in real estate today, where would you put it and why?Investment judgementHardsuperdayBlackstoneReal Estate · Vancouver · 2025InvescoReal Estate · Dallas · 2023

   Say this

   Pick a sector and a thesis rather than diversifying across everything. State the demand driver, the supply picture, and where pricing sits relative to replacement cost, then commit to a specific strategy.

   Then walk it

   1. Structure it as sector, then geography, then strategy, then structure. Avoid a balanced portfolio answer; the interviewer wants a view.
   2. The strongest arguments are supply-driven. Sectors where new construction has stopped because financing costs make development uneconomic will see rent growth as existing demand meets no new stock. Name the sector and the evidence.
   3. Demand drivers to reference: logistics and e-commerce penetration, data centres and power availability, residential undersupply in specific cities, healthcare and demographics. Avoid the generic office argument unless you have a genuinely contrarian case.
   4. Pricing discipline: compare the price per square foot to replacement cost. Buying below replacement cost means no rational developer competes with you until values rise meaningfully, which is the strongest margin of safety in real estate.
   5. Then the strategy: core, core-plus, value-add or opportunistic, and say which and why given where we are in the cycle. And whether you would prefer equity or, if pricing is unattractive, sitting higher in the capital structure in real estate debt.
   6. Then the risks: rate sensitivity on both NOI and the cap rate, the refinancing wall on existing loans, and what would make you wrong.

   Where candidates lose it

   Diversifying across five sectors to avoid being wrong. That is the safe answer and it scores poorly. Also ignoring debt: with elevated financing costs, real estate credit can be the better risk-adjusted expression of the same view, and saying so shows real judgement.

   Expect next

   • Why not real estate debt instead of equity?
   • What is your exit cap rate assumption?
   • How would you finance it?

   Reported by candidates at Blackstone (Real Estate, Vancouver, 2025); Invesco (Real Estate, Dallas, 2023). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

10. 054You own an underground car park in Mayfair with an empty floor and all the usual services already provided. What would you do with it?OperationsHardsuperdayHIH.I.G. CapitalPrivate Equity · Paris · 2024

    Say this

    Work out what the space is actually worth per square foot in that location, then find the highest-value use that does not need natural light, street frontage or planning permission you cannot get.

    Then walk it

    1. First establish the constraints, because they define the answer: no natural light, restricted access, ceiling height, ventilation, fire regulation, and whatever the lease and planning consent permit.
    2. Then the location advantage: Mayfair means extremely high-value residents and businesses within a very short radius, and extremely expensive surface space. So the value is in anything that needs proximity but not daylight.
    3. Candidate uses: secure storage for art, wine or documents, which is high margin and needs exactly these conditions; last-mile delivery and dark-store fulfilment; a gym or padel courts, which work well underground; data or telecoms infrastructure; or EV charging with premium pricing.
    4. Then size it properly rather than just listing ideas: rough square footage, achievable rent or revenue per square foot, the capital cost to convert, and the payback. Art and wine storage in central London commands a large multiple of parking revenue per square foot.
    5. Then check the downside: what is the reversibility of the conversion, and does it restrict a future sale of the whole asset?
    6. And the honest baseline: compare every option to simply improving the parking yield through dynamic pricing and monthly contracts, which costs nothing. Sometimes the best answer to a value-add question is that the incremental capital is not justified.

    Where candidates lose it

    Brainstorming a list with no numbers and no constraints. The test is commercial judgement under constraints: name the constraints first, size one or two options, and compare to the do-nothing baseline.

    Expect next

    • How would you size the storage opportunity?
    • What would you need to check in the lease?
    • What is the payback on your preferred option?

    Reported by candidates at H.I.G. Capital (Private Equity, Paris, 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.