Private Wealth Management interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

22

Firms

13

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsAllianceBernstein4Goldman Sachs4Northern Trust3J.P. Morgan2MSMorgan Stanley2Scotiabank2AMAres Management1BMBNY Mellon1Carlyle Group1Invesco1Neuberger Berman1SCSchroders1UBS1

Topic

All topicsClient discovery5Risk profiling4Asset allocation and rebalancing7Investment policy statement3Tax and asset location6Concentrated positions3Estate, succession and philanthropy6Fiduciary and trusts3Alternatives and liquidity4Products and platforms7Fees and conflicts4Bank economics and risk2Behavioural finance3Family governance3Onboarding and compliance3Business development6Fit and career15Markets and economy9Case and estimation7

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalCaseMarket viewFitBrainteaser

1. 038How much of a private client's portfolio should be in illiquid assets?Alternatives and liquidityIntermediatetechnicalFamily officesPrivate banking

   Say this

   As much as he can lock up without ever being a forced seller, which for most private clients is far less than the endowment models suggest. I would work from the spending and commitment schedule upwards rather than starting with a target percentage.

   Then walk it

   1. Build it from the liability side. Reserve three years of spending in cash and short debt, reserve the expected capital calls over the next three years, and reserve for known lumpy items like a property purchase or a tax event. What is left over is the raw material for illiquidity.
   2. Typical answers that fall out of that: 10 to 20 percent for a client drawing an income from the portfolio, 25 to 40 percent for a large multi-generational balance sheet with outside income, and close to zero for anyone whose net worth is already dominated by an illiquid business or property.
   3. Count the whole household. An Indian client with 70 percent of net worth in real estate and an unlisted business already has an illiquidity problem. Adding an eight-year AIF commitment to that is not diversification.
   4. Remember that a commitment is a liability. Uncalled capital can be drawn at the worst possible moment, which is precisely when markets are down, so committed-but-uncalled amounts belong in the liquidity plan, not in a footnote.
   5. The compensation has to be real. If the illiquidity premium is a couple of hundred basis points over public equity before fees, and the fee load is 2 and 20, the client is paying for the privilege of being locked up. Endowments can hold illiquids because they are perpetual and have no fixed spending they cannot cut; a family paying school fees is not an endowment.
   6. The honest caveat: illiquidity also has a behavioural benefit that nobody puts in a model. A client cannot panic-sell a locked fund, and for some clients that is worth more than the premium.

   Where candidates lose it

   Quoting the Yale model at a private client. Endowments have perpetual horizons, no tax and no school fees. The right answer works from the spending and capital call schedule, counts the business and the property as illiquid, and treats uncalled commitments as a real liability.

   Expect next

   • What is the denominator effect and when did it bite?
   • How do you model uncalled commitments?
   • What illiquidity premium do you actually think is available?
2. 039What is an illiquidity budget, and what happened to people who did not have one in 2022?Alternatives and liquidityHardsuperdayFamily officesPrivate banking

   Say this

   An illiquidity budget is a hard cap on how much of the portfolio can be locked up, set against spending needs and uncalled commitments, and monitored as a live number rather than a target. In 2022 the people without one hit the denominator effect and became forced sellers of exactly the wrong assets.

   Then walk it

   1. The budget has three components: the illiquid market value, the uncalled commitments, and the liquid assets available to meet calls and spending over the next three years. The cap is on the first two combined.
   2. The denominator effect is simple and brutal. In 2022 public markets fell 20 percent while private marks lagged, so a portfolio targeting 20 percent privates woke up at 28 percent without buying anything. The numerator was stale, the denominator had shrunk.
   3. That forced two bad outcomes. Investors stopped making new commitments precisely in the best vintage years, breaking the vintage diversification their whole programme depended on. And some sold on the secondary market at discounts, roughly 10 to 20 percent below carrying value for buyout stakes and much deeper for venture.
   4. The other half of the squeeze was distributions drying up. Exits stopped, so the self-funding loop where old funds' distributions pay new funds' calls broke, and calls had to be met from the liquid sleeve while it was down.
   5. How you build the budget: model calls at roughly 25 percent of the commitment a year over four years, assume distributions arrive later and smaller than the manager's model, stress the public sleeve down 30 percent, and check the plan still works. If it does not, the commitment is too big.
   6. The practical rule I would use: never commit more in a year than the liquid sleeve can absorb in a 30 percent drawdown, and count the commitment against the budget from the day it is signed, not the day it is called.

   Where candidates lose it

   Defining the denominator effect as an academic curiosity. It had concrete consequences: missed vintages, secondary sales at discounts, and forced selling of public assets at the bottom. Give the 2022 mechanics and the stress test, or the answer is a definition.

   Expect next

   • How would you model the call schedule?
   • What discounts were secondaries trading at?
   • What does a continuation vehicle tell you about the exit market?
3. 040A client asks why his private equity fund reports 22 percent IRR when his mutual fund shows 14 percent. How do you answer?Alternatives and liquidityHardsuperdayFamily officesPrivate banking

   Say this

   They are not the same measure. IRR is money-weighted and depends on when capital was called and returned; the fund return is time-weighted on money that was fully invested throughout. Comparing them directly flatters the private fund, sometimes by a lot.

   Then walk it

   1. The mechanical difference: IRR assumes every rupee is compounding from the moment it is called, but the client's uncalled commitment was sitting in a liquidity fund earning 6 percent. The return on his committed capital is much lower than the return on his called capital.
   2. IRR is also gameable, legitimately. A subscription line of credit lets the manager delay calling capital, which shortens the measured holding period and lifts IRR without changing a single rupee of profit. Early exits of the best deals do the same.
   3. So ask for the multiple alongside it. TVPI and DPI tell you how much money came back. A 22 percent IRR with a 1.4 times multiple is a fast flip; 18 percent with 2.3 times is more money. Clients spend multiples, not rates.
   4. The right comparison is a public market equivalent: what would the same cash flows, invested into an index on the same dates, have produced? If the index PME says 19 percent, the manager's 22 percent is a 3 point premium for eight years of illiquidity and 2 and 20, which is not obviously a good trade.
   5. Then the valuation caveat: the unrealised portion of that IRR is the manager's own mark. Until DPI is above 1, a large part of the number is an opinion.
   6. So the sentence I would actually say to the client: 'Your fund has done well, but the honest comparison is not 22 against 14. It is what the whole commitment earned, including the cash waiting to be called, against what an index would have done with the same cash flows. On that basis the gap is smaller.'

   Where candidates lose it

   Explaining IRR versus time-weighted return correctly and stopping. The examinable extras are the subscription line effect, the need for DPI and TVPI, and PME as the correct comparison. And the client-facing skill is compressing all of that into one honest sentence he can act on.

   Expect next

   • What is a public market equivalent and how is it computed?
   • What is DPI and why do you care about it more over time?
   • How does a subscription line flatter IRR?
4. 041Should a client with 50 crore be in private equity at all?Alternatives and liquidityHardcase studyIndian wealth managementFamily offices

   Say this

   Only if he can commit across four or five vintages and still meet his spending, which at 50 crore is tight but possible. If he can only afford one fund, the answer is no, because a single vintage in a single manager is not an asset class, it is a bet.

   Then walk it

   1. The arithmetic of a real programme. A Category II AIF in India needs a minimum commitment of 1 crore. To get four vintages and two or three managers per vintage you need eight to twelve crore of commitments, which on 50 crore is 20 percent, at the top of a sensible illiquidity budget.
   2. Dispersion is the reason vintage spread is not optional. The gap between top and bottom quartile private managers is enormous, far wider than in public equity, and a first-time allocator picking one fund has a genuine chance of a below-index outcome after fees.
   3. Access is the second question. The managers who justify the fee load are often closed or have minimums a 50 crore client cannot reach. A feeder or fund-of-funds solves access at the cost of another fee layer, which can take 100 basis points off an already uncertain premium.
   4. Then the tax and structural friction in India: Category II AIF income is largely taxed in the investor's hands with pass-through, business income at the fund level is taxed at the fund, and the overall after-tax outcome is often worse than the headline gross IRR implies. That has to go into the comparison.
   5. The honest alternative: for many clients at this level, listed small and mid-cap exposure plus a PMS mandate captures a decent part of the same growth risk with none of the lock-up and far lower fees. The illiquidity premium has to beat that, net of everything.
   6. So my recommendation: if he has stable outside income, no near-term liquidity needs, and is willing to run a genuine programme over eight to ten years, allocate 15 to 20 percent gradually. If he wants to try one fund because a friend is in it, decline and say why.

   Where candidates lose it

   Saying yes because alternatives are what wealthy clients own. The discriminating answer is about programme construction: minimum commitment size, vintage diversification, manager dispersion and access. One fund in one vintage is the failure mode, and being willing to recommend against it is the point of the question.

   Expect next

   • What is the minimum ticket for a Category II AIF?
   • How would a fund-of-funds change your answer?
   • How do private credit AIFs compare for this client?

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.