Risk Management interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

37

Firms

12

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsUBS14MSCI7BLBlackRock5FTFranklin Templeton3Oaktree Capital Management2Scotiabank2Jane Street1Moody's1Neuberger Berman1PIMCO1SSState Street1TSTruist Securities1

Topic

All topicsMarket risk and VaR14Tail risk and stress testing5Greeks and sensitivities5Credit risk11Counterparty risk and CVA6Operational risk5Model risk and validation6Regulatory capital7Liquidity risk and ALM6Statistics and quant foundations7Indian regulation7Risk governance and appetite4Markets and macro9Fit and career8

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalCaseBrainteaserMarket viewFit

1. 091How would you allocate an investment mandate of $100 million across a portfolio of funds?Markets and macroIntermediatecase studyMSCIRisk Management · Remote · 2013

   Say this

   Start from the mandate, not the funds. Objective, horizon, liability profile, liquidity needs, constraints and risk tolerance first. Then set a strategic asset allocation, then select managers inside it, and size each one by its marginal contribution to total risk rather than by conviction alone.

   Then walk it

   1. Step one, define the objective precisely. A pension fund matching liabilities, an endowment spending 4 percent a year in perpetuity and a family office preserving capital get three completely different portfolios from the same $100m.
   2. Step two, strategic asset allocation. That decision drives most of the long-run outcome, so it deserves most of the time. Set it against the objective, with a clear view on how much illiquidity you can tolerate given the spending need.
   3. Step three, manager selection within each sleeve. Process before performance: what's the edge, is it repeatable, is the track record explained by the stated process or by a factor exposure you could buy cheaply. Then operational due diligence, which is where most fund failures actually come from, not from bad investing.
   4. Step four, sizing, and here's the part a risk interviewer wants. Size by contribution to portfolio risk, not by equal weight or by conviction. Two managers with the same stated strategy may be the same position, so look at the correlation of their active returns, not their labels. Risk-parity-style sizing or a marginal risk contribution framework is a defensible starting point.
   5. Step five, look through to underlying exposures. Three managers can each be diversified and all be long the same six crowded names. Aggregate factor and single-name exposure across the whole book, because that's the concentration that hurts you.
   6. Step six, liquidity budgeting. Match redemption terms to the mandate's need, model the worst case where the liquid sleeve funds all outflows while the illiquid sleeve is gated, and keep enough in daily-dealing assets to survive that.
   7. Step seven, governance and monitoring. Benchmarks per manager, tracking error and factor drift monitoring, a rebalancing policy with bands, and pre-agreed triggers for redemption: style drift, key person departure, asset growth beyond capacity, or a valuation or operational red flag.
   8. On concrete numbers: for a long-horizon institutional mandate I'd probably run 8 to 15 managers. Fewer than that and idiosyncratic manager risk dominates; many more and you've bought an expensive index and can't monitor any of them properly.

   Where candidates lose it

   Going straight to picking funds and percentages. The mandate and the asset allocation come first, and the risk-specific value you add is sizing by marginal risk contribution and looking through to overlapping underlying exposures. Naming operational due diligence as a top cause of fund failure is the detail that lands.

   Expect next

   • How many managers, and why that number?
   • How would you detect that two managers are really the same position?
   • How would you budget liquidity across the portfolio?

   Reported by candidates at MSCI (Risk Management, Remote, 2013). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

2. 092What risk and return targets would you set for an institutional investor?Markets and macroIntermediatecase studyMSCIRisk Management · Remote · 2013

   Say this

   Derive them from the liability, not from a market expectation. The return target is whatever the institution needs to meet its obligations plus inflation plus costs, and the risk target is the most volatility it can carry without being forced to sell or breach a funding constraint.

   Then walk it

   1. Return first, and build it bottom-up. A pension fund needs the discount rate on its liabilities. An endowment needs its spending rate plus inflation plus fees, so 4 percent spending plus 4 percent inflation plus 1 percent costs means a 9 percent nominal target. Say the arithmetic, because that's the discipline.
   2. Then sanity-check it against what markets plausibly offer. If the required return exceeds a reasonable long-run expectation for a portfolio the institution can actually hold, the honest conclusion is that the spending or the contribution has to change. Pretending a higher-risk portfolio solves it is how institutions get into trouble.
   3. Risk target next, and express it in more than one way. Volatility, because it's the common currency. A maximum drawdown tolerance, because that's what governance actually reacts to. And a shortfall or funding-ratio measure, because for a liability-driven investor the relevant risk is missing the liability, not volatility itself.
   4. Then the constraints that bind before volatility does. Liquidity needs and spending calendar. Regulatory constraints, such as IRDAI limits for Indian insurers or EPFO mandates. Governance capacity, meaning whether the board can hold a position through a 30 percent drawdown without intervening. That last one is frequently the real binding constraint and nobody writes it down.
   5. Surplus or funded status changes everything. A pension at 120 percent funded should de-risk and lock in; the same fund at 80 percent has a painful choice between taking risk it can't afford and accepting a contribution increase. The target is a function of the funded position, not a fixed number.
   6. Then translate to something monitorable: a return target over a full cycle rather than annually, a volatility band, a maximum drawdown, a tracking error budget against the strategic allocation, and liquidity floors. Annual return targets drive procyclical behaviour, so the horizon matters.
   7. And I'd say the thing institutions get wrong: setting the return target from what's needed and the risk target from what's comfortable, then discovering they're inconsistent. Those two have to be solved together, and if they don't reconcile, the conversation is about spending or contributions, not about the portfolio.

   Where candidates lose it

   Quoting a generic '8 percent return, 10 percent volatility' without deriving it. The targets come from the liability and the spending need, and the two must be internally consistent. Naming governance capacity, the board's ability to sit through a drawdown, as a real constraint is the answer that sounds like experience.

   Expect next

   • What if the required return is higher than the market plausibly offers?
   • How would the answer change at 80 percent funded versus 120?
   • How would you measure risk for a liability-driven investor?

   Reported by candidates at MSCI (Risk Management, Remote, 2013). 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.