Market Sizing
Do you guys recommend top-down or bottom up? I personally feel more confident in bottom up but I often will end up splitting my assumptions too deeply and then my numbers get messy and all over the place. The thing for top down is that I don’t really get fantastic justifications for my assumptions. One is too simple and the other is too complex. Can anyone help me strike a middle ground?
From experience (and from interviewing candidates), I'll say the following points:
Either way you choose to go, know that you should sense check (1) your approach / structure, (2) your assumptions, and (3) your results.
Best of luck!
Thank you so much for the insights. Another general idea: do you have any recommendation on whether either style makes a candidate shine brighter? I definitely feel Top down leans more on broad world knowledge but bottom up is more quantitatively rigorous (as it were).
Is it even ok to use a mix of both; for instance, if I were to start with a bottom down structure and then I needed to scale up to the national level, could I throw in larger numbers to help me scale up to that? Or would I have to segment those numbers too
Sure, however, I can only speak from my experience, interviewing for Bain London:
Do you remember in general what the metrics were on your end when you interviewed ppl?
It’s exactly what you’d expect them to be:
Accusamus quibusdam nisi officiis aspernatur. Ratione velit dignissimos aut explicabo qui. Dolore aut assumenda eum et eligendi a.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...