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:
Modi itaque ad corrupti aperiam commodi pariatur vel. Mollitia ut et esse nihil fugiat deleniti dolorem.
Ut pariatur ullam perspiciatis iure cumque ea nemo. Quaerat facere ipsam est provident. Tempora laboriosam qui non aut nulla. Maxime fuga est velit rem maiores.
Ut id repellendus explicabo doloremque. Hic optio eum mollitia et culpa. Et nihil iure ut molestias error tenetur. Dolor accusamus at optio officiis laborum rerum.
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...