Struggling with Operating Model Build

there's no nuance for building a model for a stressed/distressed name, i'm not sure why people keep asking this... your assumptions will just vary a lot between each case and you're going to be particularly focused on the ebitda --> cash flow bridge and then it's simply varying degrees of what how levered can this business be, where does new money come in, what's the PF cash flows and leverage, how much liquidity runway do they have, etc. depending on what's actually is affecting the company... but generally it's the same model as any other investment

The key for the 3-4hr cases is to 1) identify the drivers (stick with the headlines, jot down the nitty gritty details but don't dwell on it), 2) identify the key theme from the filings (this is key), and 3) form a thesis that you can reasonably and logically defend... nobody is expecting you to be an expert on the name within that time period but you need to appear smart and reasonable.  The actual view you share matters less than how thoughtful you are about forming it... I've gone into cases with completely different views than the interviewer and have still gotten a job.

like for a stressed residential telco name, if i get a 10k/filings and a comp sheet... i know that the drivers are going to be subs/homes passed/pen rate, etc. so that's what's going to be driving my model -- how much subs do they grow each year, how many homes they build and at what cost bc. that'll be a big swing in capex, how do they fund the build bc. that'll affect cash interest and fcf, etc.... the key is to think through what does the fiber/copper mix look like X years out, how much fiber can they build and what's the end game for the company? So the latter is what I'm perking my ears up for when I read transcripts/filings or any other material provided, anything else just noise for a 3-4hr case

Forming a view is what 90% of candidates can't do... here are two quick views for the same telco case 

• "oh this is a serial cash burner, high leverage, etc. company continues to build it's base so it'll be 2035 until the company can generate anything meaningful fcf and it might file in the interim... so nothing to do here, wouldn't touch bonds at X price because risk/reward isn't good" 
• "based on my reasonable assumptions at current liquidity + levers the company can pass X% of its footprint with fiber and terminal pen can be at X%, then the implied valuation through this junior tranche of the cap structure is X/home passed which is at a discount to comps transacting at Y/homes passed, so there's a reasonable upside in the event there's consolidation for fiber assets as XYZ demand grows and if i had more time i'd support my valuation and work with XYZ/DCF or whatever" 

do you see a difference between the two? the former is getting lost in the model, the latter is using the model as a tool to inform their thesis.  Former may even be right, but the latter shows a thoughtful approach to the case

I could only come up with the latter if I had enough reps and practice. 90% of the candidates identify the drivers... that's easy (and they're usually at the beginning of the 10k), what's harder is forming a view on the drivers and the theme.  Pick up a 10k/corresponding Qs and transcripts and give yourself 3-4 hours to come up with a view.  Do enough of those and you'll naturally find yourself in the correct sections and ignoring the noise.