I am currently studying for an IB analyst role with a Bulge Bracket Bank. I am currently reading the M&I 400 and have currently studied all of the basic sections and know how to walk through an LBO. I didn't look at the advanced sections because before each section, it said that these questions would most likely come up in more advanced roles. Should I still study the advanced sections?
| +67 | PWP acquisition by Piper cancelled | 27 | 1d |
| +57 | Is my MD a grifter? 16 years, 8 firms | 17 | 3h |
| +43 | No return offer - UPDATE. | 12 | 1d |
| +40 | Article: UBS Wall Street Rebuild Is a Study in Management Failure | 7 | 2d |
| +38 | "Corporate & Investment Banking" Analyst - Why? | 34 | 42m |
| +28 | Lack of talent in IB! | 25 | 7h |
| +28 | What Are The Best Boutiques 2026/2027 | 16 | 8h |
| +24 | Wells Fargo Calling Themselves a BB? | 16 | 10h |
| +23 | Moat of modelling in PE/Finance completely vanished; | 3 | 1d |
| +21 | Internal lateral from coverage to M&A (focused on coverage) | 6 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
For obvious reasons, I do not think they would hurt but as long as you don't bring up the topics, I think you realistically should be fine.
Also, if you don't mind sharing, which BB is it?
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
I hear Boutiques really grill you on the technicals and when interviewing for a boutique, you'd better know the advanced, for BAML I should be fine?
From my personal experience, firms have strayed farther and farther away from the guide. At a certain point, everyone can regurgitate questions, especially if the memorized numbers are the exact same. I would make sure you have a solid grasp of the basics, and at least know the advanced section for valuations and DCF. You might not be able to memorize questions coming from left field, but at least you'll be the most prepared you can.
Also, I would say behavioral and culture have been really big these days as well. I know we've switched to looking for candidates that are a great fit with our group rather than an absolute machine. But, knowing the fundamentals is a must.
Absolutely, I feel like I have a strong grasp on the basics. I can walk through a DCF, know when to use WACC vs Cost of Equity, know how to get beta, etc. I understand Valuation basics and will definitely look at those advanced questions. Accounting comes easy, the guide was basically a refresher from my college course. I had my behavioral already and I have my technical in a few weeks. Since I passed my behavioral, is there a good shot I'll be hired if I nail the technicals?
Definitely! But, I think you have to come off as knowledgable opposed to just studious. You may also have a lot more behavioral questions too. I don't believe any firm has an explicit "technical" and "behavioral" interview, but chances are if you didn't get many technical questions early on, they'll be coming later.
In the end, you should also figure out who you're interviewing with on-site when that happens. For example, I think it's best to impress analysts and MD's - analysts are who you'll most likely be working under, especially if they're fresh out of undergrad. MD's are self explanatory. Associates, on the other hand, tend to do more quality check, and they just provide additional information on the candidates rather than have strong opinions (at least from my experience).
Voluptatem velit porro itaque veritatis eveniet. Quos quis sint illum quasi mollitia. Rerum repellendus qui commodi qui fuga. Et blanditiis qui asperiores. Dicta magni voluptas beatae suscipit beatae est. Aut vel eius officia est.
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...