What Does a Professional DCF Model Look Like?

I’m currently looking to enhance my understanding of professional-level DCF models as they’re used in the industry. I've built a few during my internships and studies, but I'm curious to see how they stack up against those created by professionals in investment banking, private equity, or corporate finance.

Would anyone be willing to share actual DCF models they've worked on (with any sensitive or proprietary information removed, of course)? I’m particularly interested in seeing the structure, level of detail, and any unique approaches that make your models stand out. Please feel free to DM me and we can exchange DCF models!

13 Comments
 

Based on the most helpful WSO content, here's what you need to know about professional DCF models:

Structure of a Professional DCF Model:

  1. Assumptions and Drivers:

    • Revenue growth rates
    • Operating margins
    • Tax rates
    • Capital expenditures
    • Working capital changes
  2. Financial Statements:

    • Income Statement: Detailed projections of revenue, expenses, and net income.
    • Balance Sheet: Projections of assets, liabilities, and equity.
    • Cash Flow Statement: Breakdown of cash flows from operations, investing, and financing activities.
  3. Free Cash Flow Calculation:

    • Unlevered Free Cash Flow (UFCF): Calculated by adjusting net income for non-cash items, changes in working capital, and capital expenditures.
  4. Discount Rate:

    • Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC): Used to discount the UFCF to present value.
  5. Terminal Value:

    • Gordon Growth Model or Exit Multiple Method: Used to estimate the value of the firm beyond the projection period.
  6. Sensitivity Analysis:

    • Analysis of how changes in key assumptions (e.g., growth rates, discount rates) impact the valuation.
  7. Output and Valuation Summary:

    • Present value of UFCF
    • Present value of terminal value
    • Enterprise value
    • Equity value (after adjusting for debt and cash)
    • Per-share value

Key Features of Professional DCF Models:

  • Granularity: Detailed line items and assumptions.
  • Flexibility: Ability to adjust key assumptions and see the impact on valuation.
  • Accuracy: Use of realistic and justifiable assumptions.
  • Presentation: Clear and professional formatting, often with charts and graphs to illustrate key points.

Unique Approaches:

  • Scenario Analysis: Different scenarios (e.g., base case, best case, worst case) to show a range of possible outcomes.
  • Monte Carlo Simulation: Advanced statistical techniques to model uncertainty and variability in assumptions.

For more detailed examples and templates, you can refer to the DCF Modeling Training - Free Guide available on Wall Street Oasis. This guide provides comprehensive insights into building and refining DCF models to professional standards.

If you're looking to exchange actual DCF models, it's best to connect with professionals directly through networking or forums, ensuring any shared models have sensitive information removed.

Sources: Interview DCF example, How various professionals see the world, What does a model look like at a L/S hedge fund? What is the diligence process like?, How professional should your LinkedIn profile pic be, PE professional, what's your process while judging an investment?

I'm an AI bot trained on the most helpful WSO content across 17+ years.
 
Most Helpful

Can’t share a file because the sharing on its own would be a breach of contract and largely liable to one’s own clients. Hence why you see barely any real models out there.

However I can tell you this:

The real models are completely different than the models you will see in college and financial modeling courses. Completely. different. It’s actually a little embarrassing to pay 60k for college and see the models they provide you in advanced financial modeling classes.

The real models will have the following main ‘modules’ or ‘excel tabs’. Don’t like the name tabs m bc technically one could structure the model differently by consolidating and separating more or less tabs, but the general structure will be:

  • Base info / raw historical inputs tab

  • A control panel / assumptions tab, which will also have switch control features for different scenarios

  • A projections tab that will pull from the base info tab for historical years (or not, this is optional) and pull the control panel assumptions to project the future years

  • An operating model / statements tab which will pull everything in a formatted / neat-looking way either from the projections tab (if you included the historicals there) or pull from both the historicas and the projections tab (in case you only included the projections in the projections tab)

  • DCF tab which will pull from the operating model tab

  • WACC tab which will feed the DCF tab

  • Comps tab which will feed the WACC and DCF tab

Some people (I say people because the model is done by a person, not a bank, and people have control over their own models, and models can change within a bank) will break the projections tab into general projections and other schedules such as Capex / D&A schedules, WC Roll-Forwards, and Debt Schedules.

And it is all mistake-free and 1000% better formatted, organized and color-coded than you will ever see outside of the professional environment.

 

Oh and on the level of detail, it’s obscene, but it’s all concentrated in the projections tab, the rest is consolidated / cleaned up so that it can be well digested by potential buyers.

My models do not have less than 1000 rows in the projections tab and some will go up to 2-3000 rows.

 

This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen. 

Can't tell if this is satire or some intern fantasizing of what they think IB is like. 

The math that matters can be distilled into like 10 numbers keyed into excel. Any of the fancy models analysts pull together will never get opened by anyone who matters on the client side and it's just not how bankers add value. 

The operating models you keep going on and on about are almost always put together by the client and are generally filled with mistakes. 

 

Agree with you that only few numbers matter but depends on the client / MD if they want a full fledged model built by the deal team. Personally experienced and have seen instances where if we do not like the management’s operating model or the sellside model (in buyside case), we just do a in-depth bottom up build up with scenarios and sensitivities as we cannot trust their figures. 

 

You’re mising the point. It’s not about the valuation broadie. In fact, bankers NEVER share the DCF tab with potential buyers, we REMOVE it, so that they can derive their own valuation.

Its about presenting a solid model that PEs and strategics can play around with the assumptions and see what affects what. And they can see how every piece of line is interconnected.

(For instance, how an increase in capex will influence the level of revenue increase for an equipment rental company, or how optimizing product mix in a fertilizer company will increase margins, so you know which products to focus most on).

It’s not just about the value of the company, that’s why you need a thorough model.

 

Yeah, not really true. Maybe in some places they have smaller models, but where I work they are pretty much like what above poster described. 

You can have super in depth models that focus on the key figures, BTW. The extra level of depth comes from complexities in the companies product lines / legal structure, asset schedule, debt schedule, etc., all of which cannot be forecasted with a simple aggregate growth rate - each business segment has its own business plan and assumptions. The key numbers are still the focus, though - those are where the bulk of the intellectual effort goes

 

Rerum molestiae tempore dolore non nam sunt odio. Culpa vero labore dolores qui officiis in corrupti. Adipisci ipsam ab totam cum. Ipsum dolore hic aliquam aliquam culpa similique facilis.

Consequatur voluptas quia voluptas dolorem veritatis perferendis quis est. Consequatur eius modi sit ut eligendi voluptatem non. Voluptas temporibus ab architecto commodi suscipit.

Quo reprehenderit porro earum nemo. Nemo ipsum doloribus sint eaque. Soluta ut alias quia aliquid non.

Ea unde consectetur cumque illo in. Quia cumque iusto omnis odit. Laudantium aspernatur sint delectus mollitia sunt quia ut aut.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.2%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.3%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (44) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (78) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (72) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
5
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Mimbs's picture
Mimbs
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”