1.5 Hour LBO Test

Just had a modeling test and was given a CIM to build a 3-statement model in 1.5 hours. I tried my best to construct everything (i.e., debt schedule, operating model, etc.), but wasn't able to build out a clean BS and CFS.

Was able to get all my assumptions and IRR/MOIC. Wish I had more time. Has anyone had an experience like this in the past?

 
Best Response

This happened to one of my roommates on one of his modeling tests. I think it depends on how close you were. The BS is generally the least important part of an LBO so as long as you get NWC, I think you should be fine there. The CFS is more important, but it could be okay as long as you got to LFCF & cash available for debt paydown and flows through your debt schedule properly.

Did they give you a lot of the assumptions around the operating model and transaction assumptions? 1.5 hours for a full LBO where you have to go through the CIM, hard-code numbers, and apply your own assumptions sounds like a tall order to me. Also, if they gave you a lot of the assumptions and you got the IRR and MOI calculations right, I think that definitely helps your cause.

 

Appreciate the response. I was able to get LFCF and a proper debt schedule down. Everything else flowed well as well as some sensitivity tables at the end.

I had to come up with all my assumptions using the CIM. Their instructions were just two lines: Build a 3 statement model and create your assumptions using the CIM.

Was your roommate able to move forward in the process?

 

Agree here. Same thing happened to me, where i had a properly flowing LBO but did not build out a separate BS or CFS - only the model, debt paydown schedule, resulting LFCF, and resulting MOIC/IRRs.

Not sure how these models are reviewed after, but I imagine the Associates were too lazy to go into detail and just cared about the LBO itself.

I got the offer

 

I incorporated this as part of the interview process for our associates. I also did this when I was interviewing at a couple different shops.

The expectation is to just jam something functional together. You will be judged on if it balances and is complete, not necessarily on your assumptions.

I'd say that when I was checking these about 2/5 were complete and correct. A lot of kids try getting too elaborate and don't finish

 

Feel like there are two schools of thought here.

In a situation like this, what do you guys think is best?

1) just getting a full 3 statement model that is balanced / working with very high level assumptions (e.g., revenue growth in-line with GDP, ~200 bps of margin improvement due to operating leverage)

2) being thoughtful about the drivers (e.g., splitting out revenue by price vs. volume and making assumptions on each) and making simplified assumptions on the things that are not as impactful (e.g., NWC as a % of sales)?

 

I think you will likely be fine. In my experience, the model is more of a implementation exercise and a pass / fail type effort - doing a great job won’t get you the role but doing a bad job will keep you out. I think anything that is a higher than a B+ will probably get you to the next round.

At my previous fund, the important thing was that the model was dynamic and flowed correctly. For example, if the instructions said 2% transaction fees but a candidate put in 1% or 3% or whatever on accident and if the returns changed after we put in 2% - not that big of a deal. But if everything was right but we couldn’t toggle assumptions / have returns move - that’s probably below the B+.

Would be curious to hear how other funds score their model tests.

 

Rerum modi libero omnis consectetur autem veniam iure. Aut modi quidem voluptas necessitatibus porro sint. Maxime libero molestias esse deleniti vitae ut. Amet vel ut eius exercitationem sequi quo dolore ea.

Ratione labore sequi et dignissimos nulla suscipit aut et. Omnis voluptatem perferendis voluptatem dolor. Error perspiciatis sunt nam quos eos ipsam sint. Sint eveniet nostrum officia provident. Dolorem aut alias voluptatibus quidem debitis. Cumque temporibus eius dolorem asperiores nemo inventore.

Exercitationem enim quia est rerum. At quo ut et omnis officiis. Quia ducimus minus et voluptatem dolor deleniti tenetur explicabo.

Omnis nemo reiciendis quod. Velit occaecati dolorem non natus fuga rerum et labore.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Blackstone Group 99.0%
  • Warburg Pincus 98.4%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 97.9%
  • Bain Capital 97.4%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Blackstone Group 98.9%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.4%
  • Ardian 97.9%
  • Bain Capital 97.4%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Bain Capital 99.0%
  • Blackstone Group 98.4%
  • Warburg Pincus 97.9%
  • Starwood Capital Group 97.4%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Private Equity

  • Principal (9) $653
  • Director/MD (22) $569
  • Vice President (92) $362
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (91) $281
  • 2nd Year Associate (206) $266
  • 1st Year Associate (387) $229
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (29) $154
  • 2nd Year Analyst (83) $134
  • 1st Year Analyst (246) $122
  • Intern/Summer Associate (32) $82
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (314) $59
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
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
numi's picture
numi
98.8
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
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...”