Interview Questions (Was just asked for an Analyst Role)

Okay here it is (just got off a phone interview and was asked these questions for an Analyst role):

1. If a company has no access to any sort of capital and does not have a cash flow, how would you advise it to get cash?

2. If account receivable increases by 100, is that a source of cash or use of cash, and why?

3. If a company's EBITDA is $50 mln, and comps are 7X Ebitda, and the company is split between two types of debt tranches, secured senior and subordinated notes, how much, as an investor, are you willing to pay for both of those types of bonds?

Please answer, need help!! Really curious as to what the correct answers would be? Thanks everyone!

 

I cant answer 1 or 3 with certainity but I can help you with #2. Refer to this chart when determining if an increase or decrease on the balance sheet is a source of use of cash.

                       Source of Cash                 Use of Cash

Assets Decrease Increase

Liabilities Increase Decrease (S/E)

As for your question, when A/R increases by $100 it will be a use of cash.

 
  1. sell assets
  2. a POTENTIAL future source of cash (not necessarily a current use of cash, think inventory already paid for, yes COGS, but this isn't cash if inventory isn't replaced)
  3. more info needed
"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper
 
  1. Only thing I can think of is by selling assets of the company.
  2. @jbennett, how is A/R cash use. It is not A/P (same as credit extension). Isn't A/R when you are expecting the future receipt of cash (you extended credit to someone else?) I'm not very good at accounting most likely though.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
 
streetwannabe:
1. Only thing I can think of is by selling assets of the company. 2. @jbennett, how is A/R cash use. It is not A/P (same as credit extension). Isn't A/R when you are expecting the future receipt of cash (you extended credit to someone else?) I'm not very good at accounting most likely though.

If your A/R increases by 100, that means you made a sale but never got the cash for it. In other words you have less cash than your income statement would suggest.

 
foiegras:
streetwannabe:
1. Only thing I can think of is by selling assets of the company. 2. @jbennett, how is A/R cash use. It is not A/P (same as credit extension). Isn't A/R when you are expecting the future receipt of cash (you extended credit to someone else?) I'm not very good at accounting most likely though.

If your A/R increases by 100, that means you made a sale but never got the cash for it. In other words you have less cash than your income statement would suggest.

Got it, thanks. Shame on me as overworked_overpaid pointed out. I am ashamed haha.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
 
  1. Obtain some type of debt financing that is secured by assets or sell of assets/inventory

  2. If A/R goes up, its a USE OF CASH because you're tying up cash that you could have otherwise immediately had (like you let your friend borrow money and tell him that he can pay you back in a few days; you don't physically have the cash that is yours - its "tied up")

  3. Need more info. And I don't really get what this question is even asking

Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis - when I was dead broke man I couldn't picture this
 

1) monetize assets (can license in addition to sell). See Kodak etc. 2) Use of cash in this period. 3) If those are credit comps, $350bn is debt capacity, which I guess is what the question is asking, but unclear.

 

Just beating a dead horse: 1) Sell assets, equity raise, debt raise, JV assets, license assets. (just trying to see how creative you are) Hell, tell them you want to sell the company's building and lease it back, take the cash upfront and have a string of costs, positive NPV.

2) Agree with most, and shame on those that get it wrong, increasing AR is a use of cash.

3) I'd talk this through before saying 'need more info', might get some pointers from the interviewer. Along the lines of "If comps are 7x, and EBITDA is $50 mm, then market cap should be $350... and in the absence of additional data... may I assume that the company's interest covereage ratio and solvency are non-issues?" etc. They'll typically give you more data this way.

 
overpaid_overworked:
Just beating a dead horse: 1) Sell assets, equity raise, debt raise, JV assets, license assets. (just trying to see how creative you are) Hell, tell them you want to sell the company's building and lease it back, take the cash upfront and have a string of costs, positive NPV.

2) Agree with most, and shame on those that get it wrong, increasing AR is a use of cash.

3) I'd talk this through before saying 'need more info', might get some pointers from the interviewer. Along the lines of "If comps are 7x, and EBITDA is $50 mm, then market cap should be $350... and in the absence of additional data... may I assume that the company's interest covereage ratio and solvency are non-issues?" etc. They'll typically give you more data this way.

You can't do an equity raise, or debt raise as this is implying that they don't have access to capital, i.e. they can't go to the capital markets, but they can license, jv, or sell assets.

On number 3, the Enterprise Value would be $350... Agree about asking about leverage constraints / covenants thereafter...

 
overpaid_overworked:
Just beating a dead horse: 1) Sell assets, equity raise, debt raise, JV assets, license assets. (just trying to see how creative you are) Hell, tell them you want to sell the company's building and lease it back, take the cash upfront and have a string of costs, positive NPV.

2) Agree with most, and shame on those that get it wrong, increasing AR is a use of cash.

3) I'd talk this through before saying 'need more info', might get some pointers from the interviewer. Along the lines of "If comps are 7x, and EBITDA is $50 mm, then market cap should be $350... and in the absence of additional data... may I assume that the company's interest covereage ratio and solvency are non-issues?" etc. They'll typically give you more data this way.

What do you mean by " company's interest covereage ratio and solvency are non-issues"?

 

Thanks guys, I get number one and two, but three is still bothering me. Why the f would he ask me that question for a 1st year Analyst role ahah. I know I know to see how creative I can be, and that's fine, but during the interview I really drew a blank since it was a curveball, and I began to overthink it.

So, if enterprise value is $350 mm, why does this is about the bond prices? The question asks how much will an investor pay for each type of debt, I think he also told me that the company has 200m in debt and is split between the two debt tranches aforementioned, but does this make sense? Can you have $200 mm in debt and $50 mm in EBITDA, I guess you can right since EBITDA is irrelevant to cap structure? Someone, please advise? Am I think about this the right way?

Also, what does the interest coverage ratio and solvency, like leverage constraints and/or convenants have anything to do with this? Thanks.

 
ddp34:
Thanks guys, I get number one and two, but three is still bothering me. Why the f would he ask me that question for a 1st year Analyst role ahah. I know I know to see how creative I can be, and that's fine, but during the interview I really drew a blank since it was a curveball, and I began to overthink it.

So, if enterprise value is $350 mm, why does this is about the bond prices? The question asks how much will an investor pay for each type of debt, I think he also told me that the company has 200m in debt and is split between the two debt tranches aforementioned, but does this make sense? Can you have $200 mm in debt and $50 mm in EBITDA, I guess you can right since EBITDA is irrelevant to cap structure? Someone, please advise? Am I think about this the right way?

Also, what does the interest coverage ratio and solvency, like leverage constraints and/or convenants have anything to do with this? Thanks.

If he said comps are 7x EBITDA he's probably talking about a measure of leverage, i.e. you have $350 mm of debt in the capital structure (which seems high). Still, there's a big jump from there to how much you'd pay for individual tranches of the debt so it seems like something is missing.

 

1) yah the company can sell assets, but that doesn't necessarily improve cash flow moving forward. one thing it can do is to improve working capital management, such as decrease inventory days, decrease accounts receivable days, increase accounts payable days, etc. if they have less working capital tied up, they'll be able to put that cash to use somewhere else more productively.

3) i think you should just know that the subordinated notes would trade less than the senior secured, due to the liquidation preferences, convenants, etc.

 
dukebanker12:
1) yah the company can sell assets, but that doesn't necessarily improve cash flow moving forward. one thing it can do is to improve working capital management, such as decrease inventory days, decrease accounts receivable days, increase accounts payable days, etc. if they have less working capital tied up, they'll be able to put that cash to use somewhere else more productively.

3) i think you should just know that the subordinated notes would trade less than the senior secured, due to the liquidation preferences, convenants, etc.

Can you explain your answer to number 3 a bit more, I get the liquidation preference part but doesnt both sub and senior secured have convenants (they are diff ones but still have convenants right)? OR is senior secured convenants more lenient?

 
  1. so essentially what I think the last question is trying to get at is that the senior secured tranch would get paid its full value before the subordinated notes receive anything. So I think you would need to know what the face value for each piece of debt is in order to answer this question but essentially since the senior secured tranch is the most senior in the capital structure I would be willing to pay full face value for that piece of debt as long as its face value is under 350 million. as for the subordinated notes I would only pay up to what is left over from the 350 or face value whichever is greater

for example if each piece of debt is face value 200 million, I would pay full 200 million for the senior secured and 150 for the subordinated note

 
bbc24:
3. so essentially what I think the last question is trying to get at is that the senior secured tranch would get paid its full value before the subordinated notes receive anything. So I think you would need to know what the face value for each piece of debt is in order to answer this question but essentially since the senior secured tranch is the most senior in the capital structure I would be willing to pay full face value for that piece of debt as long as its face value is under 350 million. as for the subordinated notes I would only pay up to what is left over from the 350 or face value whichever is greater

for example if each piece of debt is face value 200 million, I would pay full 200 million for the senior secured and 150 for the subordinated note

Makes sense, however real quick -- what do you mean by, "or face value whichever is greater"?

 
ddp34:
bbc24:
3. so essentially what I think the last question is trying to get at is that the senior secured tranch would get paid its full value before the subordinated notes receive anything. So I think you would need to know what the face value for each piece of debt is in order to answer this question but essentially since the senior secured tranch is the most senior in the capital structure I would be willing to pay full face value for that piece of debt as long as its face value is under 350 million. as for the subordinated notes I would only pay up to what is left over from the 350 or face value whichever is greater

for example if each piece of debt is face value 200 million, I would pay full 200 million for the senior secured and 150 for the subordinated note

Makes sense, however real quick -- what do you mean by, "or face value whichever is greater"?

Face value aka notional amount vs market value.

If someone says that they issued 300mm bonds what they are saying is that the notional value of those bonds is 300mm and that market value at issuance is 300mm once the bonds begin to trade the market value could go higher or lower.

That 3rd question is either horseshit or it is meant for you to start asking more questions to show that you know what you are talking about because there is no way to talk about price of that debt without maturity, coupon, yield etc. Another possibility that was raised above, is that you should ask how much of each tranche does the company have. Assuming they are equal, you would buy all of the senior secured up to 350mm and/or all the senior secured and part of the subordinate with the maximum subordinate debt price being (350mm-senior secured debt)/subordinate debt which would give you a dollar price. An example is below

Company value =80mm Senior debt = 50mm Sub debt = 50mm

The senior debt gets paid off in full, but there is only 30mm left to pay off the sub debt which means that you would not pay more than 60 cents on the dollar for the sub debt.

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 
Best Response

Here are the answers I'd give.

  1. "Given that we do not have access to capital markets we can exclude debt and equity raises. This gives us a few options which would be 1) Management participation by taking out personal cash to invest directly into the business, 2) private placement (non public funding round to select investors) 3) Seed funding/Venture capital/Angel investor, if any individual investing in the company is considered access to capital then we could sell assets and or intellectual property (some acquisitions are done with 0 revenues and simply a bunch of papers and engineers)."

If the question was clearly saying zero access to any cash from someone else giving it to you then you're stuck with selling parts of your business and the IP angle.

  1. "When AR increases this is a use of cash, ideally this will come back in the future as the payment is received later on"

Quick note: Current asset increase = Cash use, Current asset decrease = cash source; Current liability increase = cash source; Current liability decrease = cash use.

  1. This is an awful question and was likely just a "do you know what tranches are" but here's a long dialog with basic high level numbers. Commenter above has a good answer as well. SB for him.

This is an oddly worded question which means this was a real interview as all these things end up being more conversational in nature. Also within thread yes you can raise debt to $200M on $50M in cash flow depending on what company you are dealing with. $200M debt balance on $50M in cash flow is not that bad, because even if you have a 10% rate on your debt, your $50M in cash flow more than covers the $20M interest payment... But this is a long drawn out conversation comparing industries etc.

Anyway first question would be "7x ebitda on interest coverage, valuation for firm eg. Enterprise value?".. I see your additional comment that says $200M in debt so that could have meant a debt to EBITDA metric as well. So without further info here's what you could use as a proxy next time.

Debt tranches in a quick LBO (which you will need to build from scratch when you interview for PE in the future because this sounds like an M&A group interview).

  1. Revolver (safest lowest rate first paid)
  2. Senior Debt (Second safest)
  3. Sub Debt (third safest) - mezzanine wld be next, "sub" "mez" = just think "junk bonds higher rates more risk"

That is a quick way to "back of the envelope" think of an LBO. Here's a quick guide to the debt tranches.

Revolver has the lowest rate and will be what people talk about in terms of "corp debt rate" for a mega firm think LIBOR. Extremely safe companies can get sub LIBOR. This company is small so just assume a revolver would be 4%, if asked for a mega cap assume closer to 2% (of course give line of thinking before throwing numbers out)

Senior debt think roughly 50% above revolver rate so would use 6% as a proxy.

Sub Debt gets to ~66% above senior debt so you can use 10% as a proxy.

Back to the question... and note these are ways to think about answering it and in no way shape or form are they "correct" answers as pieces are missing and you'd have to talk through any heavily technical question like this.

"With $50M in annual cash flow if the comps are trading at roughly 7x EBITDA this means our max interest payment is roughly $7M (this is assuming his 7x is a coverage number (50/7 = 7.14 round to 7). Now we would have to calculate the rates on debt, I would assume ~6% on senior debt as a revolver would likely be closer to 4%, and the sub debt is another 400bps incremental so 10% on this rate. To make the math easier if we assume 75% senior debt and 25% sub debt we get to a net interest rate of 7%, so the max a debt investor would be paying up to loan out is $100M ($25M into sub debt and $75M into senior debt)."

If he gave you the current debt load at $200M and you only have the 7x interest coverage ratio then you can also give a back envelope solutions.

You say "$200M in debt with a 7x coverage ratio implies that the total interest rate on the debt is roughly 3.5%. Splitting this out if we assume the company runs at 75% senior debt and 25% sub debt you get $50M paid for the sub debt and $150M for the senior debt. Since sub debt gets a higher rate and assuming roughly 66% higher this would mean that sub debt investors get a rate of 5% and Senior holders get a 3% rate (0.753= 2.25% + 0.25%5= 1.25% nets you 3.5%).

[Note that 3% and 5% rates seem real off based on the limited info from the question.]

Good luck brotha!

 
WallStreetPlayboys:
Here are the answers I'd give.
  1. "Given that we do not have access to capital markets we can exclude debt and equity raises. This gives us a few options which would be 1) Management participation by taking out personal cash to invest directly into the business, 2) private placement (non public funding round to select investors) 3) Seed funding/Venture capital/Angel investor, if any individual investing in the company is considered access to capital then we could sell assets and or intellectual property (some acquisitions are done with 0 revenues and simply a bunch of papers and engineers)."

If the question was clearly saying zero access to any cash from someone else giving it to you then you're stuck with selling parts of your business and the IP angle.

  1. "When AR increases this is a use of cash, ideally this will come back in the future as the payment is received later on"

Quick note: Current asset increase = Cash use, Current asset decrease = cash source; Current liability increase = cash source; Current liability decrease = cash use.

  1. This is an awful question and was likely just a "do you know what tranches are" but here's a long dialog with basic high level numbers. Commenter above has a good answer as well. SB for him.

This is an oddly worded question which means this was a real interview as all these things end up being more conversational in nature. Also within thread yes you can raise debt to $200M on $50M in cash flow depending on what company you are dealing with. $200M debt balance on $50M in cash flow is not that bad, because even if you have a 10% rate on your debt, your $50M in cash flow more than covers the $20M interest payment... But this is a long drawn out conversation comparing industries etc.

Anyway first question would be "7x ebitda on interest coverage, valuation for firm eg. Enterprise value?".. I see your additional comment that says $200M in debt so that could have meant a debt to EBITDA metric as well. So without further info here's what you could use as a proxy next time.

Debt tranches in a quick LBO (which you will need to build from scratch when you interview for PE in the future because this sounds like an M&A group interview).

  1. Revolver (safest lowest rate first paid)
  2. Senior Debt (Second safest)
  3. Sub Debt (third safest) - mezzanine wld be next, "sub" "mez" = just think "junk bonds higher rates more risk"

That is a quick way to "back of the envelope" think of an LBO. Here's a quick guide to the debt tranches.

Revolver has the lowest rate and will be what people talk about in terms of "corp debt rate" for a mega firm think LIBOR. Extremely safe companies can get sub LIBOR. This company is small so just assume a revolver would be 4%, if asked for a mega cap assume closer to 2% (of course give line of thinking before throwing numbers out)

Senior debt think roughly 50% above revolver rate so would use 6% as a proxy.

Sub Debt gets to ~66% above senior debt so you can use 10% as a proxy.

Back to the question... and note these are ways to think about answering it and in no way shape or form are they "correct" answers as pieces are missing and you'd have to talk through any heavily technical question like this.

"With $50M in annual cash flow if the comps are trading at roughly 7x EBITDA this means our max interest payment is roughly $7M (this is assuming his 7x is a coverage number (50/7 = 7.14 round to 7). Now we would have to calculate the rates on debt, I would assume ~6% on senior debt as a revolver would likely be closer to 4%, and the sub debt is another 400bps incremental so 10% on this rate. To make the math easier if we assume 75% senior debt and 25% sub debt we get to a net interest rate of 7%, so the max a debt investor would be paying up to loan out is $100M ($25M into sub debt and $75M into senior debt)."

If he gave you the current debt load at $200M and you only have the 7x interest coverage ratio then you can also give a back envelope solutions.

You say "$200M in debt with a 7x coverage ratio implies that the total interest rate on the debt is roughly 3.5%. Splitting this out if we assume the company runs at 75% senior debt and 25% sub debt you get $50M paid for the sub debt and $150M for the senior debt. Since sub debt gets a higher rate and assuming roughly 66% higher this would mean that sub debt investors get a rate of 5% and Senior holders get a 3% rate (0.753= 2.25% + 0.25%5= 1.25% nets you 3.5%).

[Note that 3% and 5% rates seem real off based on the limited info from the question.]

Good luck brotha!

Dude, thanks so much for all your help...most of it makes sense, however I have a few questions:

Can you please explain this part, "With $50M in annual cash flow if the comps are trading at roughly 7x EBITDA this means our max interest payment is roughly $7M (this is assuming his 7x is a coverage number (50/7 = 7.14 round to 7)."? How do you derive the max interest payment? I know you wrote out the math for it (appreciate that), but intuitively how does that work?

Can you please also explain this part, "$200M in debt with a 7x coverage ratio implies that the total interest rate on the debt is roughly 3.5%."? Of course, I understand you just did 7/200, but how does that work intuitively?

 
ddp34:
WallStreetPlayboys:
Here are the answers I'd give.
  1. "Given that we do not have access to capital markets we can exclude debt and equity raises. This gives us a few options which would be 1) Management participation by taking out personal cash to invest directly into the business, 2) private placement (non public funding round to select investors) 3) Seed funding/Venture capital/Angel investor, if any individual investing in the company is considered access to capital then we could sell assets and or intellectual property (some acquisitions are done with 0 revenues and simply a bunch of papers and engineers)."

If the question was clearly saying zero access to any cash from someone else giving it to you then you're stuck with selling parts of your business and the IP angle.

  1. "When AR increases this is a use of cash, ideally this will come back in the future as the payment is received later on"

Quick note: Current asset increase = Cash use, Current asset decrease = cash source; Current liability increase = cash source; Current liability decrease = cash use.

  1. This is an awful question and was likely just a "do you know what tranches are" but here's a long dialog with basic high level numbers. Commenter above has a good answer as well. SB for him.

This is an oddly worded question which means this was a real interview as all these things end up being more conversational in nature. Also within thread yes you can raise debt to $200M on $50M in cash flow depending on what company you are dealing with. $200M debt balance on $50M in cash flow is not that bad, because even if you have a 10% rate on your debt, your $50M in cash flow more than covers the $20M interest payment... But this is a long drawn out conversation comparing industries etc.

Anyway first question would be "7x ebitda on interest coverage, valuation for firm eg. Enterprise value?".. I see your additional comment that says $200M in debt so that could have meant a debt to EBITDA metric as well. So without further info here's what you could use as a proxy next time.

Debt tranches in a quick LBO (which you will need to build from scratch when you interview for PE in the future because this sounds like an M&A group interview).

  1. Revolver (safest lowest rate first paid)
  2. Senior Debt (Second safest)
  3. Sub Debt (third safest) - mezzanine wld be next, "sub" "mez" = just think "junk bonds higher rates more risk"

That is a quick way to "back of the envelope" think of an LBO. Here's a quick guide to the debt tranches.

Revolver has the lowest rate and will be what people talk about in terms of "corp debt rate" for a mega firm think LIBOR. Extremely safe companies can get sub LIBOR. This company is small so just assume a revolver would be 4%, if asked for a mega cap assume closer to 2% (of course give line of thinking before throwing numbers out)

Senior debt think roughly 50% above revolver rate so would use 6% as a proxy.

Sub Debt gets to ~66% above senior debt so you can use 10% as a proxy.

Back to the question... and note these are ways to think about answering it and in no way shape or form are they "correct" answers as pieces are missing and you'd have to talk through any heavily technical question like this.

"With $50M in annual cash flow if the comps are trading at roughly 7x EBITDA this means our max interest payment is roughly $7M (this is assuming his 7x is a coverage number (50/7 = 7.14 round to 7). Now we would have to calculate the rates on debt, I would assume ~6% on senior debt as a revolver would likely be closer to 4%, and the sub debt is another 400bps incremental so 10% on this rate. To make the math easier if we assume 75% senior debt and 25% sub debt we get to a net interest rate of 7%, so the max a debt investor would be paying up to loan out is $100M ($25M into sub debt and $75M into senior debt)."

If he gave you the current debt load at $200M and you only have the 7x interest coverage ratio then you can also give a back envelope solutions.

You say "$200M in debt with a 7x coverage ratio implies that the total interest rate on the debt is roughly 3.5%. Splitting this out if we assume the company runs at 75% senior debt and 25% sub debt you get $50M paid for the sub debt and $150M for the senior debt. Since sub debt gets a higher rate and assuming roughly 66% higher this would mean that sub debt investors get a rate of 5% and Senior holders get a 3% rate (0.753= 2.25% + 0.25%5= 1.25% nets you 3.5%).

[Note that 3% and 5% rates seem real off based on the limited info from the question.]

Good luck brotha!

Dude, thanks so much for all your help...most of it makes sense, however I have a few questions:

Can you please explain this part, "With $50M in annual cash flow if the comps are trading at roughly 7x EBITDA this means our max interest payment is roughly $7M (this is assuming his 7x is a coverage number (50/7 = 7.14 round to 7)."? How do you derive the max interest payment? I know you wrote out the math for it (appreciate that), but intuitively how does that work?

Can you please also explain this part, "$200M in debt with a 7x coverage ratio implies that the total interest rate on the debt is roughly 3.5%."? Of course, I understand you just did 7/200, but how does that work intuitively?

He is assuming that 7x is your coverage ratio which is how many times a company could pay its interest expense--a measure of how leveraged a company is. If you have 50mm and the coverage ratio is 7 then the total yearly interest payment is around $7mm. You derive the max interest payment using the amount of cash and the coverage ratio. If we had a coverage ratio of 6x and 60 million cash, the interest payment would be 10mm. We have enough cash to pay our interest payment 6 times.

If your total interest expense is 7mm on 200mm of debt the average interest rate on the debt (coupon) is 3.5%. What is an interest expense?

Notional Value of bonds x coupon = interest expense

200mm x ? = 7mm

? = 3.5%

If you had different bonds with different coupons you would sum the totals to get total interest expense

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 
Oreos:
1. sell assets 2. a POTENTIAL future source of cash (not necessarily a current use of cash, think inventory already paid for, yes COGS, but this isn't cash if inventory isn't replaced) 3. more info needed
WallStreetPlayboys:
  1. "When AR increases this is a use of cash, ideally this will come back in the future as the payment is received later on"

Quick note: Current asset increase = Cash use, Current asset decrease = cash source; Current liability increase = cash source; Current liability decrease = cash use.

Some current assets and liabilities such as Deferred Revenue and Prepaid Expenses don't hit the Income Statement but DO hit the cash account, so they are undoubtedly sources and uses of cash. But, operating accounts such as AR (+AR, +Revenue) and Accrued Expenses (+Accrued Exp., +Expense) don't actually change the cash account; they simply appear on the SCF to adjust for the non-cash revenues and expenses that were recognized.

Given that, I understand using Net Working Capital as a net amount to adjust EBIT or NI to Free Cash Flow, but what I don't get is why we call AR/Accrued Expenses/etc. "uses" or "sources" of cash when they do NOT affect the cash account (outside of tax consequences). I've heard it explained that there's some "opportunity cost" of using AR instead of having a cash sale, but you can't really control how you customer pays so...yeah. Same with accrued expenses, I just don't get it. How is a noncash transaction considered a source or use of cash? Anyone who cares to explain this to me will be my friend forever (and will benefit the thread too ;) )

 

So if you know the comps trade at 7x interest. That means he is saying for the industry "7 times interest coverage is the norm".. This is an assumption that you would mention as you went through the math.

If you have $7M in interest payment and the max you can "lever up" is to 7x leverage thats $7M*7x leverage = $49M in EBITDA or roughly $50M as you saw by the rounding.

Knowing that you can get your interest payments all the way up to 7x leverage... That means the question is how much debt can you get on your books to get $7M in interest payments. I used numbers that would be "appropriate" based on today's rates and how you would build out a 1 page LBO in an interview.

If the company was insanely good, and got interest rates of say "1%" then well you can actually take out $700M in debt. This is because the 1% on debt is only a $7M in annual interest payment.

Same concept on your second question.

If he gave you the amount of debt and told you "7x coverage" and you assume you go to the "comps" ie the normal that means the $200M in debt cannot have an interest payment in excess of 3.5% because then your multiple exceeds 7x.

Hope that clears it up now.

(also going to toot my own horn for a second since I caught "heat - eg monkey shit" on my "EV/Sales" question in a thread I started when that is exactly what you were asked in a different way)

If you don't mind, can i take a stab in the dark and say M&A division with high deal flow and low turnover? This is the future my friend, breed candidates within and promote within to decrease cost, increase revenue and lower risk of "new hires" who don't perform. We put up a full guide of the main ~50 technical ?'s u'll be answered on the site but not going to troll and place a link have at it.

 
WallStreetPlayboys:
So if you know the comps trade at 7x interest. That means he is saying for the industry "7 times interest coverage is the norm".. This is an assumption that you would mention as you went through the math.

If you have $7M in interest payment and the max you can "lever up" is to 7x leverage thats $7M*7x leverage = $49M in EBITDA or roughly $50M as you saw by the rounding.

Knowing that you can get your interest payments all the way up to 7x leverage... That means the question is how much debt can you get on your books to get $7M in interest payments. I used numbers that would be "appropriate" based on today's rates and how you would build out a 1 page LBO in an interview.

If the company was insanely good, and got interest rates of say "1%" then well you can actually take out $700M in debt. This is because the 1% on debt is only a $7M in annual interest payment.

Same concept on your second question.

If he gave you the amount of debt and told you "7x coverage" and you assume you go to the "comps" ie the normal that means the $200M in debt cannot have an interest payment in excess of 3.5% because then your multiple exceeds 7x.

Hope that clears it up now.

(also going to toot my own horn for a second since I caught "heat - eg monkey shit" on my "EV/Sales" question in a thread I started when that is exactly what you were asked in a different way)

If you don't mind, can i take a stab in the dark and say M&A division with high deal flow and low turnover? This is the future my friend, breed candidates within and promote within to decrease cost, increase revenue and lower risk of "new hires" who don't perform. We put up a full guide of the main ~50 technical ?'s u'll be answered on the site but not going to troll and place a link have at it.

Hey everyone, really appreciate all your help. I will SB, when I get a chance. WSP, I understand most of what you said. Can you just explain a bit more, but how you use EBITDA/Interest Payments ratio (that's what you mean by 7X coverage, correct? But that would NOT be 7X EBITDA then, correct, cause then you're stating ebitda is in the denominator of the ratio, and i think the only important ratio that has EBITDA in the denominator is debt/ebitda, right?) to get to 3.5% for the second question? Or, do you just use the 7 mm in interest payments and just do something like 7mm/200mm, so interest payments/debt = interest rate percentage, which totally makes sense of course, but would you in any way utilize the coverage ratio? THANKS SO MUCH!

 

You have it together.

The ebitda/coverage ratio got the "Max dollar amount outlay"

As you see in the first part it was really $7.14M but just rounded to $7M.

Interest coverage means = EBITDA/Interest Payment (all in dollars)

7x coverage = $50M/ something Solve: multiply both sides by "something" 7x * something = $50M $50M/7 = $7.14.

Now you have the max interest payment for all debt loads.

$7.14M/total debt = rate on debt

Given two tranches of debt, assume a 75%/25% (for "interview purposes") and put the rates 2 or 4 percent apart.

This is bc the math is easier (75% 25%) you just cut 1% or 50bps off the high end. At 50/50 you take the midpoint, at 25/75 you add 50 or 100bps to the mid-point.

You can move the numbers around and then the interviewer believesyou are fast at math, when really you're just setting yourself up to be "perceived" as fast. Which is all that matters anyway.

Ps: don't subscribe to threads so just ping if there is a question people are not answering, also dont be surprised to see more of these over the next year or so. Not the "debt question" but the backward multiple ones.

 

I'm not 100% of this, but I'm fairly confident.

Make these assumptions: 1. Multiples are EXTREMELY reliable (i.e. efficient market) 2. No taxes, no bankruptcy costs 3. They mean that the firm is funded solely through debt

Ahem ahem... Modigliani-Miller (wiki it).

EV = $50mX7 = $350m (this is the firm value, including value of equity and debt) EV = Debt + Equity Equity = 0 Debt = EV = $350 million

Under the above assumptions, investors should be indifferent between funding the company with debt, and funding it with equity. Accordingly, the value of the two tranches, together, is $350 million. Ask yourself, why would it be worth any less? If you KNOW the firm is worth $350 million, and you're indifferent between debt and equity, then you would price the debt at $350 million.

Refinements 1. Obviously there are taxes. Interest is tax deductible, so there is a tax shield effect which should increase the value of the firm (and debt). Note that this fully depends on the average D/EV ratio of your comps. If all of your comps have a D/EV=1, then the tax shield effect is already priced-in. If the average D/EV$350 million.

  1. Relax bankruptcy cost assumption. In the real world, funding a company with debt alone is extremely risky, so you would discount the EV (and value of debt). Again this depends on the average capital structure of your comps. Result: value of debt is value of subordinated note
 
smoore00:
I'm not 100% of this, but I'm fairly confident.

Make these assumptions: 1. Multiples are EXTREMELY reliable (i.e. efficient market) 2. No taxes, no bankruptcy costs 3. They mean that the firm is funded solely through debt

Ahem ahem... Modigliani-Miller (wiki it).

EV = $50mX7 = $350m (this is the firm value, including value of equity and debt) EV = Debt + Equity Equity = 0 Debt = EV = $350 million

Under the above assumptions, investors should be indifferent between funding the company with debt, and funding it with equity. Accordingly, the value of the two tranches, together, is $350 million. Ask yourself, why would it be worth any less? If you KNOW the firm is worth $350 million, and you're indifferent between debt and equity, then you would price the debt at $350 million.

Refinements 1. Obviously there are taxes. Interest is tax deductible, so there is a tax shield effect which should increase the value of the firm (and debt). Note that this fully depends on the average D/EV ratio of your comps. If all of your comps have a D/EV=1, then the tax shield effect is already priced-in. If the average D/EV$350 million.

  1. Relax bankruptcy cost assumption. In the real world, funding a company with debt alone is extremely risky, so you would discount the EV (and value of debt). Again this depends on the average capital structure of your comps. Result: value of debt is value of subordinated note

Sorry for the limited info. Have a couple questions if that's okay:

In number 3, why would using sub notes mean that someone is worried about bankcruptcy costs?

For number 1, if Debt/EV is less than 1, doesnt this mean debt is lower in value, and is

 

Smoor00: I remember in undergrad one of my profs saying that every year they had a group of MBAs that just finished reading M&M's theories that came up with the very original idea of running a company on 100% debt. Just can't do all debt, but on the upside, at least you're thinking like an MBA.

I feel a little trolled by OP adding details late in the case. It's like a guy that keeps going back to tell you details in a joke.

 
overpaid_overworked:
Smoor00: I remember in undergrad one of my profs saying that every year they had a group of MBAs that just finished reading M&M's theories that came up with the very original idea of running a company on 100% debt. Just can't do all debt, but on the upside, at least you're thinking like an MBA.

I feel a little trolled by OP adding details late in the case. It's like a guy that keeps going back to tell you details in a joke.

anyone who quotes MM theorem is a douche. It has no place outside of the class room, and hence, no real place within it.
"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper
 

Am I the only one who thinks everyone is overthinking #3? To me: "how much would you pay" translates to "quote me some realistic pricing."

For a company levered 3.5x through the senior secured, with only $50MM of ebitda, you would pay like 500bps in this market for the secured tranche. Levered 7x through the sub notes, you'd probably have to pay like 10% (plus or minus a few hundred bps, depending on what kind of assets we're dealing with & the type of business model).

Array
 
Cries:
Am I the only one who thinks everyone is overthinking #3? To me: "how much would you pay" translates to "quote me some realistic pricing."

For a company levered 3.5x through the senior secured, with only $50MM of ebitda, you would pay like 500bps in this market for the secured tranche. Levered 7x through the sub notes, you'd probably have to pay like 10% (plus or minus a few hundred bps, depending on what kind of assets we're dealing with & the type of business model).

That is, I'd pay par at 5% and 10%(ish).

Array
 
Cries:
Am I the only one who thinks everyone is overthinking #3? To me: "how much would you pay" translates to "quote me some realistic pricing."

For a company levered 3.5x through the senior secured, with only $50MM of ebitda, you would pay like 500bps in this market for the secured tranche. Levered 7x through the sub notes, you'd probably have to pay like 10% (plus or minus a few hundred bps, depending on what kind of assets we're dealing with & the type of business model).

You are talking about what the coupon on the debt would be not the price.

"Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
 
Gekko21:
Cries:
Am I the only one who thinks everyone is overthinking #3? To me: "how much would you pay" translates to "quote me some realistic pricing."

For a company levered 3.5x through the senior secured, with only $50MM of ebitda, you would pay like 500bps in this market for the secured tranche. Levered 7x through the sub notes, you'd probably have to pay like 10% (plus or minus a few hundred bps, depending on what kind of assets we're dealing with & the type of business model).

You are talking about what the coupon on the debt would be not the price.

As stated above, I'd pay par (full $175MM per tranche) at those prices.
Array
 

Sub notes is not a necessary bankruptcy risk, could be a ton of reasons to issue sub/mezz debt, when you get into PE it's quite common depending on situation of course. Sub debt is one of the "last in line"

All those notes are is "order of liquidity preference"

If a company takes out mass debt, and you are the mezz/sub-debt. You're last in line, that is the layer where debt investors are worried abt bankruptcy risk.

Revolver -> senior -> sub/mezz is your order of higher interest rates and therefore higher risk of bankruptcy insolvency. No need to overthink

Also the comments above generally validates the rough numbers link to libor everyone is coming in at 5-10% without any info because you just base it on the leverage, comps and size of company in a quick lbo for an interview.

Note if someone asked "why is sub-debt higher" then that would show a complete misunderstanding of bonds and would be a ding for sure.

 

[quote=overpaid_overworked]Oreos: So we agree that MBAs are Douchbags, done (its okay, I have friends that are MBAs so I can say that).

Cries: I'm a little confused by your statement "if D/EVEV = D+E, so D must be EV, so D/EV will always be EV, i think he meant it would be 1, if D=EV, but then you would have to subtract cash so it should be less than one, right?...

i posed a similar question if you can advise perhaps, "For number 1 (in his post), if Debt/EV is less than 1, doesn't this mean debt is lower in value, and is

 

[quote=overpaid_overworked]Oreos: So we agree that MBAs are Douchbags, done (its okay, I have friends that are MBAs so I can say that).

Cries: I'm a little confused by your statement "if D/EVEV = D+E, so D must be EV, so D/EV will always be

Array
 

@ddp My answer doesn't apply since the actual value of debt was revealed to be $200m.

Just to clarify, I was saying that if the D/EV of your COMPS was EV/EBITDA multiple since your target firm enjoys a relatively larger tax shield, as compared to its comps (because your target's D/EV=1).

 
smoore00:
@ddp My answer doesn't apply since the actual value of debt was revealed to be $200m.

Just to clarify, I was saying that if the D/EV of your COMPS was EV/EBITDA multiple since your target firm enjoys a relatively larger tax shield, as compared to its comps (because your target's D/EV=1).

So, you would add a premium to EBITDA, because of a higher tax shield present in your target firm, since the debt (d/EV=1, wholly debt financed) of your target would be higher than your comps (

 
smoore00:
@ddp My answer doesn't apply since the actual value of debt was revealed to be $200m.

Just to clarify, I was saying that if the D/EV of your COMPS was EV/EBITDA multiple since your target firm enjoys a relatively larger tax shield, as compared to its comps (because your target's D/EV=1).

Still don't understand why it would increase your debt and FV though, if tax shield is up?

 

The way the first question is worded, I found myself chuckling and instinctively wanting to say "uhh...I'd recommend they sell a product or service above cost."

Obviously, this isn't the answer they'd be looking for, but based on how it's worded, I couldn't help but say that.

 
1. If a company has no access to any sort of capital and does not have a cash flow, how would you advise it to get cash?
Open an investment bank and beg the government for a bailout. Then pay everyone big bonuses.
2. If account receivable increases by 100, is that a source of cash or use of cash, and why?
That is a use of cash. Unless you're a bank in which case you charge them 18% interest on the receivable and call it operating capital.
3. If a company's EBITDA is $50 mln, and comps are 7X Ebitda, and the company is split between two types of debt tranches, secured senior and subordinated notes, how much, as an investor, are you willing to pay for both of those types of bonds?

What is the equity worth?

 

2 is a use of cash because when a receivable goes up, that is cash that is owed but is not being paid. This can be showed through the use of the Operating Activities part of the statement of Cash Flows. When an asset increases, you subtract because that is cash being used, not an inflow of cash.

So since your A/R is increasing, that means that the people who owe you money are not paying you in CASH, your account is increasing. Therefore increasing the amount of cash OWED, not being paid. When an asset increases, you always subtract from OP activities for Cash flows.

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." - Benjamin Franklin
 
  1. factoring, leases, outsource
  2. use
  3. If EBITDA is 50m and EqV350 asume 60% recovery rate and say EBITDA under stress 40m, then you have ~200 recover, then 5x senior tranche debt, take risk and calculate a risk for the remaining part.
Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 

Minima reprehenderit iste et aperiam magni eligendi. Incidunt magni mollitia sint quia autem nemo. Laborum atque deserunt quia est eum rerum enim. Dolorem numquam adipisci reiciendis voluptates voluptas occaecati. Repudiandae quasi doloribus quis id et fugit at.

Et est nulla eaque et culpa harum quod. Ut itaque nesciunt ducimus illum atque dolorum voluptate voluptates. Rem exercitationem quia aut. Omnis culpa aliquam illo illum dolore.

Magnam assumenda a eveniet et velit recusandae neque error. Asperiores ut consequatur hic sed quo nemo.

Consequuntur quis consectetur magnam facere aut nisi. Aspernatur consequatur ipsa praesentium qui est eius ratione.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $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

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...”