Hey a couple questions: I'll start with the one the title is about.
Let's say I am in an interview with MS and they ask me "if you got an offer from both Goldman Sachs and us, who would you choose and why?"
Obviously I would say.. Oh I would definitely choose (your bank) over (their bank).
I am thinking I would say something "both of you do great work, but from my understanding, the culture of (their bank) is just a little bit too [insert adjective here] for me. Your bank seems like a better fit for me because it is (tighter-knit, more focused on X/Y/Z, etc), and your culture would simply allow me to do better work."
So first: if I fill this in in a logical way, is this an acceptable and good answer to the question? If it is, can someone go over how the top 5-10 BB's differ in terms of culture for the purposes of answering that interview question? It doesn't seem logical to say.. "Oh well you just do better work than Goldman.." for instance, so I think it comes down to culture. Does this make sense?
When you do a DCF, you use unlevered FCF with WACC as the discount rate to calculate enterprise value. However, the price you pay to the current owners to acquire the company would be equity value, right? If so why do they need to calculate enterprise value for the purposes of M&A? Why not just straight to equity value? What would the use of enterprise value be?
When you go to calculate the equity value that should be paid for acquisition of the company, would this usually be calculated by adding back cash and subtracting debt from enterprise value? Couldn't it also be calculated by doing a DCF with levered free cash flow and cost of equity as the discount rate? Why would a bank do one or the other?
Thank you for your help.