Walk me through your CV.

What it tests: Story coherence + genuine investing curiosity. AM firms want sustained evidence of following companies and markets and a long-term, fundamental mindset, not a transactional one.

Tell me about your most impressive piece of investment research.

What it tests: Depth of independent thinking + a variant view. Tests whether the candidate did proprietary work and reached a differentiated conclusion, not consumed sell-side notes.

Tell me about a weakness, a failure, or feedback you've received and worked on.

What it tests: Self-awareness + research humility. Cross-role canonical. Fake weaknesses downgrade immediately. Long-only holds for years, being wrong slowly is costly, so honesty about errors matters.

Why long-only asset management? Why not a hedge fund or sell-side research?

What it tests: Authentic interest in long-term fundamental investing vs cycling buy-side recruiting. Tests whether the candidate is drawn to durable compounding and a long horizon, not the trading intensity of a hedge fund.

What it tests: Whether the candidate has done the homework. Bar: firm-specific evidence from style, process, long-held positions, and people, not generic 'great track record'.

What's your investment philosophy, and why does it fit this firm's?

What it tests: Whether the candidate has a coherent, examined philosophy (quality, value, growth) rather than a grab-bag, and whether it matches the firm's.

How would you describe this firm's investment process and edge in your own words?

What it tests: Whether the candidate has internalized HOW the firm generates and sizes ideas, not just WHAT it owns. Tests whether they read letters / commentary, not a fact sheet.

Why should a client pay this firm for active management over an index fund?

What it tests: Whether the candidate understands the active-management value proposition and the bar active managers must clear, outperforming a cheap index net of fees.

Research interview prep.

A fundamental analyst who underwrites businesses for the long term and is measured against a benchmark, so the question is never just 'is this a good company' but 'is it mispriced, do I have a variant view, and is it worth an active position vs the index'.

What interviewers look for

Does the candidate have a variant view, a differentiated, well-researched reason the stock is mispriced, not just a description of a good company?
Can they articulate what's PRICED IN and what their proprietary research adds, rather than reciting the consensus narrative?
Do they value the business rigorously. DCF AND multiples, and defend the key assumptions (growth, margins, WACC, exit multiple)?
Do they assess quality. ROIC vs cost of capital, the moat, reinvestment runway, for a long-term hold?
Are they benchmark-aware? Long-only is relative; the question is whether this is worth an active weight vs the index, sized to conviction.
Do they think long-term and have downside discipline, a margin of safety and a clear thesis-break, since they can't easily short or hedge?

Behavioural questions to expect

Walk me through your CV.
What it tests: Story coherence + genuine investing curiosity. AM firms want sustained evidence of following companies and markets and a long-term, fundamental mindset, not a transactional one.
Tell me about your most impressive piece of investment research.
What it tests: Depth of independent thinking + a variant view. Tests whether the candidate did proprietary work and reached a differentiated conclusion, not consumed sell-side notes.
Tell me about a weakness, a failure, or feedback you've received and worked on.
What it tests: Self-awareness + research humility. Cross-role canonical. Fake weaknesses downgrade immediately. Long-only holds for years, being wrong slowly is costly, so honesty about errors matters.
Why long-only asset management? Why not a hedge fund or sell-side research?
What it tests: Authentic interest in long-term fundamental investing vs cycling buy-side recruiting. Tests whether the candidate is drawn to durable compounding and a long horizon, not the trading intensity of a hedge fund.
Why this firm?
What it tests: Whether the candidate has done the homework. Bar: firm-specific evidence from style, process, long-held positions, and people, not generic 'great track record'.
What's your investment philosophy, and why does it fit this firm's?
What it tests: Whether the candidate has a coherent, examined philosophy (quality, value, growth) rather than a grab-bag, and whether it matches the firm's.
How would you describe this firm's investment process and edge in your own words?
What it tests: Whether the candidate has internalized HOW the firm generates and sizes ideas, not just WHAT it owns. Tests whether they read letters / commentary, not a fact sheet.
Why should a client pay this firm for active management over an index fund?
What it tests: Whether the candidate understands the active-management value proposition and the bar active managers must clear, outperforming a cheap index net of fees.

Technical concepts to master

Three financial statements, connections you'll be probed on

Income statement (IS) overview: Profitability over a period. Revenue → COGS → Gross Profit → OpEx → EBITDA → D&A → EBIT → Interest → EBT → Tax → Net Income.
Balance sheet (BS) overview: Snapshot at a point in time. Assets (current + non-current) = Liabilities (current + non-current) + Shareholders' Equity.
Cash flow statement (CFS) overview: Cash movement, grouped by operating / investing / financing.
Statement connections, the canonical question: How the three statements link: Net Income flows from IS to CFS (operating) and to Retained Earnings on BS. D&A flows from IS to CFS (add-back) and reduces PP&E on BS. CapEx flows from CFS (investing) and increases PP&E on BS. Change in debt flows from CFS (financing) and updates liabilities on BS. Change in cash from CFS updates cash on BS.

The three core valuation methodologies

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF): Intrinsic valuation: project unlevered free cash flows, discount at WACC, sum to get Enterprise Value.
Public Company Comparables (Comps): Relative valuation: apply the multiples of similar publicly-traded companies to your target's metric.
Precedent Transactions: Relative valuation: apply multiples paid in recent M&A transactions of similar companies.
When each is most relevant: DCF: standalone valuation, no good comps exist, you need intrinsic value. Public comps: ongoing operating valuation, market-based sanity check. Precedent transactions: M&A or take-private scenarios, control valuation.

Enterprise Value vs Equity Value, the bridge

Equity Value (Market Cap): Value of the company to its equity shareholders: share price × diluted shares outstanding.
Enterprise Value: Value of the company's core operations to ALL investors (debt + equity + preferred).
The bridge. Equity Value → Enterprise Value: Start with Equity Value; add net debt (debt − cash); add preferred and minority interest.
Why cash is subtracted: Acquirer effectively gets the cash back upon acquisition, it reduces the net price paid for the operating business.

The long-only stock pitch, the scaffold

Recommendation + business: Name, ticker, price, target, upside %, horizon; then what the company does and how it makes money.
Thesis + variant view: Why it's mispriced and what consensus is missing, what's priced in vs your differentiated read.
Quality: ROIC vs cost of capital, the moat, and the reinvestment runway, does this compound for years?
Valuation: Intrinsic value via DCF plus a multiples cross-check; a margin of safety vs the current price.

Quality + the moat

ROIC vs cost of capital: A business creates value only when ROIC exceeds its WACC; the wider and more durable the spread, the better.
The moat: The durable competitive advantage protecting returns, network effects, switching costs, scale, brand, or intangibles.
Reinvestment runway: How long the business can reinvest at high returns, the engine of long-term compounding.
Capital allocation: How management deploys cash, reinvestment, M&A, buybacks, dividends, and whether it creates value.

Active management + benchmark awareness

Relative-to-benchmark thinking: A position is an over- or under-weight vs the benchmark; even not owning a large index name is an active bet.
Active share + tracking error: Active share = how different the holdings are from the index; tracking error = the volatility of that difference.
Information ratio: Active return divided by tracking error, the reward per unit of active risk taken.
Position sizing by conviction: Active weight scales with conviction, upside/downside, and liquidity, within active-share / tracking-error limits.

Practical drills

Pitch me a stock in the firm's universe / style. 5 min prep, 5-7 min delivery. Be ready to be probed for 10-15 min on the variant view, the valuation, and why it's worth an active position.
Walk me through how you'd value this business with a DCF, and tell me which assumptions matter most.
A company has $250m EBITDA, $500m net debt, and 100m shares. Peers trade at 10x EV/EBITDA. (a) Implied equity value per share? (b) It also generates $150m FCF and trades at $16 today, what's the FCF yield, and is the stock cheap?

Smart-question anchors

Idea generation + research process, where the firm's ideas come from and how an analyst's work feeds decisions
Decision + sizing, how recommendations become positions and how conviction maps to active weight vs the benchmark
Philosophy + horizon, the firm's style (quality / value / growth), turnover, and time horizon, with a representative holding
Active vs passive edge, how the firm justifies fees: active share, the research edge, performance net of fees
Analyst autonomy + coverage, sector ownership, how much an analyst's view drives the position, and the path to PM

Related roles

Sourced from

Ready to Generate Your Own Prep?

Drop your CV and a job description on the home page. A couple of minutes later you get a report with everything you need to land the job.

Generate my first prep