J.P. Morgan

This has opened every reported set, so it is the one answer worth scripting. Three parts and it is graded on all three: why investment banking, how the role fits your skill set, and where it leads. Most candidates answer only the first. Make the why concrete, built on something you actually did rather than an interest in markets in the abstract. For the skill set, name two or three specific strengths and evidence each in a line. For the long term, show you know what the analyst to associate path looks like and give an honest direction rather than a rehearsed twenty year plan. Two minutes is short for a three part question, so budget it before you record.

Style, not conflict. The strongest answers name the actual difference (they wanted detail and you wanted pace, they worked late and you worked early, they wanted consensus and you wanted a decision) rather than describing someone as difficult. Then show you adapted to them instead of waiting for them to adapt to you. The prompt asks for situation, actions and outcome explicitly, so give all three and keep the setup short. Speaking badly about the other person is the fastest way to fail this one.

An integrity test dressed as a judgement call, and it maps straight onto the JPM principle of integrity, fairness and responsibility. There is a right answer: the error gets corrected. What is graded is how you get there without being sanctimonious or throwing your teammate under the bus in front of a client. Sequence it: check you are actually right before you say anything, raise it with the teammate quietly rather than contradicting them in the room, and if it stands, get it to the senior on the deal and corrected with the client promptly. You can acknowledge materiality, but do not let it become the reason to stay silent, because a client making a decision on numbers you know are wrong is the thing the question is really about. The failure mode is landing on close enough.

Pick a real mistake with a real consequence. A disguised strength such as caring too much or working too hard fails immediately, and so does something so trivial it shows you have never been trusted with anything. The prompt names three parts, so give all three and weight the middle one: what you actually did once you realised, including who you told and how quickly. Own it without excessive self-flagellation. The strongest ending is a process change you made so it cannot happen again, because that is the difference between a lesson and an apology.

Two things are being marked and most candidates only do one: how you prioritised, and how you handled the people. Name the competing priorities specifically, whether that was two deadlines landing together, two stakeholders wanting different things, or your own work against what the team needed. Then give the decision and the criteria behind it, because ranking things is a judgement call and saying why you ranked them that way is the point. The collaboration half is the part people drop, so cover how you told the people affected, what you renegotiated, and how you kept the deprioritised thing from simply failing quietly. Close on what happened to both priorities, not just the one you chose. A pure time management story with no other people in it does not answer this question.

A real technical inside a HireVue, which catches people who only prepared behaviourals. Lead with the main one: use equity when your own stock is richly valued, because you are paying with an expensive currency. Then build out the other cases. When the target is large relative to you and cash and debt cannot fund it. When you are already levered, your rating is at risk, or credit markets are expensive or shut. When the synergies or the integration are uncertain and you want the target's shareholders to share the downside rather than taking it all yourself. When the seller wants to participate in the upside, or wants the tax deferral a stock deal can give them. Then show you know the cost: issuing equity signals to the market that management thinks the stock is overvalued, which is why acquirer shares often fall on stock deals, and it dilutes existing holders. Close on the comparison, that cash is usually preferred when your stock is cheap or you have cheap debt, and that accretion depends on the acquirer's P/E against the effective purchase multiple. Two minutes, so give the headline first and layer the rest.

The most examinable question in banking, and two minutes is enough if you are structured. Name them and say what each one does in a line: the income statement shows profitability over a period, the balance sheet is a snapshot of what you own and owe at a point in time, and the cash flow statement reconciles accounting profit to actual cash. Then do the links, which is what is actually being marked. Net income is the top line of the cash flow statement and flows into retained earnings within equity on the balance sheet. The cash flow statement adds back non-cash charges such as depreciation, adjusts for changes in working capital, then runs investing and financing. Ending cash carries to the cash line on the balance sheet, and the balance sheet balances. If you want one clean illustration, use depreciation: it lowers net income on the income statement, is added back on the cash flow statement because no cash left, and reduces PP&E on the balance sheet. Expect the live follow up at the assessment centre, which is walking a specific change through all three.