M&A Interview Questions Guide
This M&A Interview Questions post summarizes the most common questions asked in investment banking interviews to help those preparing to recruit for internships or full-time positions.
This M&A Interview Questions post summarizes the most common questions asked in investment banking interviews to help those preparing to recruit for internships or full-time positions.

Unlike private equity interviews where you’ll most likely receive a set of modeling tests at each stage (e.g. paper LBO, 3-statement LBO modeling test, case study), more technical questions should be anticipated in an M&A interview with an investment bank.
Therefore, it is crucial to understand the core concepts tested in an M&A interview, as well as the ability to discuss your interest in the mergers and acquisitions advisory group and any past relevant deal experiences and current events.
The term “mergers and acquisitions”, or M&A, describes the combination of two or more companies.
M&A, for a buyer, is an opportunity to achieve inorganic growth, rather than organic growth. In contrast, M&A to sellers is an opportunity to undergo a liquidity event, where the seller can either “cash out” and/or participate as a shareholder in the post-M&A, newly formed entity.
While the terms “merger” and “acquisition” are occasionally used interchangeably, there is a distinction:
A merger model can be broken into eight steps, as shown below.
Accretion / (Dilution) Formula
- Accretion / (Dilution) = (Pro Forma EPS / Standalone EPS) – 1
M&A interview questions regarding accretion/dilution modeling are far more intuitive for those that have actually built one from scratch, as opposed to mere memorization.
Use the form below to access an example merger model to reference in your preparation for an M&A interview.
After a merger or acquisition, when the pro forma EPS is greater than the acquirer’s pre-deal earnings per share (EPS), the transaction is accretive. But if the pro forma EPS is less than the acquirer’s standalone EPS, then the transaction was dilutive.
While the term “accretive” in M&A carries a positive connotation, it does not necessarily mean that the acquirer realized synergies or that there was significant value creation (and the same rule applies to dilutive deals).
Instead, the actual reason that corporates pay close attention to the post-deal EPS is because of the market reaction. For example, the market can perceive a dilutive transaction as a poor decision, which can cause the acquirer’s share price to decline because some investors will apply the pre-deal price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio to the now-reduced pro forma EPS.
In reality, public companies fear the reaction from the public markets (and a subsequent drop-off in their share prices). In fact, many dilutive deals are still completed, i.e. a transaction can be dilutive and still turn out to be a great strategic acquisition.
The purchase consideration in M&A refers to how an acquirer intends to pay for an acquisition, i.e. the proposed payment method to the target’s shareholders by the acquirer.
The acquirer can use its cash on hand, raise additional debt capital to fund the purchase, issue equity securities, or any combination of these.
When evaluating the purchase consideration, tax consequences are a decisive factor that shareholders must carefully consider.
Furthermore, the perception of the M&A transaction (and post-deal entity) can also impact the preferences and decisions of shareholders.
If the shareholders' outlook on the post-merger company is negative, it is unlikely they would want to own shares in that company.
But if their outlook on the company is positive and they expect the company (and its share price) to perform well, the shareholders are inclined to accept stock as a form of consideration.
If an acquirer in an all-stock deal is trading at a lower P/E than the target company, the acquisition will be dilutive (i.e. pro forma EPS < acquirer EPS).
The reason for the dilution is that new shares must be issued, which creates an additional dilutive impact.
The pro forma EPS declines because the denominator – i.e. the pro forma share count of the combined entity – has increased.
But suppose the acquirer is valued at a higher P/E than the acquisition target, the acquisition would then be accretive under the same logic as before.
Generally, an all-stock deal results in a lower valuation compared to an all-cash deal because the target’s shareholders are able to participate in the potential upside of holding shares in the new entity.
While shareholders in an all-cash deal receive straight cash, shareholders in an all-stock deal receive equity in the new entity and can profit from share price appreciation (and in theory, the upside of equity is uncapped).
If the transaction consideration were an all-cash deal, the proceeds from the sale would be fixed, so the net gain to the shareholders is capped.
But an all-stock deal offers to chance for the shareholders to receive higher returns if the combined entity’s stock price performs well (and if the market views the acquisition or merger favorably).
Synergies in M&A describe the estimated cost savings and incremental revenue generated from a merger or acquisition.
There are two types of synergies:
Frequently, buyers reference the estimated synergies that they expect to realize from a potential transaction to rationalize offering higher purchase premiums.
In M&A, synergies are a key determinant in the purchase price, as the more post-deal synergies the buyer anticipates, the greater the control premium.
Conceptually, synergies state that the combined value of two entities is worth more than the sum of the individual parts.
Most companies tend to become actively engaged in M&A to realize synergies once their organic growth opportunities have diminished.
Once the deal closes, the assumption is that the performance of the combined entity (and the future valuation once the integration is complete) will exceed the sum of the separate companies.
Cost synergies are far more likely to be realized than revenue synergies.
While it might appear attainable initially, revenue synergies often do not materialize because these financial benefits are based on assumptions impacted by largely unpredictable variables.
For example, the introduction of a new product or service and how customers will react to it is affected by countless factors.
Even if realized, revenue synergies usually require more time to achieve than cost synergies, i.e. there is a so-called “phase-in” period that can last several years (and often may never result in the desired benefits).
Unlike revenue synergies, cost synergies are viewed with more credibility because there are concrete areas that can be addressed.
For instance, if an acquirer announces its intention to shut down a redundant office post-merger, the cost savings from shutting down the office are easily measurable and actionable.
Once an M&A transaction has closed, purchase price allocation (PPA) – or deal accounting – is required to assign the fair value to all of the acquired assets and liabilities assumed from the target in an M&A transaction.
Generally speaking, certain sections of the balance sheet can simply be consolidated, such as the working capital line items.
However, there is one crucial adjustment made to the pro forma combined balance sheet that is arguably the most important part of purchase price accounting: “goodwill”, or more specifically, the incremental goodwill created in the transaction.
PPA involves making assumptions about the fair value of assets, where if deemed appropriate, the target’s assets are written up to reflect their real fair value (and the creation of deferred taxes).
The objective of purchase price allocation (PPA) is to allocate the purchase price paid to acquire the target across the purchased assets and liabilities so that their fair values are reflected.
Goodwill is an intangible asset on the balance sheet that captures the premium paid in excess of the fair value of the net identifiable assets, i.e. the excess purchase price.
It is common for acquirers to pay more than the fair value of the target’s net identifiable assets, so goodwill is a common line item for companies that are active in M&A.
Overpaying for assets frequently occurs due to mistakenly overestimating potential synergies, not performing sufficient diligence, or competing in a competitive auction sale process.
As discussed previously, the carrying value of the purchased assets and liabilities are adjusted to their fair value post-acquisition.
But still, there can be residual value left over (i.e. the excess purchase price that far exceeds the fair value of the purchased assets).
Therefore, the purchase price is subtracted from the net amount, with the resulting value recorded as goodwill on the balance sheet.
Goodwill is recognized on the books of the acquirer and the value remains unchanged (i.e. goodwill is not amortized), but it can be reduced if the goodwill is determined to be impaired, i.e. if the acquirer overpaid for assets and now realizes just how much less it is actually worth.
The control premium in M&A is the difference between the offer price per share and the acquisition target’s market share price.
An important point here is that the “unaffected” market share price is used, which is before any speculative rumors or internal leaks of a potential M&A deal spread prior to the official announcement.
The control premium represents the approximate “excess” paid over an acquisition target’s unaffected share price by the purchaser, expressed most often as a percentage.
The reason for paying a premium is often inevitable – for instance, private equity firms in a take-private leveraged buyout (LBO) must convince existing shareholders to sell their shares. But no rational shareholder would give up their ownership stake without an adequate monetary incentive.
Without a sufficient control premium, it is rather unlikely that the private equity firm would be able to obtain a majority stake.
Since precedent transaction analysis – i.e. “transaction comps” – determines the value of a company using the prices paid to acquire comparable companies, the implied valuation is most often the highest relative to other valuation methodologies such as a discounted cash flow (DCF) or comparable company analysis because of the control premium.
Net identifiable assets equal the total value of a company’s identifiable assets minus the value of its liabilities. Identifiable assets and liabilities can be identified and a value can be ascribed at a specific point in time (i.e. quantifiable).
The net identifiable assets, more specifically, is the book value of assets belonging to an acquired company after liabilities have been deducted.
Formula
- Net Identifiable Assets = Identifiable Assets – Total Liabilities
All identifiable liabilities that played a role in the acquisition must be considered and all identifiable assets – both tangible and intangible assets – must be included.
From the viewpoint of a seller, most would expect to fetch a higher offer price (and purchase premium) from a strategic buyer than a financial buyer.
Strategic buyers are corporate acquirers that often operate in the same industry (or an adjacent market) as the target. Thus, strategics are able to can benefit from synergies, which directly allows them to offer higher prices.
In comparison, financial buyers like private equity firms cannot benefit from synergies in the same manner that a strategic buyer is capable of. But the trend of add-on acquisitions has enabled financial buyers to fare much better in competitive auctions as these firms can place higher bids because their portfolio company (i.e. the platform company) can benefit from synergies similar to strategics.
In M&A, a pitchbook is a marketing document put together by investment banks to pitch prospective clients to hire them for a particular transaction.
The structure, format, and style of pitchbooks are unique to each investment bank, but the general structure is as follows:
If the company issues $100mm of debt, assets (cash) goes up by $100mm and liabilities (debt) goes up by $100mm. Since the company is using some of the proceeds to buy machinery, there is actually a second transaction that will not affect the total amount of assets. $50mm of cash will be used to buy $50mm of PPE; thus, we are using one asset to buy another one. This is what happens when the company first buys the machinery.
Because we have issued $100mm of debt, which is a contractual obligation, and because we are not paying down any part of the principal, we must pay interest expense on the entire $100mm. So, in year 1 we must record corresponding interest expense which is the interest rate times the principal balance. Interest expense for the 1st year is $5mm ($100mm * 5%). And, since we now have $50mm of new machinery, we must record depreciation expense (as required by matching principle) for use of the machinery.
Since the problem specifies straight-line depreciation, useful life of 5 years, and no residual value, depreciation expense is $10mm (50/5). Both interest expense and depreciation expense provide tax shields of $5mm and $10mm, respectively, and will ultimately reduce the amount of taxable income.

Enroll in The Premium Package: Learn Financial Statement Modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO and Comps. The same training program used at top investment banks.
No comments yet.