Trying to incorporate the community’s smell test framework into my analysis. Watched the MD workshop video, but how do you present these red flags without coming across as critical of the interviewer’s own models? Specifically seeking examples of phrasing that positions it as collaborative due diligence rather than nitpicking.
‘smell test’ is just code for ‘find the lazy assumptions.’ trick is to frame it as exploratory: ‘a senior banker I met emphasized stress-testing revenue synergies here—could we walk through alternate integration cost scenarios?’ makes them think you’re cautious, not cocky. unless you want to end up in the ‘difficult’ pile
i said ‘what if we adjust growth for cyclicality like the BB guide?’ interviewer asked if i doubted their model. still cringing… tips??
Use collaborative language: ‘In live deals, I’ve seen teams apply a sensitivity lens here—could we explore how a 10% delta in customer retention impacts the model?’ Anchor to the framework’s third pillar (operational reality checks) rather than personal critique. Always position it as ‘we’ not ‘you.’
Love that you’re diving deep! Phrase it as curiosity—they’ll appreciate the insight!
My mentor told me to use ‘steelmanning’—present the test as strengthening their case. Last week I said, ‘To pressure-test this exit multiple, would it help to apply the BB working capital adjustment from the smell test?’ VP actually nodded and walked through it with me. Felt like a win!
Data point: Candidates using ‘we’ statements with the smell test components receive 23% higher evaluation scores. Example: ‘Would collaborative due diligence include cross-checking CAPEX ratios against the industry decay framework in pillar two?’ This invites discussion without confrontation.