Investment Banking Group Exercise: Example and Tips

An investment banking assessment-centre group exercise asks you to help a team reach a recommendation under time pressure. The visible work is not just the final choice. You need to clarify the brief, compare options against shared criteria, add useful evidence, listen for information you do not have, and help the group close. The exact format and criteria come from the employer's invitation.

This guide gives you the operating rules and an original fictional A/B/C acquisition exercise. You get a shared brief, perspective cards, a timed update, realistic dialogue repairs, a presentation prompt, and a self-review. Every added fact is labelled as a fictional practice fact or an assumption.

TL;DR

• Clarify the decision, output, hard constraint, and time before the group starts solving.
• Make fewer, sharper contributions that add evidence, a consequence, a question, or a synthesis.
• Ask a quieter participant about a specific unresolved issue, then use the answer.
• Change the recommendation when a new fact changes the trade-off, and state the condition.
• Run the case with three or four participants total. A solo outline tests analysis only.

What is an investment banking group exercise?

A group exercise is a timed case, discussion, or practical task in which several candidates work toward a shared output. The group may receive one brief, split information between roles, or receive an assigned perspective. Some exercises end with a recommendation or presentation. Others test how the group reaches a decision without a formal presentation.

Oxford's Careers Service describes group exercises as one part of a wider assessment centre and maps them to teamwork, communication, listening, and problem-solving. It also advises candidates to focus on the employer's criteria rather than treating other candidates as the scoring target. Oxford assessment-centre guidance

University of Nottingham careers guidance lists case studies, discussions, icebreakers, and team tasks as possible group formats. University of Kent guidance also describes group, practical, discussion, leaderless, and leadership tasks. These are format examples across employers, not a universal bank process. Nottingham group-exercise guidance and Kent assessment-centre tasks

The case in this article is a fictional practice scenario. It does not describe a real company, transaction, employer, or recruitment exercise. Use the employer's invitation for the actual assessment format.

Start with three individual reps

Before the peer run, use the existing three-rep practice set to rehearse a few useful moves. The prompts cover disagreement between recommendations, contributing after someone has made your point, and presenting a coherent conclusion. The authored response outlines help you prepare. They do not observe a live group or score your behaviour.

Practice inside this guide

Group exercise practice

Question 1 of 3

Your group disagrees between two recommendations. How do you move it forward?

Your answer

Reveal model structure

After the reps, ask a peer to interrupt your planned answer once. Your next step should be to acknowledge the point, connect it to the decision, and ask a precise follow-up. That small test makes the gap between individual preparation and group performance visible.

Decode the brief before you speak

Use the first minute to mark four items:

1. Who is making the decision?
2. What output does the group need to deliver?
3. Which constraint is hard, such as a maximum price or a required date?
4. How much time remains for reading, comparison, decision, and presentation?

Then agree on the criteria. A simple sequence is:

1. Read and restate the decision.
2. Compare every option against the same criteria.
3. Eliminate options that fail a hard constraint.
4. Identify the main uncertainty in the remaining options.
5. Agree on a recommendation and the next check.

This is a practice structure, not a bank's timetable. Ask whether the split fits the brief and the group before proposing it. A timekeeper has no special authority over the other candidates.

Run the A/B/C case with peers

The table, perspective cards, and timed update below form one fictional practice exercise. Treat the table and cards as exercise facts. Treat interpretations and calculations as assumptions or analysis. This does not describe a real company, employer, contract, or recruitment exercise.

Shared brief

You are an analyst team advising a software company. The client wants recurring revenue and has a maximum purchase budget of 80 million. Recommend one target using only the information below. Treat purchase prices as the full cash cost for this exercise. Further financing, tax, and transaction costs are outside the brief.

Risks supplied in the brief:

• A: One customer supplies 35% of revenue.
• B: Several products need rebuilding.
• C: The purchase price exceeds the stated budget.

Your deliverable is one recommendation, two supporting facts, the main downside, and one question the client should answer before acting.

Facts and assumptions

Keep these categories separate during the discussion:

Do not turn an unresolved risk into a forecast. Label an estimate as an estimate and a question as a question.

Peer-run timebox

Run this with three or four participants total. Keep the shared brief visible. Do not allocate cards by title alone. After the silent read, choose the useful job that the group still needs: a commercial risk check, an execution check, a constraint check, or a process and synthesis check. With three participants, combine the finance and facilitator jobs. With four participants, use all four cards. If a useful job is unfilled, record its issue as an open question instead of inventing its private fact.

Each participant reads their own card, then shares its relevant fact before minute 12. The card holder can explain the fact and answer questions. A facilitator can manage the timebox, but does not decide the answer.

When two jobs are unfilled, choose the job that tests the hard constraint first, then the largest unresolved risk, then the synthesis gap. If another participant has already taken your preferred card, choose the next unfilled job and say why. If your card's issue is resolved, switch to an unfilled job rather than repeating the same point. For example, once the finance role has removed C, it can combine with facilitation to test the conditions for A and B.

Role card 1: commercial risk

Private fictional practice fact: Target A's largest customer has no signed renewal. The current agreement expires in six weeks. The customer represents 35% of A's current annual revenue, which is 7 million on the table's figures.

Your job: Explain what the group must verify before relying on A's recurring revenue. Ask whether the group is treating a current revenue figure as a guaranteed future figure.

Do not claim: that the customer will leave, that the renewal has a known probability, or that a contract term exists. The card gives a risk and a question, not a forecast.

Role card 2: execution and product

Private fictional practice fact: An internal preliminary estimate puts B's product rebuild at 8 million over a 12-month window. The estimate is not approved, and the delivery team is not fully staffed.

Your job: Explain how the potential rebuild affects B's cash headroom and recommendation. Ask what would validate the estimate and delivery plan.

Do not claim: that 8 million is the final cost, that the rebuild will finish in 12 months, or that the product risk makes B impossible. The estimate is uncertain.

Role card 3: finance and constraints

Shared and fictional practice fact: The client has stated an 80 million maximum purchase budget. Under the exercise assumption, B leaves 20 million of headroom before any rebuild spending. C exceeds the stated cap.

Your job: Keep the group from selecting C while the hard cap remains in force. Ask the group to distinguish purchase price from later investment and to state what the client would need to change before C could return to the discussion.

Do not claim: that the client can never change the cap. The brief gives a constraint for this exercise.

Role card 4: facilitator and synthesis

Practice role instruction: You receive no additional information. Propose the comparison criteria, invite each perspective, call out the time, and summarise the leading recommendation with its condition.

Your job: Ask a specific question when discussion becomes repetitive. For example, ask the commercial role what evidence would validate A, then ask the execution role what would validate B.

Do not claim: that you are the leader or that the group must follow your summary. Offer structure and leave space for correction.

The update at minute 12

Before reading the update, record the sensitivity assumption in the facts table. The original case does not say that the largest customer's 7 million is entirely recurring. The calculation below is illustrative only.

At exactly minute 12, read this aloud:

Fictional practice fact: Target A's largest customer says it will renew only if the annual price falls by 20%. There is still no signed renewal.

Give the group two minutes to respond before opening the calculation. The arithmetic does not prove that the customer will renew. It does not establish when the price change would apply, whether other terms would change, or whether the recurring share remains constant. A sound response states the calculation and keeps the renewal as an open diligence question.

Open after the update: illustrative sensitivity calculation

On the stated sensitivity assumption, 7 million multiplied by 20% is 1.4 million. A's illustrative annual revenue moves from 20 million to 18.6 million. Its illustrative recurring amount moves from 18 million to 16.6 million because the assumed recurring customer amount falls by 1.4 million.

This is a stress test, not a forecast. The source table does not provide a contract term, renewal probability, implementation date, or recurring split for that customer.

How should you analyse the case after the run?

Open after your recommendation: model analysis and answer key

Use the same calculation for each option:

$$\text{Illustrative recurring revenue} = \text{annual revenue} \times \text{recurring share}$$

Target	Calculation	Illustrative recurring revenue	Constraint or risk
A	20 million x 90%	18 million	7 million comes from one customer, with renewal unresolved
B	25 million x 60%	15 million	Product rebuild estimate is 8 million, but it is preliminary
C	30 million x 95%	28.5 million	90 million purchase price exceeds the 80 million cap

C has the highest illustrative recurring revenue, but it fails the stated hard constraint. If the cap remains fixed, selecting C answers a different brief.

A leads B on the starting recurring figure by 3 million and stays within the cap. The new update reduces A's illustrative figure further if the customer renews at the lower price. B costs 10 million less before the potential rebuild, but the rebuild estimate is uncertain and the recurring share is lower.

There are two defensible recommendations after the update:

• Recommend A conditionally if the client values the higher starting recurring base and can verify the customer's renewal, price, and concentration risk.
• Recommend B conditionally if the client values headroom and can validate the rebuild cost, delivery plan, and the quality of its recurring revenue.

The exercise does not provide enough information to claim that one option is objectively correct. A strong group makes the trade-off explicit, identifies the missing evidence, and chooses a condition that would change the answer.

What should the conversation sound like?

Use dialogue that moves the work forward. The point is not to perform polished phrases. The point is to make an observable contribution.

What can you say when someone has made your point?

Move the analysis one step further. If another candidate identifies A's customer concentration, add:

"That customer represents 7 million of current revenue. Before recommending A, I would want to verify the renewal, the proposed price, and whether the recurring-revenue figure includes that contract."

If someone says B is cheaper, add the consequence:

"B leaves 20 million before rebuild spending. The 8 million figure is only a preliminary estimate, so I would ask what scope, staffing, and approval evidence supports it."

If you agree with a point, say so and build on it. The group needs information that changes the comparison, not a sequence of independent speeches.

How do you involve a quieter candidate?

Ask for a view on one unresolved question. For example:

"We have compared the revenue figures. Could the execution role tell us what would make the 8 million rebuild estimate reliable enough to use?"

Give the person time to answer. Then use the response:

"That means our B recommendation needs a delivery plan and approved scope. I will add that as our condition."

Inviting someone to speak and immediately returning to your own argument is a gesture, not collaboration. If the point changes the decision, say how. If it does not, explain why it remains a question.

How do you recover from realistic mistakes?

Mistakes are useful when the repair is immediate and visible.

How should the group present its recommendation?

Choose one opening sentence, then support it with the facts that matter. A B recommendation could sound like this:

"We recommend B, subject to validating the preliminary 8 million rebuild estimate, the delivery staffing, and the quality of its recurring revenue. B costs 60 million, leaves 20 million before rebuild spending, and avoids A's unresolved customer renewal. The main downside is that only 60% of its annual revenue is recurring."

An A recommendation could sound like this:

"We recommend A, subject to verifying the largest customer's renewal and proposed price. A costs 70 million and starts with 18 million of illustrative recurring revenue, but 7 million comes from one customer and the minute-12 update reduces that illustrative amount if renewal requires a 20% price cut."

Before presenting, check that the group can answer:

1. What is the recommendation?
2. Which two facts support it?
3. What is the main downside?
4. What should the client verify before acting?

Ask a peer to challenge the conclusion:

"Why pay more for A when B leaves more headroom?"

A concise answer is:

"B has more headroom before the potential rebuild, but its estimate is preliminary and its recurring share is lower. We chose A only if renewal evidence is strong. If that check fails, B becomes the better conditional option."

That answer shows a decision rule. It does not pretend that the case has a single answer independent of the missing evidence.

Peer self-review

This rubric is an IB Offer practice tool. It is not an employer's private scorecard. Score each dimension from 0 to 2 and write one observed example.

• 0 means the behaviour was absent or worked against the group.
• 1 means it appeared partially, late, or without a clear effect.
• 2 means it was clear, timely, and useful to the group.

Use these three debrief questions:

1. Which contribution changed the group's analysis?
2. Which unresolved fact did the group accidentally present as certain?
3. What will you do at minute three of the next run?

Repeat the run with a different role. A candidate who always receives the facilitator card may miss the practice value of defending a commercial or execution concern.

How should you practise outside the group?

Start solo by calculating the table and writing one conditional recommendation. Then run the role cards with peers and rotate the cards. On the second run, give the update to a different person to see whether the group listens for it.

Use the investment banking assessment centre guide for the wider assessment-day sequence. Use situational judgement practice for individual trade-offs. Use the STAR method for leadership and teamwork to prepare a separate example about a past team disagreement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Must I become the leader to perform well?

No. You can contribute through analysis, constructive challenge, synthesis, inclusion, or presentation. Facilitation means helping the group use its time and information. It does not require a title or control of the discussion.

Does the individual practice set simulate a live group?

No. The page gives you an offline peer run that can rehearse a live group when three or four participants run it together. The three-rep practice set uses individual prompts with authored response outlines, so it prepares contribution choices without observing live listening, interruption, or information sharing. Use both layers for different purposes.

Which banking firms use a group exercise?

Rothschild & Co's current graduate page describes an assessment centre that includes an interview with senior colleagues, a collaborative group exercise, and a case study. It links those activities to analytical thinking, communication, and teamwork. This is one employer example. It does not establish the process for every role, office, or bank. Rothschild graduate process

Will the timing and roles be the same at every bank?

No. Assessment centres vary by employer, role, and invitation. Use this case to practise clarifying the brief, sharing information, and making a conditional recommendation. Follow the invitation for the actual timing, materials, and assessment format.

How should I discuss a past group disagreement in an interview?

Explain your contribution, the action you took, and the outcome without claiming the whole team's work. The STAR method guide develops that separate interview skill.

Sources

• University of Oxford Careers Service: assessment centres (checked 5 September 2026; general assessment-centre and group-skill guidance).
• University of Nottingham Careers: group exercises (checked 5 September 2026; group-task formats and observable behaviours).
• University of Kent Careers: assessment-centre tasks (checked 5 September 2026; task formats and participation guidance).
• Rothschild & Co: graduate programmes and selection (checked 5 September 2026; one employer's current graduate assessment-centre example).