Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

Valuing a school group with peer multiples

You run the case. Read the prompt, answer questions from the notes below, and share data only when the candidate asks for it or gets stuck. Score at the end.

Case timer

00:00

Target length:

1. Read the prompt aloud

Read it slowly, then pause. Let the candidate ask questions before they structure.

A family wants to sell its group of private schools in the UAE (fictional). EBITDA is USD 40 million and net debt is USD 60 million. Similar listed school groups trade at 9 to 11 times EBITDA (illustrative). What is the business worth, and what would the family receive?

2. Answers to clarifying questions

This case has no scripted clarifying answers. Answer from the prompt, and say "assume what you think is reasonable" if the prompt does not cover it.

3. A model structure

Compare the candidate's structure with this one. A different split can be just as good if it is clean and fits the problem.

Equity value = EBITDA x peer multiple minus net debt (this comes from the question: what the owners receive)
- Enterprise value at the low and high multiple
- Subtract net debt to reach equity value

4. The working, step by step

Each step shows how a strong candidate works it out. Share a new fact from it only when the candidate asks or is stuck, and let them do the math: the result in the dark box is what they should reach.

Step 1: EV, low
What a strong candidate does: 40 times 9.
Enterprise value, low (USD millions): 40 × 9 = 360
Step 2: EV, high
What a strong candidate does: 40 times 11.
Enterprise value, high (USD millions): 40 × 11 = 440
Step 3: Equity value, low
What a strong candidate does: Subtract net debt of 60.
Equity value, low (USD millions): 40 × 9 - 60 = 300
Step 4: Equity value, high
What a strong candidate does: Subtract net debt of 60.
Equity value, high (USD millions): 40 × 11 - 60 = 380

The recommendation to listen for

At the end, say: "The CEO walks in. What is your recommendation?"

The business is worth about USD 360 to 440 million, and the family would receive about USD 300 to 380 million after repaying net debt of 60 million. The range is wide because 9 and 11 times differ by 80 million of value. The risk is that the peers are not truly similar: if they grow faster or need less capex for new campuses, the right multiple is lower. As a next step, check this range against a DCF and against prices paid in recent school deals.

Score the candidate

Score each criterion from 1 to 5. A 2 or a 4 sits between the descriptions.

This case has no exhibit. Score Exhibit reading on how the candidate used the data you gave them: did they pick out the number that matters and say what it means?

Structuring

1: No clear structure, or a memorized framework that does not fit the problem.
3: A sensible structure, but with some overlap, a gap, or no clear priority.
5: A structure built for this problem, with no overlap and no gaps, a stated hypothesis, and a clear first step.

Math

1: Frequent errors, no units, or needed heavy help to finish.
3: Right answers but slow or messy working, or one error caught late.
5: Accurate and clearly narrated, with units, a sense check, and what the number means.

Exhibit reading

1: Read the chart aloud without finding the number that matters.
3: Found the key number but gave only part of the so-what.
5: Pulled the right number quickly and said what it means for the case.

Synthesis

1: Summarized what was done, with no clear answer.
3: Gave an answer, but with weak reasons or no next step.
5: Answer first, then two or three reasons with numbers, the main risk, and next steps.

Communication

1: Hard to follow: long silences, no signposting.
3: Clear most of the time, with some rambling.
5: Calm and concise, signposted each step, and checked in with the interviewer.

Total

0 out of 25

Score all five criteria to see the band and the feedback template.