Interview Questions at JPMorgan Sales and Trading

[euroazn]

Gentlemen.....................

 

[Stephie]

I might be completely dumb, but that would never happen.
After 6 years, set that year to zero. If the starting sums were even equal, then 2 would overcome, correct? However, the starting sum for 2 is even higher, so 2x is consistently higher. Does that make sense?

I haven't read all replies in this thread, but I would take double my money. It's an interview question for a job. They are really asking if you want more money now or later. The answer is "now".

 

[Stephie]

The coin toss question is also mostly psychological. It is an issue of self worth. I would ask for 100 + 1 for every set of tosses he wanted to play. No effort to cooperate should be in vain.

 

[pruse]

The coin toss question is also mostly psychological. It is an issue of self worth. I would ask for 100 + 1 for every set of tosses he wanted to play. No effort to cooperate should be in vain.

you're asking the dealer to pay you 100+1 to enter the game? but he would always lose at least 1, so why would he ever agree to the deal?

to be fair, you should ask the dealer for 50 (your expected *loss*) plus (maybe) a little compensation for your risk (if you are risk-averse). if you're risk-neutral it should be exactly 50.

 

[euroazn]

you're asking the dealer to pay you 100+1 to enter the game? but he would always lose at least 1, so why would he ever agree to the deal?

to be fair, you should ask the dealer for 50 (your expected *loss*) plus (maybe) a little compensation for your risk (if you are risk-averse). if you're risk-neutral it should be exactly 50.

^This is correct.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

A question for analyst position at Goldman Sachs
“If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?”

Bloomberg LP Financial - Software Developer position
“Out of 25 horses, pick the fastest 3 horses. In each race, only 5 horses can run at the same time. What is the minimum number of races required?”

 

[pruse]

2) 7 races.

Hold 5 races, each with a different set of 5 horses. then race the winners (race #6). now number the initial 5 races 1 thru 5, according to the rankings of the horses in race #6. clearly the winner of race #1 is the overall winner. in race #7, race 2nd and 3rd places of race #1, 1st and 2nd places of race #2, and 1st place of race #3.

 

[anujjain]

2) It becomes little more complicated when asked to find top 5 horses, which was also asked somewhere.

 

[koupparis]

2) 7 races.

Hold 5 races, each with a different set of 5 horses. then race the winners (race #6). now number the initial 5 races 1 thru 5, according to the rankings of the horses in race #6. clearly the winner of race #1 is the overall winner. in race #7, race 2nd and 3rd places of race #1, 1st and 2nd places of race #2, and 1st place of race #3.

I don't think this works. Race 1 may have all the top 5 horses already competing. However, you only consider the 2nd and 3rd place horses of this race.

 

[anujjain]

@koupparis- since we need to find only top3, the 4th horse doesn't stand a chance.

 

[koupparis]

Indeed, I was thinking top 5 from your comment above, whereas Peter answered for top 3.

 

[Stephie]

^This is correct.

I'm not interested in risking any of my money in a gamble with an employer.

 

[pruse]

I'm not interested in risking any of my money in a gamble with an employer.

that's not the point of the question...

 

[pruse]

back to the horse race question...

the interviewer may ask for an explanation as to why 7 is the minimum. so here goes...

say you could guarantee the top three in 6. the first race eliminates 2 horses from contention, and each subsequent race eliminates at most 4 additional horses (and this only if the winner finished 3rd or worse in a previous race). so in 6 races, at most 2+5*4 = 22 horses can be eliminated. but we must eliminate exactly 22 horses. so this means that in each race after the first the winner must have finished 3rd or worse in a previous race. but this obviously can't be guaranteed to happen: it may be that every horse NOT in the first race is better than the 3rd, 4th, and 5th place horses from the first race, in which case the winner of the second race clearly didn't finish 3rd or worse in the first race.

 

[boneil]

The following questions are said to be asked during an internship interview for a sales and trading role at London JPMorgan bank

1) I can pay you twice your money every two years, three times your money every three years or four times your money every four years. Which option do you choose and why?

I doubt they would expect you to think about the interest you may earn on your money.

This question obviously depends on how long you plan to work there. (0,2) years and you have what you started with, X.

[2,3) years and the first choice is better, [3,4) second choice better.

I think you can prove that the first choice is always best after 4 years. [4,6) years is somewhat obvious.

[6,8) years the first choice yields X + 2X + 6X + 18X = 27X
(i.e. start with X, 2X is payment after 2 years, 6X = 2(X + 2X) payment after 4 years, etc.)

Second choice yields X + 3X + 12X = 16X
(same logic as above)

Third choice yields X + 4X = 5X

[8,9) years:
First choice yields X + 2X + 6X + 18X + 54X = 81X

Second choice stays the same, 16X

Third choice yields X + 4X + 20X = 25X

[9,10) years keeps everything but the second choice the same, which changes to 16X + 48X = 64X

I think its pretty obvious from here that shorter reset frequencies are best. Without loss of generality it is assumed that you don't spend any of your money. I'm also assuming "your money" implies total wealth and not your salary.

 

[Joy Pathak]

A question for analyst position at Goldman Sachs
“If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?”

This is very interesting. I am almost feel like the answer is a philosophical reason. I wonder if this has a right answer.

 

[Joy Pathak]

Here is a common interview question which I have been asked recently:

Why are manhole covers round?

 

[ThinkDifferent]

Here is a common interview question which I have been asked recently:

Why are manhole covers round?

some of them are not. round ones are only those that cover round holes ) i'd think most of them are round because they are easier to roll around

 

[pruse]

This is very interesting. I am almost feel like the answer is a philosophical reason. I wonder if this has a right answer.

these questions aren't intended to be philosophical. they're meant to test your resourcefulness and imagination.

 

[Joy Pathak]

these questions aren't intended to be philosophical. they're meant to test your resourcefulness and imagination.

Philosophical...imagination.. Sometimes its a fine line. I have found being philosophical with such questions has been quite favorable.