Skip to main content
Blackstone Private Equity Case Study

Project Pellworth — Operating-Case LBO & Returns Attribution

A 2.5-hour Operating-Case LBO with Returns Attribution case study with a complete model answer

150
Minute Format
2
Deliverables
7
Concepts Tested
Advanced
Difficulty

Modeled After

Blackstone

The operating-case buyout analysis Blackstone is reported to set, which formally decomposes the return: each driver's contribution to ending equity, its share of the multiple of money above 1.0x and its share of the IRR, with a check cell reconciling the bridge to the actual increase in equity value.

Structure and exercise format are modeled after Blackstone — the returns-attribution standard the firm is reported to apply. The company, the plan and every figure in this case are entirely our own.

The Situation

Pellworth Home Retail Group, Inc.

Pellworth Home Retail Group

Sector
Consumer / retail — home improvement and home furnishings, with an installed-services business and a direct channel
Size
Geography
United States; Midwest and Southeast, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio
Ownership
Situation

The Prompt

You are on the deal team at Harnwood Capital Partners.

150 minutesLBO Modeling TestsModeling

Supporting Materials

What you are handed at the start of the case, in the format a real process would use.

Requires Diamond Tier
Unlock
  • Blank model template

    XLSXUnlock

What You Have to Produce

The deliverables, in the order the committee will read them. The exercise runs 150 minutes.

Requires Diamond Tier
Unlock
  1. PART 1

    Rebuild the reported year from the drivers

  2. PART 2

    Price it and fund it

  3. PART 3

    Three operating cases, on one toggle

  4. PART 4

    The cash build and the debt schedule

  5. PART 5

    The exit, and why there are two returns

  6. PART 6

    The returns attribution bridge — the deliverable

  7. PART 7

    The order of attribution, and what depends on what

How to Approach It

The order a strong candidate works in, and why. This is the shape of the answer — the finished Excel model and memo are in the solution set below.

Requires Diamond Tier
Unlock
  1. 01

    Read the three driver sets side by side (20 minutes)

  2. 02

    Rebuild the reported year, then price it

  3. 03

    Build one operating case, then copy it twice

  4. 04

    Same discipline on the debt schedule

  5. 05

    The exit, on both holds

  6. 06

    Build the bridge, and make it reconcile (the deliverable)

  7. 07

    Decompose the decomposition

  8. 08

    Write the five sentences (30 minutes)

Key Concepts

The ideas this case is built on. Know these cold and the case becomes a question of execution rather than knowledge.

Returns attribution bridge

A decomposition of the equity value a deal creates into the sources that created it. It is only useful if it is exhaustive: every dollar of the increase in equity value has to land in a named component, and a residual line called 'other' means the decomposition does not describe the model it came from.

Valuing growth at the entry multiple

EBITDA growth is valued at the multiple you paid and the multiple change is valued on exit EBITDA. Those two add to the change in enterprise value with nothing left over. Value growth at the exit multiple instead and the two lines double count the interaction between them, which is why a bridge built that way needs a plug.

Order of attribution

EBITDA growth splits into revenue growth and margin expansion, and the split depends on which one you value first: whichever comes second carries the interaction between them. The total does not move, the two lines do, and the ranking between them can flip. That is why the order has to be stated rather than assumed.

Operating leverage

Margin improvement that comes from fixed cost spread over higher sales rather than from a rate a management team changed. It is not a lever; it is a consequence of the sales line, and it reverses exactly when sales do. Separating it from the rest of a margin bridge is what turns 'margin expansion' from one word into an argument.

Comparable store sales

Sales growth from stores that have been open long enough to lap themselves, decomposed into transactions and average ticket. A chain whose transactions are falling while its ticket rises is not the same business as one whose transactions are rising, even when the headline comp is identical.

Locked box

A sale priced on a stated set of accounts, with the buyer taking the economic risk from that date and paying at completion. If the box carries no ticking interest, the seller earns its money multiple over the period the accounts cover and its return over the longer period until the cash arrives — which makes timing a real, computable component of the return.

Lease-adjusted leverage

Net debt plus capitalized rent over EBITDA before rent. For a retailer whose EBITDA is stated after rent, the reported multiple understates the fixed obligation the business actually carries, and the two numbers can be more than a turn apart.

Level against swing

The level of a bridge component says how big it is; its swing between cases says how much of the answer depends on it. The two do not rank the same way, and it is the swing that belongs in the recommendation.

What Makes It Hard

The specific traps in this case — the places candidates lose the assessment without noticing.

Requires Diamond Tier
Unlock

Check Your Answer

Type the figures you produced and find out how many are right before you open the worked answer. You get a verdict and, where you are off, a pointer to the part of the build to re-check — never the number itself. Everything you type stays on this device.

How to type a figure. Digits, with an optional unit: 1,234.5, $1,234.5, 2.6x, 21.4%. For a negative use (20.0) or -20.0. Enter as many decimals as you carried — precision is never penalised.

Your Figures

  • $ in millions · graded within ±2%

  • a multiple — type 2.6 for 2.6x · graded within ±0.5%

  • a multiple — type 2.6 for 2.6x · graded within ±0.5%

  • $ in millions · graded within ±2%

  • percent — type 20.0 for 20% · graded within ±1%

  • percent — type 20.0 for 20% · graded within ±1%

  • percent — type 20.0 for 20% · graded within ±1%

  • percent — type 20.0 for 20% · graded within ±1%

  • $ in millions · graded within ±2%

  • $ in millions · graded within ±2%

  • $ in millions · graded within ±2%

  • $ in millions · graded within ±2%

What the Case Asked For

The arithmetic is only half of it. Tick off what you actually produced — this half is yours to score, because nothing can grade a written recommendation from a checkbox.

The Model Answer

The worked answer in full: Excel model and memo, built the way a banker would actually build them. It is a reference, not a submission — a strong answer under the clock is far shorter.

What the Solution Covers

  • Three operating cases on a single toggle
  • Returns attribution bridge
  • EBITDA growth valued at the entry multiple
  • Multiple expansion valued on exit EBITDA
  • Debt paydown contribution
  • Value leaked to management as a negative component
  • Bridge reconciliation check

Memo

The written recommendation and how it was reached

Upgrade to Diamond

Sign up and upgrade to Diamond to unlock the Excel model, the memo and the audio walkthrough.

Get Started

The Excel Model

The model is linked and tied out end to end — every schedule, every formula and every check, in the file itself.

Downloads are available to Diamond members

Excel Model and Memo (PDF) — yours to open, edit and rebuild

Upgrade

Walkthrough

A conversational walkthrough of how to approach the case under time pressure — where to start, what to cut, and how the recommendation gets defended.

Audio Walkthrough

60s Free Preview
Requires Diamond Tier

How to approach Project Pellworth — Operating-Case LBO & Returns Attribution

60-second preview — upgrade to Diamond for the full walkthrough

Unlock

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the exercise care so much about the bridge tying exactly?

Because a bridge that does not tie is a set of estimates with a plug rather than a decomposition. The whole value of the exhibit is that a reader can take any component out and know exactly what the answer would have been without it. A residual destroys that: it means some of the return came from somewhere the analysis cannot name, and nobody reading it can tell how much.

Why is the base case exit multiple set equal to the entry multiple?

It is the house convention, and it is what makes the base case return an operating and deleveraging story by construction. If the base case is allowed a re-rating, the bridge cannot separate what the business earned from what the market handed over. The other two cases carry explicit exit multiples with a stated reason, which is how a re-rating should be underwritten: as an assumption someone can refuse.

How can timing be a component if it does not change the value?

Because a return is a value and a clock. Under a locked box with no ticking interest the price is fixed on one set of accounts and the money arrives later, so the same money multiple is earned over a longer period and the internal rate of return falls. It moves no value and no money multiple, and it does move the return — so it belongs in the return column of the bridge, with zeros beside it in the other two.

Does the order of attribution really change the answer?

It changes the split, never the total. Revenue growth valued at the entry margin leaves the whole interaction inside the margin line; valued at the exit margin it takes the interaction with it. On this case the two orders disagree about which of the two is the larger driver, which is exactly why a submission has to state the convention it used.

How much of the two and a half hours should go on the model?

About 20 minutes reading the drivers, 100 minutes on the workbook and 30 on the written recommendation. The workbook leaves 879 cells across 237 authored rows, which is 305 distinct formulas once you allow for filling right — comfortable if you build one case block and copy it, and impossible if you build all three from scratch.

What separates a strong answer from an average one?

Three things: a bridge that reconciles exactly, with no component the candidate cannot name; a stated order of attribution, because the reader cannot audit a split whose convention is hidden; and a recommendation that names the lever the answer depends on from the swing between the cases rather than from the size of the components in one of them.

About This Operating-Case LBO with Returns Attribution Case Study

Operating-Case LBO with Returns Attribution case study for private equity interviews. 150-minute format covering three operating cases on a single toggle, returns attribution bridge, ebitda growth valued at the entry multiple. Includes the full prompt, a tied-out Excel model, a written memo and an audio walkthrough.

This case study sits in Private Equity, under LBO Modeling Tests. Every case ships with the full prompt, the supporting materials, a complete model answer and an audio walkthrough of the judgment behind the recommendation.

150-Minute Format

The time limit a real assessment would give you

Excel Model

Included in the model answer

Memo

Included in the model answer

Audio Walkthrough

How to approach the case under time pressure

200K+ students have used IB Vine to help land offers at top firms.

Moelis & Co.

umich.edu
Diamond Tier

I loved IB Vine. I’m going into Private Capital Advisory (PCA); you have the lessons on there for PCA and that was actually a game changer. I went into those interviews and knew about the core PCA concepts like net asset value, primary fundraising vs. secondary advisory, etc. I swear I was on IB Vine like a few hours a day. The opportunity to have that learning section and go through the questions people submit and everything — there’s no better tool out there. I loved the guides/lessons. The user interface is amazing. The way you’ve simplified it is so spectacular — it’s just so much easier to digest. It’s fun to use too; I’d rather use IB Vine than scroll through a guide. To be honest, I think the product is perfect. I genuinely owe you a big thanks.

Moelis & Co.

smu.edu
Diamond Tier

IB Vine is a tool we really love to use in the club I’m a part of, and there’s really no other resource like it. You guys do a phenomenal job with the question bank. I recruited specifically for Energy banking, and IB Vine was my most used resource for generalist questions (which were about 50% of my interview questions; the rest being Energy-specific); the majority of such questions I saw in interviews were at least similar (if not the same) to the ones on IB Vine.

Perella Weinberg

umich.edu
Diamond Tier

Once I read through the BIWS learning guides, I really didn’t refer to them again. I didn’t even really run through the 400 question guide once I found IB Vine, which I heard about through one of my classmates. We even get a free subscription (like most business schools) to Wall Street Prep, and if I’m being completely honest, I never even logged in to WSP. IB Vine is pretty much the only tool I used (along with our club question bank & mock interviews with peers) and it was invaluable for recruiting.

Cantor Fitzgerald

babson.edu
Diamond Tier

What a platform, made such a huge difference. I did superdays at Evercore, PJT, M. Klein and Barclays among others from a non-target school and did not miss a single technical in any interview process through prepping with IB Vine.

Barclays

ufl.edu
Pro Tier

Very accurate questions and all of the solutions are easy to follow. At least 10 of the questions I studied through this platform appeared in my Round 1 or Superday interviews.

TD Securities

umich.edu
Diamond Tier

THANK YOU SO MUCH IB VINE, I COULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS WITHOUT YOU, SERIOUSLY!!! IB Vine was the best website ever. I spent at least two hours on this daily (seriously) from October through I get my offer in February.

Citadel

uchicago.edu
Pro Tier

I’m doing public equities this summer and next. I know the name is “IB Vine” but at the undergrad level a lot of the technicals across public equities are the same as investment banking. I recommend your software to all my friends!

Piper Sandler

cmc.edu
Pro Tier

I loved this site! 1000% this is the best resource I used in the process.

Lazard

amherst.edu
Diamond Tier

This was the greatest tool ever. I genuinely enjoyed running through the technicals/behaviorals and it was very helpful!

Houlihan Lokey

wustl.edu
Diamond Tier

IB Vine was the most helpful resource I had during recruiting. I will continue to promote it to other students at WashU and elsewhere.

Jefferies

georgetown.edu
Diamond Tier

Awesome product, helped me crush my technicals in my interviews and land a great role. Thank you, seriously was a huge help.

Morgan Stanley

wharton.upenn.edu
Diamond Tier

Very helpful to get real-life questions unlike the 400 guide, especially for merger math. Built deeper understanding of key concepts.

Houlihan Lokey

princeton.edu
Diamond Tier

Extremely helpful study tool that carried me through the recruitment process from start to end.

Evercore

uchicago.edu
Diamond Tier

You guys are doing great work over there with IB Vine. Absolute staple for interview prep.

Rothschild

colorado.edu
Diamond Tier

IB Vine was incredibly helpful and I am forever thankful for all the help.

RBC

oberlin.edu
Diamond Tier

IB Mock was amazing - I used it for multiple hours. Also the flashcards and the lessons features on IB Vine were fantastic. Thank you!

Dragoneer

queensu.ca
Diamond Tier

IB Vine is such a great platform, really impressive. There is so much value in this. The audio podcasts / mock interview library are pretty incredible.

Case Study Preparation

Explore All Case Studies

100+ case studies, each with the full prompt, supporting materials and an audio walkthrough; most also ship a model answer deck and a tied-out Excel model.

Every case has a public page like this one. The member library is the signed-in index members work through.