Algebra Structures: The 1st Way To Be MECE In Case Interviews

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 5 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ •

  • @CraftingCases
    @CraftingCases  3 роки тому +2

    If you've found the 5 Ways to be MECE helpful to improve your MECEness, you're gonna find our free course 3X more helpful. That's because we show you how to answer any case interview question in a step-by-step method through our signature system "The 6 Building Blocks". Join now at www.craftingcases.com/freecourse

  • @tongwu7964
    @tongwu7964 Рік тому +2

    Thank you Bruno, your video and courses are really INSIGHTFUL, they help a lot in my preperation !

  • @BorisVasilyev
    @BorisVasilyev 4 роки тому +6

    Thank you, Bruno. Great video (and your free course as well). Actually my first thought was to divide revenue by # of salespersons.

  • @henryyao4860
    @henryyao4860 4 роки тому

    Still can't believe this course is free, thank you so much!

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  4 роки тому

      You're welcome!
      Are you referring to the 5 ways to be MECE series or our free course, Case Interview Fundamentals?

    • @henryyao4860
      @henryyao4860 4 роки тому

      @@CraftingCases yes, they are very helpful, thank you :D

  • @hamzahaque5835
    @hamzahaque5835 3 роки тому +1

    Hey Bruno,
    1. Thank you.
    2. Cost per hire should also have a bucket number of candidates who got selected cause the less you select the higher the per hire cost would be, don't you think?

  • @mosunmolaologunde9777
    @mosunmolaologunde9777 8 місяців тому

    i'll appreciate if you can explain how you arrived at the components of the breakdown for each question or objective. you mentioned what the breakdown is but not how or why you arrived at the component

  • @alduouzconde580
    @alduouzconde580 Рік тому

    Hi Bruno. By ad revenues, did you mean sales generated by ads or revenue from the sales of advertising time? At 4:16, you have segmented tv ad revenues into # of people who watch etc., but wouldn't # of people who watch TV be a factor of a bigger bucket?
    The way I structured it is as follows:
    1. Price/ minute of ad time
    2. Time for tv ads
    broken down into - tv time x * tv time used for ads
    I feel that # of people who watch could be a way to explain why the pricing of ads have changed which would result into lower revenue, but directly factoring it into calculation for ad revenue would make it complicated? i.e you'd have to factor in change in price/change in tv viewership
    Thank you for your content and your approach to casing has been the best i've seen.

  • @martinsjrslevkhamphoukeo8129
    @martinsjrslevkhamphoukeo8129 5 років тому +5

    Thanks for the great video Bruno!

  • @dinocollins720
    @dinocollins720 2 роки тому +1

    Thanks Bruno these videos are awesome!

  • @charlesadjei4656
    @charlesadjei4656 5 років тому +3

    Hi Bruno, thank you so much once again for your great resources! For the market share(MS) problem, if the question is to find why a company's MS is decreasing, why is Revenue/Market size not insightful? I would have thought the nuance depended on the question. Thank you so much once again!

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  5 років тому +9

      Hey Charles,
      Love the question!
      The problem with Revenue/Market Size is that for your market share to decrease you must either decrease Revenues or increase Market Size.
      You can't really say that you lost Market Share because of an increase of Market Size as that's actually a good thing.
      So, if you use that equation you're basically saying that the problem is that your Revenues decreased or at least didn't increase while the rest of the market grew.
      Now, is a Revenue decrease case the same as a Market Share decrease case? Not really, because in the second one you need to decrease Revenues MORE SO than your competitors.
      When you structure the case as Revenues/Market Size you're basically taking that nuance (of decreasing MORE THAN your competitors) out of the game, and that is an important nuance. You lose insightfulness because you left that nuance out and now you're solving a Revenue decrease case or even worse, a case where your revenues grew less than the market.
      It's circular reasoning in essence.

    • @charlesadjei4656
      @charlesadjei4656 5 років тому +1

      @@CraftingCases That's very clear now Bruno, thank you!!

    • @annap4991
      @annap4991 3 роки тому

      @@CraftingCases This is clear, thank you. But then, how would you structure the market share decrease problem?

  • @siddharthvashishta6545
    @siddharthvashishta6545 2 місяці тому

    Hey. Lovely video btw. Can i ask the a question related to apple case. If we were doing a “why apples revenue has gone down” rather than long term strategy, would the algebra equation still be a useful framework? Considering the inter-dependency between apple products?

  • @yuthpatirathi2719
    @yuthpatirathi2719 4 роки тому +1

    Superb Bruno!

  • @Iris1026
    @Iris1026 Рік тому

    Very helpful! Many thanks!

  • @luthfialfiansyah6049
    @luthfialfiansyah6049 3 роки тому +1

    this is amazing!

  • @hajnalkagodanyi2975
    @hajnalkagodanyi2975 3 роки тому +2

    Thanks so much for this :)

  • @rafaelmansour7304
    @rafaelmansour7304 5 років тому +3

    Hey Bruno, amazing video! I have one question: the last layer of the structure, usually the hypothesis statement, should be writen on my paper or I can just say it to my interviewer ? I'm afraid about the lack of time to think, create, and even write all this in a couple of minutes.
    Parabéns pelo conteúdo!

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  5 років тому +8

      Hey Rafael, glad you liked it. You can choose to write it or not. What I used to do is to write "H: (a few words to remind me of the hypothesis)".
      So with just 4-5 words the thought is captured.
      But you don't need to, you're being more evaluated for the words you say than what's written. You paper should be structured/organized, but it doesn't have to be complete.

  • @_matthieu
    @_matthieu 5 років тому +2

    Hi Bruno, really amazing content and by far the best I've found on case interviews !
    A question regarding the issue tree at 11:30 : do you present all the levels directly to your interviewer right when you present the framework ? It would seem to be heavy on the interviewer if we had to present such a complex tree.
    If we only present some levels, how far in depth would you advise to go ? When would you present the other deeper level ? Do you state them explicitly as you go down that particular branch ?
    Thanks again, and congratulations on these videos !

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  5 років тому +3

      I think 2 layers is the minimum for the first questions of the interview, and it's often better to do a 3rd layer as well. For questions within the interview anything between 1 and 2 layers. I usually do the upperside number and I recommend doing that if you're quick to structure (which you should be when you're interviewing).
      For the specific hypotheses in the last layer, you can just develop them as you talk to the interviewer.

    • @_matthieu
      @_matthieu 5 років тому

      @@CraftingCases Thanks for the clear answer !

  • @indivo2540
    @indivo2540 5 років тому

    Good video. Not sure about the market share equation problem. The regular equation to answer why market share is decreasing = (Change in revenue/ change in market revenue) helps you to focus on the issues around growth being less than the market. At the 1st level, change in revenue can be broken into quantity and price and market revenue is driven by change in revenue of your competitors. I don't see the problem here. Please can you clarify? I also have a question on the formulae used in the first video which I've posted on that vid. Thanks

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  5 років тому +4

      It's mathematically right, but it doesn't bring you any insights. Half of the equation is outside of your control, and you're left with "why haven't we grown sales?", when the right questions is "why haven't we grown sales AS FAST AS our competitors.
      If you use that equation you'll know a bit of what's happening more than before (because it's mathematically right), but you'll never get to the core issue of the case.

  • @claraouyang8020
    @claraouyang8020 2 роки тому +1

    Hi Bruno, where can we practice more algebraic drills/problems? I'm struggling to find targeted algebraic structure practices!

    • @michaelifidon643
      @michaelifidon643 Рік тому

      did you ever find a resource to practice?

    • @claraouyang8020
      @claraouyang8020 Рік тому

      @@michaelifidon643 not specifically. i just ended up going through case books myself or casing more with friends

    • @michaelifidon643
      @michaelifidon643 Рік тому

      Alright thanks, did it help?

  • @mansigarg2745
    @mansigarg2745 4 роки тому +1

    Hi Bruno, amazing video! Just one question, how do we solve the question related to a market share if not using the formula?

    • @Kveerforever
      @Kveerforever 4 роки тому +2

      Did you even watch the video lol

  • @lucastan6777
    @lucastan6777 5 років тому +1

    Hey Bruno ! Thanks for the very insightful video. I have a question for you. Would it be wise to have an optimistic and pessimistic value range as your answer? For example, at 4:55, you have # of sales per sales-person which is an equation of # of clients visited per salesperson multiplied by conversion rate. If I were to assume that an optimistic conversion rate would be 90%, and a pessimistic conversion rate would be 80%, that would give me a range of value in revenue per salesperson. Would this be more insightful for the interview, or would the interview prefer a more precise value? Thanks in advance.

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  5 років тому +3

      You can do that in an estimation case, but you can also use this type of structure in non-estimation cases, where you just get data from the interviewer or generate ideas without even getting data at all!

    • @lucastan6777
      @lucastan6777 5 років тому

      @@CraftingCases Brilliant ! Thanks again !

  • @enz5536
    @enz5536 Рік тому +1

    9:02 11:10 14:47

  • @muhammadarieframadhan9653
    @muhammadarieframadhan9653 2 роки тому +3

    Hi Bruno, thanks for the great video! I'm curious about the TV ad revenue equation on 3:52 is it true that the revenue of ads on TV is based on the number of minute people watch? So if the people don't watch then the brand doesn't need to pay for the ads even though the ads already aired?

    • @rayzhang4758
      @rayzhang4758 Рік тому +1

      I also have the same question. My assumption is that there is a basic fee for ad play on TV; but as more people watch this channel, the ad will be more expansive

  • @anisz1771
    @anisz1771 4 роки тому

    Hey Bruno, Thank you, amazing video.
    I have one question though: At the end of the video you advise us not to use definitions to create our structure. I understand what you say
    but aren't we using the definition of the profit when we write 'Profit = Revenues - Costs' ?

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  4 роки тому +9

      Good question. Every formula is a definition, so I don’t think I expressed myself as precisely as I could’ve. The problem is when the definition brings in circularity.
      The problem with the traditional market share formula is that you break it down into two parameters, but one is completely outside of your control (market size).
      The profit formula is fine because you have some control over both revenues and costs. This makes it nor circular.

  • @randeepsingh7611
    @randeepsingh7611 5 років тому

    Hello sir, thanks so much for amazing information. I have one question can you please tell me in Market share problem, if we have question why market share is decreasing ? Than without using Revenue/Market size method. How should we solve this type problem ?? How should we go for this problem ??

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  5 років тому +1

      It really depends on what drives market share in each specific market... You could use the 4Ps or numerical drivers of market share specific to each market, or hundreds of other structures... For each answer I gave you I could find a counter-example where it doesn't work!

    • @randeepsingh7611
      @randeepsingh7611 5 років тому

      @@CraftingCases sir, can you please give me some examples where it works and where it doesn't works ??

  • @varshamehra8164
    @varshamehra8164 4 роки тому +1

    Amazing

  • @breathwilton4777
    @breathwilton4777 4 роки тому +11

    Adjust the playback speed to 1.25x. Thank me later

  • @guialmeida195
    @guialmeida195 6 років тому

    Bruno, I didn't get the name of the equation you said at 2:11. Could you write here, please?

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  6 років тому

      Gui Almeida sure! It’s the “# of trees per acre” * “ of harvested apples per tree”. That’s showing on the video by the way, were you not able to see it?

    • @guialmeida195
      @guialmeida195 6 років тому

      Yes, I can. However, I'm talking about the finance equation that you said at the 2:11 minute of the video, which is a way to break down return on equity. Thanks!

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  6 років тому +6

      Got it! It's called the Dupont Equation (Dupont, the company, developed it in the early XX century).
      It's ROE = Profitability * Asset Turnover * Leverage (or [Net Profit/Equity] = [Net profit/Sales] * [Sales/Assets] * [Assets/Equity])
      It's great for business strategy because it takes a look at the business from the shareholder's eyes (that is, return on equity) and breaks it down into margin, asset efficiency and financial leverage. So if you're a retailer for example, you can give more return by either (1) increasing your profitability per dollar sold, (2) increasing sales per store or per square meter or (3) getting more debt. It basically breaks down your options to increase return and thus stock price.

  • @chakkaphanathapornmongkon975
    @chakkaphanathapornmongkon975 6 років тому

    Hi Bruno, along the clip, you mentioned about the video to select algebraic equations so that one can get more insights or even the the answer faster. Not sure if you could direct me to that video please? Thank you very much.

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  6 років тому

      Hey Chakkaphan, could you mention the "minute:second" I mentioned that so I can see what you meant?

    • @chakkaphanathapornmongkon975
      @chakkaphanathapornmongkon975 6 років тому

      CraftingCases Hi Bruno, it’s at 24:40. Thank you so much.

    • @gimagalhaes
      @gimagalhaes 6 років тому

      Hi, Bruno! I was thinking the same. Do you already have that url?

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  6 років тому

      Hey Chakkaphan, I had missed your reply. I just updated the video with the link to that video. Here's the link for convenience: ua-cam.com/video/DaMpVgs0wAI/v-deo.html

    • @CraftingCases
      @CraftingCases  6 років тому

      Gisele, I just answered in Chakkaphan's comment! Hope it's helpful :)