Questions I think don't get asked enough in HF interviews: "Talk about 3 ideas you passed on in the last year & what the process was - what were the "go/no go" decision points & when did you reject the idea? *Other than valuation*, what filters/criteria didn't the company meet?"

PMs always want current ideas/case studies, that's obvious. They also spend time probing errors of commission (biggest mistake/loss). For all the advertisement about "process over outcome" though, few go very deep w/ candidates on the numerous rejected ideas & rationale.

This is where I spend lots of time. I'm interested in both errors of omission + how someone avoids blow-ups. Not just what ended up happening - but what patterns didn't fit your definition of a compelling idea & what specific datapoints troubled you in these cases?

This accomplishes several things: analytical rigor + pattern recognition + intellectual curiosity--prereqs for a $-making analyst. It shows what screens & biases the analyst may have + what their "pass rate" tends to be--this weeds out analysts that don't fit a fund's style.

Note on pass rate/idea velocity - analysts should review *many* new ideas every year to build intuition on what great (& poor) investments look like. Some PMs stress more time spent on current positions (should be doing this anyway) but quickly parsing new ideas is a huge skill.

Finally (& most impt for me), these q's can identify those who are capable of spotting great businesses but may lack experience/conviction to make a bold call (often due to valuation). Guidance from a good PM can solve this, but fixing broken process/filters is usually too hard.