Devesh didn’t think he needed a course.
And honestly, looking at his background, you’d probably agree with him. He’d been active in markets since 2019. Not as a hobby. Actually trading, actually studying companies, actually putting money on the line and learning what happens when you’re wrong. He’d worked as a derivatives analyst. He’d cleared CFA Level I. He’d sat down on his own and built a full equity valuation of Reliance Industries, broke it into five business segments, modeled each one separately, computed WACC from scratch using bottom-up beta, built sensitivity tables on top of it, and stress tested his free cash flow assumptions across multiple scenarios. Nobody asked him to do that. He just did it because he wanted to understand the company properly.
So when we sat down with him and asked what was missing, he paused for a second before answering.
Here’s the transcript of our interview with him –
You had market experience, CFA Level I, your own independent research. From the outside it looked like you had everything. So what was actually still missing?
Yeah so that’s the thing. From the outside it probably did look like enough. And honestly there were days I told myself it was enough. Like okay I’ve been in markets for years, I’ve done real derivatives work, I’ve built my own research from scratch. Surely at some point all of that becomes enough right.
But it never quite did. And I think I knew why even when I didn’t want to admit it.
The way I’d learned everything, it was on my own. Trial and error. Figuring things out as I needed them. That kind of learning is real, I’m not dismissing it. But it leaves gaps. Quiet ones. The kind you don’t even notice because you’ve built your understanding around them rather than through them.
The gaps started showing up in interviews. I’d be walking someone through a valuation and they’d ask me to justify an assumption and I’d realise mid-sentence that my answer wasn’t as clean as it needed to be. Not wrong exactly. Just not tight. Not the kind of answer that comes from someone who learned a methodology properly and then applied it. More like someone who figured something out on their own and is now trying to reconstruct the logic under pressure.
That feeling. I sat with it for longer than I should have.
What made you finally decide to do something about it?
Honestly I kept thinking my experience would eventually be enough. That the market knowledge would open the right doors. That the CFA would signal enough seriousness to the people hiring.
Maybe it would have eventually. But eventually is a terrible strategy when months are going by and the role you actually want keeps not happening.
One day I just sat down and wrote out honestly what I knew versus what investment banking and equity research roles were actually asking for. And looking at that list there were things I couldn’t tick. A fully integrated three-statement model built with proper methodology. DCF done the right way, not just the concept but the actual build with defensible assumptions. Comparable company analysis with real rigour behind the peer selection and multiple application.
Once I saw it clearly like that the next step became obvious. Stop waiting and go fix it. I needed a proper financial modeling course, not another certification that tested theory. I needed to actually build things.
Why The WallStreet School?
Because I wasn’t going to sit through something that started by explaining what a balance sheet was. That would have driven me mad honestly.
I needed a course that assumed I already knew things and then pushed me further. Proper three-statement financial modeling. DCF with actual WACC methodology including bottom-up beta. Comparable company analysis and precedent transaction analysis done the way equity research actually does it. Sensitivity analysis, scenario modeling, sector work, pitchbook preparation. The kind of financial modeling and valuation training that actually shows up in investment banking and equity research interviews.
When I looked at what The WallStreet School was teaching it matched exactly what I needed. Not just the topics but the depth. It wasn’t going to skim things I already knew and it wasn’t going to hold back on the technical stuff.
For someone at my stage that was genuinely hard to find.
What was it like being inside the course?
The first thing I felt was this weird mix of familiar and humbling.
Familiar because the concepts weren’t new to me. I’d worked with DCF, I’d done valuation work, I knew what a three-statement model was supposed to look like. I wasn’t lost.
But humbling because building things in a structured, defensible way from start to finish surfaced exactly where I’d been sloppy. The way I was computing WACC. Assumptions I was making in my revenue forecasts without fully thinking through why. How my sensitivity tables and scenario analysis were structured and whether they were actually telling me what I thought they were. Even the way I was thinking about enterprise value and how to bridge from there to equity value per share.
None of it was catastrophic. But all of it mattered.
The three-statement modeling work is what stayed with me most. I’d worked with financial statements for years. But there’s a difference between understanding how statements connect and actually building a fully integrated model where every single line is properly linked, where a change in one assumption ripples through correctly across all three statements, and where you can explain every single step to someone who’s going to push back on you.
That level of rigour. I hadn’t had it before. Not properly. I built it there.
And when I went back and looked at the Reliance research I’d done on my own, I could see exactly where the methodology had been loose. That clarity felt good and a little uncomfortable at the same time.
Tell us about the placement at Alphas Konsulting. What was going through your head?
Honestly the first thing I felt wasn’t excitement. It was a relief.
That specific kind of relief that comes after a long time of almost. Of getting close and it not quite working. Of that voice in your head asking whether you’re actually going to make it or whether you’re just going to be someone who knew a lot about markets but never quite got into the room where it counted.
That voice. I think anyone who’s spent a long time trying to break into core finance knows exactly what I mean.
When the placement came through the first thing I thought was, okay. The voice was wrong.
The interviews were technical and I was glad they were. Walk me through a DCF valuation. Justify your discount rate and terminal value assumptions. How would you build a financial model for a company in a sector you haven’t covered. What do you do when your DCF output and your comparable company analysis give you very different implied equity values? What do you think about working capital when forecasting free cash flow?
Every question was something I’d worked through during the course. Not just read about. Actually built. Actually I made mistakes and then fixed them. So when the questions came I wasn’t searching for answers. I was recalling things I already understood from the inside out.
There’s a version of an interview where you’re hoping you sound like you know what you’re talking about. And then there’s a version where you actually know. I’d been in enough rooms to feel the difference. This time it was the second one.
Last question. What would you say to someone who’s kind of where you were, knows markets, has put in the time, but still hasn’t made the jump into a core analyst role?
Be honest about where the gaps actually are. Not the scary version of honesty where you decide your background doesn’t count. The practical version.
Ask yourself whether you can walk someone through a DCF valuation and defend every single assumption. Whether your three-statement financial model actually balances and you know why. Whether your comparable company analysis and precedent transactions would hold up under real scrutiny from someone who does this every day. Whether you understand how to go from enterprise value to equity value and why that bridge matters.
If the answer to any of those is no, or even not sure, that’s the thing to fix. Not eventually. Now.
The experience you already have isn’t going anywhere. The years in markets, the CFA work, whatever research you’ve done on your own, none of that is wasted. It actually becomes more powerful the moment it has a proper technical foundation underneath it.
But the gaps won’t close themselves. Go build things with your own hands. Open Excel, start from a blank sheet, make it work, understand why it works. That’s the only way it becomes something you can actually defend in a room.
Devesh completed the Financial Modeling and Valuation course at The WallStreet School, covering DCF modeling, three-statement modeling, comparable company analysis, equity valuation and investment banking interview preparation and was placed as a Financial Analyst at Alphas Konsulting. If you want to talk about where you are and what your next step looks like, reach out to the team at The WallStreet School.
