Answers / FP&A

How would you prioritize capital projects when the requested capex exceeds the available budget (capital rationing)?

A core FP&A interview question — asked in analyst and associate interviews across IB, PE, and the Big 4.

THE SHORT ANSWER

With a hard capex constraint, you can't just accept every positive-NPV project — you maximize value per scarce euro. Rank projects by a profitability index (NPV per unit of capital, or PI = PV of inflows ÷ investment) rather than absolute NPV, so you pick the combination that delivers the most NPV within the budget. Where projects are indivisible or interdependent, evaluate feasible bundles rather than a simple ranking. Beyond the numbers, overlay strategic and risk factors: mandatory/compliance spend and maintenance capex come first (not optional), then strategic fit, risk, optionality, and timing/staging (can a project be phased to spread cost?). I'd also pressure-test the assumptions and avoid letting the biggest-NPV mega-project crowd out several higher-return smaller ones. Present it as a portfolio decision — the efficient frontier of value within the constraint — to the capital-allocation committee, not project-by-project.

WHAT INTERVIEWERS LISTEN FOR

  • Rank by profitability index (NPV per capital), not absolute NPV
  • Handle indivisible/interdependent projects via feasible bundles
  • Mandatory/maintenance capex first; overlay strategy, risk, staging
  • Present as a portfolio/efficient-frontier decision

COMMON MISTAKES

  • Ranking purely on absolute NPV under a constraint
  • Ignoring mandatory/maintenance capex
  • Letting one mega-project crowd out higher-return small ones

Reading isn't the same as answering under pressure.

Interviewers don't hand you the model answer — you deliver yours on a clock. Practice this and 1,000+ questions with AI feedback on every answer.

TRY QUICKFIRE →Or train full FP&A case simulations →

RELATED QUESTIONS