Linden Office Supply

The CFO wants a revenue bridge, gross-profit explanation and next steps. Units are in thousands; prices and variable costs are dollars per unit. Multiplying them gives $000.

Case facts and units
Product	Budget units (000)	Budget price ($)	Actual units (000)	Actual price ($)	Unit cost ($)
Standard	10	20	9	19	12
Premium	5	40	6	38	24

Use these assumptions

No returns, rebates, currency or accounting-policy changes. Unit costs are unchanged; no other cost-of-sales items.

Volume effect = (actual units − budget units) × budget price. Price effect = actual units × (actual price − budget price). Product mix is included within volume.

Open the original free case and worksheet

Your calculations

Total budget revenue ($000)Total actual revenue ($000)Combined volume effect ($000)Combined price effect ($000)Actual gross profit ($000)Actual gross margin (%)

Write your recommendation

Write the CFO note: explain revenue and profit without claiming an unproven cause.List two questions for sales and the evidence needed before changing the forecast.

Self-review checklist

My volume-plus-price bridge reconciles to the $1k miss. I distinguish the $1k revenue miss from the $13k profit decline. I state the bridge convention and use $000 consistently. My next steps request evidence instead of assuming why prices fell.

Numbers are checked against the stated convention with a small rounding tolerance. Written answers are saved for your review; this tool does not grade investment judgment or hiring readiness.

THE METHOD

How this tool works

Choose one of three cases, enter calculations in the displayed units and write your recommendation. Check numerical answers, reveal the worked solution when ready and use the self-review checklist before exporting.

Three different finance decisions

Linden Office Supply asks you to reconcile a revenue miss and explain the larger gross-profit decline. Briar Maintenance asks you to size a loan using both leverage and cash coverage, then test downside liquidity. Rowan Tools asks you to connect operating scenarios to equity value per share.

These are interactive versions of Wall Street Playbook’s original free cases. The company names, figures and policy limits are fictional. The workspace retains the source assumptions and unit conventions rather than turning the exercises into real investment recommendations.

Show both arithmetic and judgment

Checking a number confirms agreement with the stated convention within a small rounding tolerance. It does not prove that the operating assumptions are realistic or that the recommendation is appropriate. Use the written prompts to explain what additional evidence is needed.

The self-review checklist covers reconciliation, units and the limits of each conclusion. Your written answers are not scored by an AI grader. Revealing a solution adds it to your export so you can compare your approach with the worked reasoning.

WORKED EXAMPLE

A loan that passes leverage but fails cash coverage

Briar’s underwritten EBITDA is $20m and CFADS is $10m. The $70m request meets a 3.5x leverage ceiling but has $10.5m annual debt service, giving only 0.952x coverage. The 1.25x cash-coverage floor instead limits debt to approximately $53.33m before other risks are considered.

Assumptions and limits

All three cases are fictional teaching scenarios with explicit input assumptions.
FP&A uses $000; credit and enterprise values use $m; share prices use dollars per share.
Numerical checks allow small rounding differences and do not grade written judgment.
Answers are saved separately for each case in the current browser.

Common questions

Can I return to an unfinished case?

Yes, in the same browser while its site data remains available. Answers and checklist choices are saved separately for all three cases. Export a copy before clearing data or switching devices.

Are the lending thresholds or valuation multiples market standards?

No. They are explicit assumptions for fictional exercises. Real credit terms, valuation inputs and accounting definitions require independent research.

Does the tool grade my written recommendation?

No. It checks numerical answers against the supplied conventions and provides a worked solution and self-review checklist. You remain responsible for assessing the reasoning in your written answer.

Sources and methodology

Reviewed November 6, 2026. Sources support the method described above. Examples are illustrative; results depend on your inputs and require your review.