In preparation for the interview you were supposed to read an article. The interview itself consisted of Q&A about the article. Questions covered the entire article: providing a summary, talking about your approach to understanding new concepts, answering specific finance-related questions on the content of the article (i.e. what would be happen to the risk of the asset here, what does this concept mean, etc.) . The purpose of the interview, I guess, is to see how you handle new information and how well you can understand new things, but also to check your background in finance, how well you know what you are applying for. I was not asked a single question about my background or experience, just article-related questions.

30 minute phone screen, no technical questions, all about resume and fit...never really got anywhere meaningful though. I don't think, in an interview process, I've ever had a situation where I came away feeling my time had been wasted like this. "Radical transparency" or not, this all felt silly.