The Final Project Deliverable is your completed valuation model of Lockheed Martin, plus written responses to the reflective questions below.
This class largely centers on the building of a valuation model for a public firm, which we will work on together during MSFLive. Each week, prior to MSFLive, you will construct a portion of the model. You will make your discussion posts each week in response to the discussion prompts and in preparation for MSFLive. You will then attend MSFLive where we will discuss how to complete that portion of the model, the challenges you ran into, how to think about those challenges, and some “ways forward.” After each MSFLive session, you should incorporate the feedback and guidance received into your model. By the end of the course, you should have a complete and calibrated valuation model.
You will upload and submit one Excel file with your both your model and question responses.
Build your valuation model using Microsoft Excel. Please include your last name in the title of your file.
Work on your valuation model each week. (This should be relatively easy since this is tied-in with your discussion posts and our MSFLive sessions.)
Incorporate feedback/guidance received during MSFLive.
Answer the reflective questions (below) on a single tab within your Excel file. There is no formal minimum or maximum length, but I generally expect thoughtful responses to be between 3 and 7 sentences. Use as many words as you need to, but as few words as possible.
When you are ready to submit, hit “Start Assignment” above. That should open a section for you to upload the Excel file with your model and responses. Upload them (be sure to upload the correct file) and hit submit.
Please respond to all five (5) of the following questions. Include your responses to all four questions on a single tab within your Excel valuation model file.
What inferences can you draw from your analysis? Do you have any recommended action for LMT’s management? If so, what are they, and why those actions?
Now, think back to the beginning of the course. In what ways have you improved your knowledge or gotten better at this kind of work?
How do you feel about your work? What parts of it are you proud of? What would you change if you had more time? Why?
If you were the instructor, how would you grade this work? Why?
If you were to do this kind of work again at some point in the future, what would do differently next time?
Additional Guidance and Expectations
Grading: please see the syllabus for a description of how I will evaluate your submissions. Submissions will be graded on a scale from 0 (unacceptable) to 5 (superior). Note that I will be grading submissions holistically. That means there is not a formal weighting of the analysis vs. the responses to the reflective questions. I am looking at the overall effort and thought exhibited by your submission. So, even if your analysis is relatively basic, it is still possible for you to earn a 5 by taking extra time to contemplate and putting extra thought and care into your reflection and written response. Conversely, you may have the best analysis ever, but if you don’t take time to reflect on your learning, then you may earn less than a 5. (Reflection is an important part of the consolidation process in learning, so please take this seriously — it should be fun, but still serious.)
More about grading: I generally anticipate giving submissions that reflect what we discuss during MSFLive (no more, no less) a score of 4. In other words, if your valuation model simply uses the same methods and assumptions as my model, or that we go over in class, I generally consider that to be ‘excellent.’ To earn a higher score, I would need to see additional thought and effort beyond what we simply did during MSFLive. This could take many forms: potentially different forecasting methods, additional analyses to formulate or “fine tune” forecasting assumptions, possibly different types of analyses (e.g., scenario analysis, or sensitivity analysis), etc. Written responses that exhibit insightful application of the material to make recommendations, or some great personal insights are also ways to potentially earn a higher score. The bottom line is that to earn a score higher than a 4, I generally expect to see thought and effort beyond the fundamentals or what was demonstrated during MSFLive, as well as serious, authentic reflection, and a high degree of professional “polish.” Note that submissions that don’t at least incorporate what was discussed or demonstrated during MSFLive and/or suggest a superficial effort to reflect on one’s learning will likely receive a score less than 4.
Recommended approach and time management: I understand that this is a challenging project. But keep in mind, as you complete your work each week, that I am not looking for perfection in your discussion posts. So, each week, you should simply strive to do your best within the time you can reasonably allocate to the project — thought and effort is what will matter most for your MSFLive Judgement Score. After each MSFLive session, you should have a better sense of how to deal with the challenges you faced, and then it shouldn’t take too long to make the necessary adjustments to your model. Your project grade will largely reflect how well you listened/engaged during MSFLive as reflected by the incorporation of what was discussed into your work (see above). Bottom line: use your time wisely and don’t agonize about perfection prior to each MSFLive session.