Appearance
🧠 Case Study Buổi 12: Capstone — Valuation Project
"An investment report is a story told with numbers."
Case 1: Goldman Sachs Equity Research — Cấu trúc Report thực tế
Bối cảnh
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research (GIR) — một trong những ER departments uy tín nhất thế giới, cover 3,000+ companies toàn cầu, với 800+ analysts.
Khi GS publish note, institutional investors quản lý hàng trăm tỷ USD đọc và hành động.
Cấu trúc GS Initiation Report
Một Initiation of Coverage report tại GS thường 40–60 trang:
| Section | Pages | Nội dung | Tương ứng Buổi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cover Page | 1 | Company, Ticker, Rating, Target Price | — |
| Executive Summary | 1–2 | Key thesis, metrics, recommendation | Buổi 12, Phần 2 |
| Investment Thesis | 3–5 | 3–5 key arguments for rating | — |
| Industry Overview | 5–8 | TAM, competitive landscape, secular trends | Buổi 6 |
| Company Deep-Dive | 8–12 | Business model, segments, management, moat | Buổi 1, 2 |
| Financial Analysis | 5–8 | Revenue build, margin analysis, returns | Buổi 2–3 |
| Valuation | 5–8 | DCF, Comps, SoTP, Football Field | Buổi 4–6, 8 |
| Risks | 2–3 | Bull/Base/Bear scenarios, key risks | Buổi 11 |
| ESG | 1–2 | Environmental, Social, Governance factors | — |
| Appendix | 3–5 | Detailed model, glossary, disclosures | Buổi 10 |
GS Rating System
| Rating | Definition | % of coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Buy | Expected 12-month return > sector benchmark | ~30% |
| Neutral | Return ± within sector range | ~55% |
| Sell | Expected return < sector benchmark | ~15% |
Lưu ý: GS dùng "Conviction List" cho highest-conviction ideas — top ~1% picks.
Ví dụ: GS Coverage — FPT Corporation (giả lập)
Cover Page Elements:
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Rating | Buy (Conviction List Add) |
| Target Price | 128,000 VND |
| Current Price | 95,000 VND |
| Upside | +34.7% |
| Market Cap | 131,000 tỷ VND |
| Sector | ASEAN Technology |
| Analyst | Nguyen Tran, CFA |
Key Thesis (3 bullets):
- AI-driven IT outsourcing demand — FPT Software positioned as top-3 ASEAN IT services, benefiting from Japan/US digital transformation wave
- Margin expansion — Shift from body-shopping to higher-value DX/AI projects → +200bps EBITDA margin over 3 years
- Valuation discount — Trading at 20x P/E vs. Infosys 25x despite higher growth (18% vs. 12%)
Phân tích: Tại sao GS report hiệu quả?
| Yếu tố | Cách GS làm | Bài học |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | 1-page summary đủ thông tin | Executives chỉ đọc 1 trang |
| Conviction | Clear rating + target price | Không mập mờ |
| Data-driven | Mọi argument có số liệu support | Claim → Evidence → Conclusion |
| Scenario analysis | Bull/Base/Bear với probabilities | Show you've considered alternatives |
| Professional format | Consistent fonts, charts, colors | Form supports substance |
Câu hỏi phân tích
- Tại sao GS chỉ có ~15% Sell ratings? Liệu có bias không? (Hint: relationship banking)
- Nếu bạn là competitor analyst, bạn challenge thesis #3 thế nào? (Hint: growth quality vs. quantity)
- GS dùng "Conviction List" — tại sao cần tách riêng thay vì chỉ dùng Buy?
Case 2: FPT Valuation Deck — Mẫu best-in-class
Bối cảnh
Một nhóm sinh viên trong khóa trước đã hoàn thành Valuation Deck cho FPT Corporation — được đánh giá "best-in-class" bởi panel giám khảo gồm CFA Charterholders.
Cấu trúc Deck (20 slides)
| Slide | Nội dung | Điểm mạnh |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cover: FPT Corp — BUY, TP 118,000 | Clean design, logo |
| 2 | Executive Summary | 1-page: metrics table + 3 theses + risks |
| 3 | Investment Thesis | Numbered bullets, each with data support |
| 4–5 | Vietnam IT Industry | TAM $15B, growth 20%+, gov't policy support |
| 6 | Competitive Position | FPT vs CMC vs TMA vs Infosys VN |
| 7–8 | Company Overview | Revenue by segment (pie chart), 5-year trend |
| 9–10 | Financial Analysis | DuPont decomposition, margin waterfall chart |
| 11 | Peer Comparison | Spider chart: FPT vs regional IT peers |
| 12 | Red Flags | Clean — no major issues, noted related party risk |
| 13–14 | DCF Model | FCFF build-up, TV = Gordon Growth + Exit Multiple |
| 15 | Sensitivity Table | WACC × g color-coded |
| 16 | Trading Comps | 6 peers, median multiples, implied valuation |
| 17 | Football Field | Horizontal bar chart, all methods |
| 18 | Target Price | Weighted average methodology |
| 19 | Risks & Catalysts | 2-column layout |
| 20 | Appendix | 3-Statement Model screenshot, sources |
Excel Model — Key Tabs
| Tab | Content | Quality Score |
|---|---|---|
| Assumptions | Revenue growth, margins, CapEx, WC drivers | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Income Statement | 3Y historical + 5Y projection | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Balance Sheet | Full build-out, balances checked | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Cash Flow | CFO/CFI/CFF, FCF calculation | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| DCF | FCFF, WACC, TV, EV bridge | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Comps | 6 peers, 4 multiples | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Sensitivity | 2-way data table | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Football Field | Chart data + chart | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
Giám khảo Comments
| Giám khảo | Feedback |
|---|---|
| CFA Charterholder #1 | "Impressive revenue build — segment level with clear drivers. DCF assumptions well-justified." |
| CFA Charterholder #2 | "Would like to see more on competitive moat. DuPont analysis excellent." |
| Portfolio Manager | "This is presentation-ready for an IC meeting. Football field chart is particularly effective." |
| Common improvement | "Add scenario analysis (Bull/Base/Bear) with probability weights" |
Key Takeaways
- Segment-level revenue build > Top-line growth rate assumption
- Visual charts (waterfall, spider, football field) > Text-heavy slides
- Balance check visible → builds credibility
- Color coding consistent → professional appearance
- Sources cited for every external data point
Case 3: CFA Institute Research Challenge — Format & Standards
Tổng quan cuộc thi
| Yếu tố | Chi tiết |
|---|---|
| Tổ chức | CFA Institute |
| Đối tượng | Sinh viên đại học, team 3–5 người |
| Quy mô | 6,000+ students, 1,000+ teams, 80+ countries |
| Vòng thi | Local → Sub-Regional → Regional → Global Finals |
| Assigned company | Ban tổ chức assign 1 company cho tất cả teams |
| Deliverable | Written report (10–15 pages) + Oral presentation (15 min + 10 min Q&A) |
Written Report Format (Bắt buộc)
| Section | Max Pages | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosures & Disclaimers | 1 | Required |
| Executive Summary | 1 | 15% |
| Business Description | 2 | 10% |
| Industry Overview | 2 | 10% |
| Investment Thesis | 1 | 15% |
| Financial Analysis | 2 | 15% |
| Valuation | 3 | 25% |
| Risk Analysis | 1 | 10% |
| Total | ~13 pages | 100% |
Grading Rubric
Written Report (50% tổng điểm):
| Criteria | Weight | What judges look for |
|---|---|---|
| Valuation | 25% | DCF rigor, comp selection, sensitivity, target price logic |
| Financial Analysis | 15% | Ratio trends, DuPont, forecasting quality |
| Investment Thesis | 15% | Clear, compelling, differentiated view |
| Industry Analysis | 10% | Market dynamics, competitive positioning |
| Writing Quality | 10% | Clarity, conciseness, professionalism |
| Risks | 10% | Identification, quantification, mitigation |
| Executive Summary | 15% | Complete, standalone, persuasive |
Oral Presentation (50% tổng điểm):
| Criteria | Weight | What judges look for |
|---|---|---|
| Content & Analysis | 30% | Depth, accuracy, differentiated insights |
| Presentation Skills | 25% | Clarity, confidence, teamwork |
| Q&A | 25% | Ability to defend, think on feet |
| Use of Visuals | 10% | Professional slides, effective charts |
| Time Management | 10% | Within 15 minutes, well-paced |
Winning Team Characteristics
Dựa trên phân tích top teams từ Global Finals:
| Factor | Strong Team | Weak Team |
|---|---|---|
| Valuation approach | Multiple methods, well-explained | Single DCF only |
| Thesis differentiation | Unique angle vs. consensus | Repeat what everyone knows |
| Data quality | Primary research (calls, surveys) | Only secondary data |
| Risk analysis | Quantified, scenario-based | List without analysis |
| Q&A handling | Confident, data-backed answers | "We didn't think about that" |
| Teamwork | Smooth transitions, complementary | Disjointed, repetitive |
Ví dụ: Past Winning Thesis
2023 Global Winner — Valuing a Renewable Energy Company:
- Thesis: "Company is transitioning from fossil to renewable. Market prices transition risk at 30% discount, but our analysis shows only 15% discount warranted → 20% upside."
- Differentiated view: Built proprietary renewable energy capacity model → shows transition faster than market expects
- Primary research: Interviewed 3 industry experts, 2 company suppliers
- Valuation: DCF + SoTP (fossil segment + renewable segment valued separately) + Comps
- Risk: Carbon tax scenarios with probability weights
Câu hỏi thảo luận
- Tại sao CFA Research Challenge yêu cầu Disclosures & Disclaimers? Liên hệ đến CFA Ethics?
- Valuation chiếm 25% điểm — nhưng nhiều team spend 60% thời gian cho nó. Đúng hay sai?
- Primary research (phỏng vấn, khảo sát) khác gì secondary research (BCTC, reports)? Cái nào valuable hơn?
- Nếu bạn và đối thủ đều value cùng 1 company — làm sao tạo differentiated view?
📝 Câu hỏi CFA-style
Câu 1
Trong CFA Research Challenge, Valuation section chiếm 25% điểm. Phương pháp nào KHÔNG phù hợp để include?
- A. DCF (FCFF model)
- B. Trading Comparable Companies
- C. Book Value (Balance Sheet approach thuần túy)
Đáp án
C. Book Value approach thuần túy
Book Value không phản ánh future earnings potential. CFA Research Challenge requires forward-looking valuation methods (DCF, Comps, DDM). Book value chỉ phù hợp cho liquidation analysis.
Câu 2
Một Equity Research report có Buy rating với Target Price $150. Current price $120. Nếu analyst sử dụng WACC 8% trong DCF, nhưng tình huống thực tế WACC nên là 10%, target price sẽ:
- A. Tăng lên trên $150
- B. Giảm đáng kể dưới $150
- C. Không thay đổi
Đáp án
B. Giảm đáng kể dưới $150
WACC tăng từ 8% → 10% sẽ giảm PV of FCFF và PV of Terminal Value đáng kể. Ví dụ: nếu Terminal Growth = 3%, multiplier thay đổi từ
Câu 3
Football Field chart cho thấy: DCF range 80–120, Comps range 90–110, 52-week 70–105. Điều này gợi ý:
- A. DCF có range rộng nhất → không đáng tin
- B. Các phương pháp hội tụ quanh 90–110 → confidence cao
- C. 52-week range thấp nhất → stock undervalued
Đáp án
B. Các phương pháp hội tụ quanh 90–110 → confidence cao
Khi DCF, Comps, và market price đều overlap ở range 90–110, analyst có thể confident hơn về fair value. DCF range rộng hơn là bình thường do sensitivity analysis. 52-week range phản ánh market sentiment, không nhất thiết là fair value.
Câu 4
Khi present Valuation Deck cho Investment Committee, câu hỏi nào bạn PHẢI chuẩn bị?
- A. "What's the weather forecast for next quarter?"
- B. "What's your bear case and how much downside?"
- C. "Which Excel version did you use?"
Đáp án
B. "What's your bear case and how much downside?"
IC luôn hỏi bear case để test conviction. Nếu analyst không chuẩn bị, đó là red flag về analysis depth. Standard prep: Bull case (+X%), Base case (target), Bear case (−Y%) with probability weights.
Câu 5
Tại sao Equity Research analyst phải include "Disclosures & Disclaimers" trong report?
- A. Để report dài hơn
- B. Vì CFA Code of Ethics yêu cầu transparency về conflicts of interest
- C. Vì SEC yêu cầu minimum page count
Đáp án
B. CFA Code of Ethics — Standard VI(A) Disclosure of Conflicts
CFA Code yêu cầu members disclose conflicts of interest: ownership of stock, investment banking relationships, compensation tied to ratings. Đây là cornerstone of professional conduct trong research.
🧭 Điều hướng
| Nội dung | Link |
|---|---|
| 📘 Bài học chính | Capstone — Full Valuation Deck |
| 📝 Blog | Từ sinh viên đến Analyst |
| 🏆 Tiêu chuẩn | CFA Research Challenge · IBCS · ER Format |
| 🛠 Workshop | Hoàn thiện Valuation Deck |
| 🎮 Mini Game | Pitch Competition |