I don't know to what extent scoring was based on presentational skills etc., but It is pretty crazy to me that winning team didn't even mention invested capital, ROIC etc. I know that qualitative research is important, but those are pretty major mistakes imo. Especially when you attach 30% weight to relative "valuation" you have to look at those kind of things and more. Also how you can do relative pricing on AMD by comparing to Intel. Those are two completly different firms. Intel manufactures big chunk of their processors, has bigger investments requirements etc. It is extremely hard to do a proper relative pricing. As far as I can see only the group from Lichtenstein did it properly (disclaimer i watched it in the backgroud so I could have missed something). But that's just my opinion. In all honesty considering that the vast majority of research analysts make those kind of mistakes (and worse) the level of competition was really high.
Aleksander - this comment reflects a pretty poor view. 1) Firstly, as you may have seen in Q&A, all teams had over 60 appendix pages available for Q&A. In fact, all teams addressed ROIC and other financial ratios in their pages. The teams have been through 5 rounds of competition, whereby Q&A on ideas such as ROIC quickly filter out many of the 1,000+ universities that compete. 2) In a 10 minute pitch, delivering your thesis and differentiated view to the market can often be seen as a portrait of greater commercial acumen then quoting ROIC numbers. The judges were welcome to ask any questions they saw fit and I am sure all the teams had the capability to address them. Scarcity of time dictates the delivery of the presentation, particularly when some of these businesses aren't well known on the global stage. 3) Key to note that all teams conducted relative pricing utilising a range and benchmark - no team derived a cocnlusive outcome in a vacumm. Qualitative overlay and judgement was used to **benchmark** value and use this as **one** piece of mosaic theory. I recommend watching all the teams' local rounds if you were interested in more information.
@@KayBee-bi7dp I understand that, but it is a valuation competition. I know story is an important and integral part of it, but at the end of the day you have to say how and where it will affect the numbers and valuation numbers come down to revenue growth, margins and capital intenstity/requirements. All three important as growth and margins mean nothing without how much you pay for those. What I'm saying is that I just saw a lot about first two and almost nothing about the third. And I think that's extremely important part considering that a big part of our industry tends to forget about it. Espescially in their terminal values. So in my opinion it's kind of the matter of promoting good standards But as I said I understand this is a university level competition and those guys definetly did a good and hard job. Also valuation is pretty subjective so it's just a little bit of constructive (and subjective) criticism from me.
Congratulations University of Sydney!
Amazing presentations by all the teams!
What an honor it is to have been team mates in a class and group projects with Brandon leon ☝🏻👨🏻🎓class of 2023 CSUF GO TITANS MBA IN FINANCE👨🏻🎓
Really enjoyed this.The standards are high
Insightful
Would you still recommend a buy for Qantas after the recent events?
Uleh from Sydney has more gel in his hair than Tony Soprano!
I don't know to what extent scoring was based on presentational skills etc., but It is pretty crazy to me that winning team didn't even mention invested capital, ROIC etc. I know that qualitative research is important, but those are pretty major mistakes imo. Especially when you attach 30% weight to relative "valuation" you have to look at those kind of things and more. Also how you can do relative pricing on AMD by comparing to Intel. Those are two completly different firms. Intel manufactures big chunk of their processors, has bigger investments requirements etc. It is extremely hard to do a proper relative pricing. As far as I can see only the group from Lichtenstein did it properly (disclaimer i watched it in the backgroud so I could have missed something). But that's just my opinion.
In all honesty considering that the vast majority of research analysts make those kind of mistakes (and worse) the level of competition was really high.
Aleksander - this comment reflects a pretty poor view.
1) Firstly, as you may have seen in Q&A, all teams had over 60 appendix pages available for Q&A. In fact, all teams addressed ROIC and other financial ratios in their pages. The teams have been through 5 rounds of competition, whereby Q&A on ideas such as ROIC quickly filter out many of the 1,000+ universities that compete.
2) In a 10 minute pitch, delivering your thesis and differentiated view to the market can often be seen as a portrait of greater commercial acumen then quoting ROIC numbers. The judges were welcome to ask any questions they saw fit and I am sure all the teams had the capability to address them. Scarcity of time dictates the delivery of the presentation, particularly when some of these businesses aren't well known on the global stage.
3) Key to note that all teams conducted relative pricing utilising a range and benchmark - no team derived a cocnlusive outcome in a vacumm. Qualitative overlay and judgement was used to **benchmark** value and use this as **one** piece of mosaic theory.
I recommend watching all the teams' local rounds if you were interested in more information.
@@KayBee-bi7dp I understand that, but it is a valuation competition. I know story is an important and integral part of it, but at the end of the day you have to say how and where it will affect the numbers and valuation numbers come down to revenue growth, margins and capital intenstity/requirements. All three important as growth and margins mean nothing without how much you pay for those. What I'm saying is that I just saw a lot about first two and almost nothing about the third. And I think that's extremely important part considering that a big part of our industry tends to forget about it. Espescially in their terminal values. So in my opinion it's kind of the matter of promoting good standards
But as I said I understand this is a university level competition and those guys definetly did a good and hard job. Also valuation is pretty subjective so it's just a little bit of constructive (and subjective) criticism from me.
How does Rixtrema RemAI compare to ChatGPT in terms of its ability to analyze financial data and generate research findings?