Week 2 : Data Analytics Written Report

• Due Sunday by 11:59pm
• Points 50
• Submitting a file upload
• Attempts 0
• Allowed Attempts 1

Assignment – Data Analytics Written Report

---

Big data and artificial intelligence are rapidly evolving in the world of marketing. I will conduct a data analytics workshop where we will learn how to use SPSS Modeler to analyze consumer decisions and make predictions. Based on the workshop, you will be given a case study, know what your consumers want before they do. You will have to answer some key questions based on the workshop and case study. Please see the grading rubric for the report as you will be graded accordingly.

You have to write a report of approximately 4-5 double spaced pages. The font should be Times New Roman, 12 points, double-spaced. Please use APA citation as you write and format the paper. This report needs to be turned on canvas using a Turnitin assignment by March 29 , 11.59 PM CST.

Module 2: CL Discussion 2 Company Valuation in M&A: How Do Leading Practitioners Apply DCF?

Class and Life Discussion – Company Valuation in M&A: How Do Leading Practitioners Apply DCF?

---

Assignment Overview

This discussion board assignment requires you to engage critically with assigned course material and participate meaningfully in scholarly dialogue with your peers. You will submit two posts: one original post analyzing the assigned material, and one response post engaging with a classmate’s analysis.

Part 1: Original Post (12 points)

Objective

Provide a substantive analysis of the assigned material that demonstrates critical thinking, application of course concepts, and professional communication skills.

Requirements

Content Expectations:

• Present your key takeaway or perspective on the assigned material
• Explicitly connect your analysis to relevant course concepts, theories, or frameworks
• Support your position with specific evidence from the source material
• Write as if presenting your professional opinion to a supervisor in a business meeting

Technical Specifications:

• Recommended length: 150-500 words
• Minimum course concepts: Reference at least 2 specific finance theories, models, or principles
• Minimum source references: Include at least 2 specific citations from the assigned material (e.g., data points, timestamps, examples)

Quality Standards:

• Demonstrate original thinking and personal analysis
• Maintain professional tone and academic writing standards
• Ensure clarity, organization, and grammatical accuracy

Part 2: Response Post (8 points)

Objective

Engage substantively with a classmate’s original post to advance the intellectual discourse and demonstrate collaborative learning.

Requirements

Formatting:

• Title format (required): “Response Post to the Original Post by [Classmate First Name Last Name]”
  • Example: “Response Post to the Original Post by Serkan Karadas”

Content Expectations: Your response must go beyond simple agreement or disagreement. Substantive engagement includes:

• Explaining the reasoning behind your agreement or disagreement with specific points
• Introducing additional examples, data, or perspectives that extend the discussion
• Connecting your classmate’s analysis to other course concepts or real-world applications
• Asking thoughtful follow-up questions that deepen the conversation

What Does NOT Constitute a Valid Response:

• “I agree with you.”
• “Good post.”
• “I feel the same way.”

What DOES Constitute a Valid Response:

• “I agree with your application of Modern Portfolio Theory here, and I would like to add that…”
• “While I appreciate your perspective on diversification, I interpret the data differently because…”
• “Building on your point about risk-return tradeoffs, have you considered how this applies to…”

Technical Specifications:

• Minimum length: 100 words
• Tone: Professional, respectful, and collegialeven when expressing disagreement

Submission Requirements and Policies

Posting Sequence

• You must submit your original post before viewing other students’ posts (enforced by Canvas settings)
• This ensures independent thinking and prevents echo-chamber effects

Deadlines

• Strongly encouraged: Submit your original post by 11:59 PM CST on Day 4
  • Early posting allows adequate time for peer engagement and thoughtful responses
• Official deadline: Both original post and response post are due by 11:59 PM CST on Day 7
• Late submissions: 10% penalty per day late

Response Post Protocol

• You must respond to a different classmate’s original post (not your own)
• Exception: If you are the only student with an original post close to the deadline, you may respond to your own post as a last resort
  • However, you should check Canvas periodically before the deadline to respond to a classmate if possible
  • Example: If you post on Day 6 and no other posts are visible, check again on Day 7 before responding to yourself

Grading Philosophy

Academic Rigor

This assignment values thoughtful, well-supported, and relevant contributions over “right” or “wrong” answers. Your grade will reflect:

• Depth of critical analysis
• Quality of evidence and reasoning
• Effective application of course concepts
• Professional communication skills
• Meaningful peer engagement

Collaborative Learning

Responses that help clarify, synthesize, or extend your classmates’ ideas demonstrate that you have carefully read and thoughtfully considered their contributions. Such responses fulfill the highest standards of the grading rubric.

Professional Discourse

• Expressing disagreement: State your position clearly and politely, supporting it with evidence and reasoning
• Maintaining respect: Avoid language that could be perceived as dismissive, condescending, or offensive
• Conflict resolution: Should disagreement escalate to conflict, initiate immediate resolution and offer apologies for any personal contribution to the situation

Example Scenario

Class composition: Five students (A, B, C, D, E)

Required submissions:

• Each student submits one original post (5 total original posts)
• Each student submits one response post to a different student’s original post

Example:

• Student A submits an original post
• Student A reads all available original posts
• Student A submits a response post to Student E’s original post
• Student A has now fulfilled both requirements

Tips for Success

1. Prepare thoroughly: Review the assigned material carefully and take notes on key concepts
2. Draft externally: Write your posts in Microsoft Word or Google Docs to check word count and spelling
3. Cite specifically: Reference exact data points, timestamps (for videos), or quotes from the material
4. Name concepts explicitly: Don’t just allude to course materialname the specific theories or models you’re applying
5. Proofread carefully: Review for grammar, spelling, and clarity before posting
6. Engage authentically: Read your classmates’ posts carefully and respond thoughtfully
7. Post early: Submitting your original post by Day 4 allows time for rich peer discussion

Grading Criteria

Original Post (12 points total)

1. Word Count Requirement (2 points)

• 2 points: Original post is between 150-500 words
• 0 points: Original post is less than 150 words or more than 500 words

Rationale: Ensures substantive content without excessive length. Too short = insufficient depth; too long = lack of conciseness.

2. Course Concept Integration (3 points)

• 3 points: Explicitly mentions and applies at least 2 specific finance concepts, theories, or models from the course (e.g., Modern Portfolio Theory, efficient frontier, diversification, risk-return tradeoff, correlation, duration, etc.)
• 2 points: Mentions and applies 1 specific finance concept from the course
• 0 points: Does not explicitly mention or apply any course concepts

Must name the concept explicitly (e.g., “According to Modern Portfolio Theory…” or “The efficient frontier suggests…”)

3. Source Material Reference (2 points)

• 2 points: Includes at least 2 specific references to content from the assigned material (e.g., specific data points, arguments, examples, or timestamps from video)
• 1 point: Includes 1 specific reference to the assigned material
• 0 points: No specific references to the assigned material (only vague/general statements)

Example of specific reference: “Berger showed that the 60/40 portfolio returned X% over Y years using Portfolio Visualizer data” vs. vague: “The video talked about portfolios”

4. Personal Analysis/Opinion (3 points)

• 3 points: Clearly states a personal position/opinion AND provides at least 2 supporting reasons or pieces of evidence for that position
• 2 points: States a personal position but provides only 1 supporting reason
• 0 points: No clear personal position, or position stated without any supporting reasoning

The “supervisor test”: Would your response be adequate if your boss asked your professional opinion?

5. Professional Writing Quality (2 points)

• 2 points: Post has fewer than 3 grammatical/spelling errors AND is well-organized with clear paragraphs
• 1 point: Post has 3-5 grammatical/spelling errors OR lacks clear organization
• 0 points: Post has more than 5 grammatical/spelling errors OR is poorly organized/difficult to follow

Use spell-check and proofread before posting!

Response Post (8 points total)

6. Word Count Requirement (1 point)

• 1 point: Response post is at least 100 words
• 0 points: Response post is less than 100 words

7. Proper Formatting (1 point)

• 1 point: Response post is clearly titled: “Response Post to the Original Post by [Classmate First Name Last Name]”
• 0 points: Response post does not follow the required title format

8. Substantive Engagement (3 points)

• 3 points: Response includes at least 2 of the following:
  • Identifies a specific point from the classmate’s post and explains agreement/disagreement with reasoning
  • Asks a thoughtful follow-up question that extends the discussion
  • Provides a new example, data point, or perspective that builds on the classmate’s ideas
  • Connects the classmate’s post to a different course concept or real-world application
• 2 points: Response includes 1 of the above elements
• 0 points: Response is merely agreement/disagreement without explanation (e.g., “I agree with you” or “Good post”)

Simple agreement without explanation does NOT count as substantive engagement.

9. Professional Tone (1 point)

• 1 point: Response maintains a respectful, professional tone throughout (even if disagreeing)
• 0 points: Response includes unprofessional, disrespectful, or dismissive language

10. Writing Quality (2 points)

• 2 points: Response has fewer than 3 grammatical/spelling errors AND is clearly written
• 1 point: Response has 3-5 grammatical/spelling errors
• 0 points: Response has more than 5 grammatical/spelling errors

Total: 20 Points

ORIGINAL POST: 12 Points Total

• Word count (150-500 words): 2 points
• Course concepts (minimum 2 concepts): 3 points
• Source references (minimum 2 references): 2 points
• Personal analysis with support: 3 points
• Writing quality: 2 points

RESPONSE POST: 8 Points Total

• Word count (minimum 100 words): 1 point
• Proper formatting: 1 point
• Substantive engagement: 3 points
• Professional tone: 1 point
• Writing quality: 2 points

Examples of Meeting Criteria

Example 1: Course Concept Integration (3 points)

Insufficient (0 points): “The video talks about how portfolios should be balanced. I think this makes sense for investors.”

Meets requirement (3 points): “Berger’s analysis applies Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), which suggests that combining assets with low correlation can reduce overall portfolio risk. The 60/40 allocation specifically leverages the historically negative correlation between stocks and bonds to optimize the risk-return tradeoff along the efficient frontier.”

Example 2: Source Material Reference (2 points)

Insufficient (0 points): “The video mentioned that the 60/40 portfolio has performed well historically.”

Meets requirement (2 points): “According to Berger’s Portfolio Visualizer data, the 60/40 portfolio has delivered an average annual return of approximately 9.5% since 1970 (timestamp 4:32). He also specifically addresses the 2022 criticism, noting that this was only the third time in history both stocks and bonds declined simultaneously (timestamp 7:15).”

Example 3: Substantive Engagement (3 points)

Insufficient (0 points): “I agree with your post. You made good points about the portfolio.”

Meets requirement (3 points): “I appreciate your point about the 60/40 portfolio’s resilience, but I’d like to offer a different perspective on the duration risk you mentioned. While you’re correct that rising rates hurt bond prices, the current yield environment in 2026 actually provides a cushion that wasn’t present in the 2010s. With 10-year Treasury yields around 4-5%, bonds now offer meaningful income that can offset price declines. This connects to our Week 2 discussion on yield-to-maturity calculations.

I’m curious: do you think investors should adjust the 40% bond allocation based on their age and time horizon? For example, should a 30-year-old investor reduce bond exposure given their longer investment timeline?”

(This response: 1) explains disagreement with reasoning, 2) provides new perspective with course concept, and 3) asks a thoughtful follow-up question = 3 elements = 3 points)

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Do citations need to be in a specific format (APA, MLA, etc.)?

A: For discussion boards, formal citations are not required. However, you must make specific references to the source material (e.g., “According to Berger…” or “At timestamp 5:30, he mentions…”). If you use outside sources beyond the assigned material, provide the source name and/or link.

Q: What counts as a “course concept”?

A: Any finance theory, model, formula, or framework we’ve covered in class. Examples: Modern Portfolio Theory, CAPM, efficient market hypothesis, diversification, correlation, beta, duration, yield curve, risk premium, Sharpe ratio, etc. You must explicitly name the concept.

Q: Can I go over 500 words on my original post?

A: No. Posts over 500 words will receive 0 points for the word count criterion. Practice concisenessit’s a valuable professional skill.

Q: What if I post early and there are no classmates’ posts to respond to?

A: Check back before the deadline. Only respond to your own post as an absolute last resort if no other posts are available by the due date.

Q: How do I count words?

A: Write your post in Microsoft Word or Google Docs first, which will show the word count. Then copy and paste into Canvas.

Q: Can I respond to someone who already has several responses?

A: Yes, but consider responding to classmates who haven’t received responses yet to ensure everyone benefits from engagement.

Q: What if I disagree with the assigned material?

A: Thoughtful disagreement is welcome! Just make sure to support your position with reasoning and evidence. You’ll still meet the “source material reference” criterion by explaining what you disagree with and why.

Recommended Workflow

1. Watch/read the assigned material and take notes (30-45 minutes)
2. Identify 2-3 course concepts that relate to the material
3. Draft your original post in Word/Google Docs (30-45 minutes)
   • Start with your main opinion/takeaway
   • Support with course concepts and source references
   • Check word count (150-500 words)
   • Proofread
4. Post your original post on Canvas (ideally by Day 4)
5. Read classmates’ posts thoughtfully (15-30 minutes)
6. Draft your response post in Word/Google Docs (20-30 minutes)
   • Choose a post that interests you or that you can meaningfully engage with
   • Use the proper title format
   • Ensure you include at least 2 substantive elements
   • Check word count (minimum 100 words)
   • Proofread
7. Post your response on Canvas before the deadline

Total estimated time: 2-3 hours per discussion board assignment

Self-Assessment Tool

Before submitting your discussion board posts, complete this self-assessment:

ORIGINAL POST SELF-ASSESSMENT

Criterion 1: Word Count (150-500 words) – 2 points possible

• My word count: _____ words
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

Criterion 2: Course Concepts (minimum 2) – 3 points possible

• Course concept 1: _______________________
• Course concept 2: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 3 points

Criterion 3: Source References (minimum 2) – 2 points possible

• Source reference 1: _______________________
• Source reference 2: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

Criterion 4: Personal Analysis with Support – 3 points possible

• My position/opinion: _______________________
• Supporting reason 1: _______________________
• Supporting reason 2: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 3 points__

Criterion 5: Writing Quality – 2 points possible

• Number of grammatical/spelling errors: _____
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

ORIGINAL POST SUBTOTAL: _____ out of 12 points

RESPONSE POST SELF-ASSESSMENT

Criterion 6: Word Count (minimum 100 words) – 1 point possible

• My word count: _____ words
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 1 point

Criterion 7: Proper Formatting – 1 point possible

• Is my title correct? (Yes/No): _____
• Required format: “Response Post to the Original Post by [First Name Last Name]”
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 1 point

Criterion 8: Substantive Engagement (minimum 2 elements) – 3 points possible

• Element 1 included: _______________________
• Element 2 included: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 3 points

Criterion 9: Professional Tone – 1 point possible

• Is my tone professional and respectful? (Yes/No): _____
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 1 point

Criterion 10: Writing Quality – 2 points possible

• Number of grammatical/spelling errors: _____
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

RESPONSE POST SUBTOTAL: _____ out of 8 points

TOTAL SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE: _____ out of 20 points

Assigned Reading/Video:

Assigned Reading: Brotherson, Eades, Harris, & Higgins (2014). “Company Valuation in Mergers and Acquisitions: How is Discounted Cash Flow Applied by Leading Practitioners?” Journal of Applied Finance

(Note: This module uses a journal article rather than a YouTube video.)

Here are a few prompts to help you come up with some topics to talk about:

Prompt 1 DCF Is Universal, but Not Uniform

All eleven investment banks interviewed confirmed that they apply DCF to value companies involved in M&A transactions yet their specific applications varied widely. What does this near-ubiquitous use of DCF tell us about the conversion of academic finance theory into professional practice? Just because everyone agrees on the tool, does that mean they all agree how to use it?

Prompt 2 The Debate Between Art and Science

The authors repeatedly point out that analytic techniques such as DCF dont make decisions, they only inform them. Would you agree that valuation is part art and part science? Where in the DCF process do you think are made the most subjective judgment calls, and how do practitioners navigate that subjectivity?

Prompt 13 Terminal Value as the Achilles’ Heel

All eleven banks employ in their analyses both models based on perpetual growth and exit multiples to arrive at terminal value but the authors point out that terminal value frequently accounts for most of a companys estimated value. So if the terminal value is so dominant and so uncertain, does that invalidate all of a DCF analysis? How does other practitioners in this study try to contain that uncertainty?

Prompt 4 The WACC Consistency Problem

Ninety-one percent of the banks we studied apply the same WACC to discounting terminal value that they use for interim cash flows, even though cash flows far in the future carry very different risks. Is this an acceptable simplification or just a methodological shortcut that introduces systematic bias into M&A valuations?

Prompt 5 Sum of the Parts: When Is It Worth the Extra Work?

All the advisors indicated that they regularly take into account sum-of-the-parts (SOTP) valuation for companies with multiple divisions, but only if “size, risk or other factors warrant the additional step.” Create your own guidelines: what trigger should spark a SOTP approach instead of the one enterprise-wide valuation?

6 Revenue Synergies vs Cost Synergies

Many of the banks included in the study reported that when they projected revenue synergies, they haircut them to 50% since they are riskier and more difficult to create than cost synergies. The corperation of finance theory, cited to explain why revenue synergies are always more uncertain? Share a real life story where a company over forecasted revenue synergies and ended up regretting in an M&A deal

Prompt 7 The NOL Discount Rate Puzzle

The study showed that most banks price net operating loss from carryforwards using the cost of debtthe lower discount rate as cash flows are considered low-risk and almost certain. Justify your reasoning for this selection. When would it actually be incorrect to discount NOL benefits at the cost of debt?

Prompt 8 Small-Cap Premiums and the Size Effect

Ninety-one percent of advisors said they raise discount rates for smaller companies, and often reference Ibbotson size-premium data, but the approaches were characterized as fairly subjective. How do you reconcile the discretionary size premium with the CAPM assumption: that beta fully captures systematic risk? Could the persistence of the size premium mean that there is something wrong with CAPM?

Prompt 9 Practice Has Changed Since the 90s

The authors make their 2013 results compare from a previous study from 1998. The largest change was banks treatment of synergies in 1998, half made no special adjustments to account for them; by 2013, nearly all did. What forces of regulation, financial crisis, competition or academia do you think drove that change? What does this evolution portend for the relationship between academic finance research and Wall Street at work?

Prompt 10 Comparable Company Data: Bench Marker or Crutch?

82% of banks use peer company data as a frame of reference in calculating their WACC. We triangulate on WACC with similar company data to see if the estimate seems reasonable, one adviser said. When does using comps as a sanity check provide rigor and when might it instead import the same mispricing permeating an entire peer group especially in a bubble market?

________________________________________

WRITE MY PAPER