- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: ASU YUM Pitch Rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
ASU YUM Pitch Rubric TAMID Stock Pitch Rubric This rubric, updated for 2022-2023, will serve as a universal grading template for buy and sell pitches across all deadlines throughout the respective semester. In order to qualify as a passing submission, a minimum score of 80% (80/100) must be obtained. It should be noted that any pitches not including an attempt to draw a relevance between the company in question and Israel will not be considered for investment, regardless of performance in other categories. Rubric Code: Q239X84 By christynatalisa Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Finance Type: (Other) Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Company Overview Please limit mentions of competitors to subsequent sections.
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 4 pts	Good 6 pts	Excellent 8 pts	Feedback (N/A)
Company Specifics Convey descriptors of the company in question. Examples include but are not limited to: trading symbol, operating sector, headquarters location, year of founding, current corporate ladder (with explanations of the value provided by various executives), consumer base, geographic reach, sources of revenue, list of products, and important information about the size of the company (e.g. how many aircraft an airline owns, the number of locations a retailer has open, etc.).	Poor Either fails to convey specific company descriptors entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance and thoroughness to the company in question.	Fair Explains specific company descriptors in a way that remains somewhat relevant, but lacks thoroughness, as well as appropriate visual figures.	Good Explains specific company descriptors in a relevant and thorough way, incorporating appropriate visual figures in the process.	Excellent Explains specific company descriptors in a relevant, thorough, and unique way. Such explanations stand out by including appropriate visual figures, such as charts, tables, and graphs when necessary.	Feedback
Industry Overview
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 2 pts	Good 4 pts	Excellent 6 pts	Feedback (N/A)
Industry Description Convey descriptors of the industry in question. Examples of such descriptors include but are not limited to: industry size, industry market capitalization, industry geography, customer demographics, and upstream/downstream makeup.	Poor Either fails to convey industry descriptors entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance and thoroughness to the industry in question.	Fair Explains industry descriptors in a way that remains somewhat relevant, but lacks thoroughness, as well as appropriate visual figures.	Good Explains industry descriptors in a relevant and thorough way, incorporating appropriate visual figures in the process.	Excellent Explains industry descriptors in a relevant, thorough, and unique way. Such explanations stand out by including appropriate visual figures, such as charts, tables, and graphs when necessary.	Feedback
Industry Trends Convey meaningful trends that have taken place in the given industry over various time frames. Examples of such trends include but are not limited to: growth (or lack thereof) trends, development of risks and opportunities over time, production trends, supply chain trends, and competition trends.	Poor Either fails to convey industry trends entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance and thoroughness to the industry in question.	Fair Explains industry trends in a way that remains somewhat relevant, but lacks thoroughness, as well as appropriate visual figures.	Good Explains industry trends in a relevant and thorough way, incorporating appropriate visual figures in the process.	Excellent Explains industry trends in a relevant, thorough, and unique way. Such explanations stand out by including appropriate visual figures, such as charts, tables, and graphs when necessary.	Feedback
Financials
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 2 pts	Good 4 pts	Excellent 6 pts	Feedback (N/A)
Key Information Convey basic and noteworthy indicators regarding the financial standing of the company/stock in question. Examples of such indicators include but are not limited to: stock price, market capitalization, beta, P/E, EPS, dividend yield (if applicable), and 52-week performance. Including information about competitors is not necessary in this specific criteria.	Poor Either fails to convey key information entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance and thoroughness to the company in question.	Fair Explains key information in a way that remains somewhat relevant, but lacks thoroughness, as well as an appropriate method of communication.	Good Explains key information in a relevant and thorough way, incorporating an appropriate method of communication in the process.	Excellent Explains key information in a relevant, thorough, and unique way. Such explanations stand out by being presented in a coherent, simple, and organized manner.	Feedback
Stock Analysis Convey information pertaining to the stock of the company in question. Such information includes but is not limited to: graph of stock chart (historical time frame of at least one year), labeling and explanation of profound events unique to the company (split, dividend announcement, news, etc.) during image time frame, and marking of high and low prices during the period in question.	Poor Either fails to perform stock analysis entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance and thoroughness to the stock in question.	Fair Analyzes stock in a way that remains somewhat relevant, but lacks thoroughness, as well as appropriate visual figures.	Good Analyzes stock in a relevant and thorough way by means of appropriate visual figures that are on par with the standards outlined.	Excellent Analyzes stock in a relevant, thorough, and unique way. Such analysis stands out by including appropriate visual figures that are sized correctly with a high level of resolution.	Feedback
Competitors Convey analysis of the company in question alongside its notable competitors (recommended 3-6 companies). It is strongly encouraged to do so by means of a table or spreadsheet. Data to use for the analysis include but are not limited to: market capitalization, EV/EBITDA, EV/Sales, Debt/Equity, Interest Coverage Ratio, and Price/FCF.	Poor Either fails to perform comparable analysis entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance and thoroughness to the company in question.	Fair Performs comparable analysis in a way that remains somewhat relevant, but lacks thoroughness, as well as appropriate data.	Good Performs comparable analysis in a relevant and thorough way by including appropriate data, as well as a layout that is on par with the standards outlined.	Excellent Performs comparable analysis in a relevant, thorough, and unique way. Such explanations stand out by including appropriate data, as well as a simple and organized layout.	Feedback
Valuation
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 5 pts	Good 10 pts	Excellent 15 pts	Feedback (N/A)
Valuation Convey a theoretical intrinsic value of the company in question using a Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF) incorporating Free Cash Flow (FCF) and a Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) along with a revenue projection. Explanations should be provided for assumptions used in model. Model must also be submitted along with pitch deck.	Poor Either fails to construct a DCF entirely, or does so in a way that lacks variables such as FCF and WACC.	Fair Constructs a DCF that includes somewhat inaccurate and unreliable assumptions for variables such as FCF and WACC in a visually unappealing way.	Good Constructs a DCF that includes accurate and reasonable assumptions for variables such as FCF and WACC in a visually appealing way.	Excellent Constructs a DCF that includes accurate and reasonable assumptions for variables such as FCF and WACC in a visually appealing way. Such constructions stand out by containing clear explanations for the inputs in question, an explicit intrinsic value, as well as a relevant sensitivity analysis.	Feedback
Strategy
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 3 pts	Good 5 pts	Excellent 8 pts	Feedback (N/A)
Framework Analysis Convey specific strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) that surround the company in question or use a similar framework such as Porter's Five Forces.	Poor Either fails to perform a SWOT analysis entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance and thoroughness to the company in question.	Fair Performs a SWOT analysis in a way that remain somewhat relevant to the company in question, but lacks thoroughness, as well as a coherent structure.	Good Performs a SWOT analysis on the company in question that is relevant and thorough. Such analysis stands out by being coherent.	Excellent Performs a SWOT analysis in a way that is relevant, thorough, and unique to the company in question. Such analysis stands out by being well-organized, simple, and coherent.	Feedback
Investment Thesis Convey information regarding the investment thesis/proposal that is associated with the company in question. Such information includes but is not limited to: general recommendation (buy/sell/hold), price target and its relation to the current price, projected duration of holding (not necessary for sell and hold pitches), and a general investment thesis summed up in a few sentences.	Poor Either fails to present an investment thesis entirely, or does so in a way that lacks relevance to the stock in question.	Fair Presents investment thesis in a way that remains somewhat relevant, but lacks clarity and cohesion.	Good Presents investment thesis in a fulfilling way. Such presentations stand out by being well-organized and to-the-point.	Excellent Presents investment thesis in a relevant, fulfilling, and unique way. Such presentations stand out by being well-organized and to-the-point.	Feedback
Other
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 4 pts	Good 6 pts	Excellent 8 pts	Feedback (N/A)
Delivery This criteria measures the presentation quality of the speakers who deliver the stock pitch.	Poor Either fails to present entirely, or does so in a way that is unprofessional and/or prone to numerous delivery mishaps.	Fair The presentation was delivered in a somewhat professional manner, but exceeded the 15-minute threshold. Not all speakers are dressed in business attire, and there are many instances of fillers and/or repetitive rhetoric.	Good The presentation was delivered in a professional manner and under the 15-minute threshold. All speakers are dressed in business attire with some instances of filler and/or repetitive rhetoric.	Excellent The presentation was delivered in a very professional manner. Speakers are dressed in business attire, deliver the pitch eloquently without filters or repetitive rhetoric, and take no more than 15 minutes to present.	Feedback
Relevance to Israel As part of TAMID's core foundation, all pitches must convey some connection between the company in question and Israel. Possible connections include an Israeli headquarters, prominent operations located there, R&D labs in Israel, and acquisitions of Israeli startups among others. It should be noted that any pitches not including an attempt to draw a relevance between the company in question and Israel will not be considered for investment, regardless of performance in other categories.	Poor Either fails to convey a connection between the company in question and Israel, or does so in a way that is too subtle and/or irrelevant.	Fair A connection between the company in question and Israel is conveyed in an indirect and/or somewhat irrelevant manner.	Good A connection between the company in question and Israel is conveyed in a way that is explicit and relevant.	Excellent A unique connection between the company in question and Israel is conveyed in a way that is explicit and relevant.	Feedback
Investment Idea
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 5 pts	Good 10 pts	Excellent 15 pts	Feedback (N/A)
Investment Idea This criteria measures the practicality and potential upside of the investment proposal in question. It is worth noting that this criteria does not take into account the pitch of the proposal, but rather the proposal itself.	Poor An undesirable investment idea with barely any potential for upside.	Fair A decent investment idea with some potential for upside.	Good A worthwhile investment idea with the potential for upside.	Excellent A very practical investment idea with the potential for significant upside.	Feedback

Subjects:

Finance

Types:

(Other)

Discuss this rubric