Assignment 1: Enterprise Risk Management and Moat Strength Due: Monday, 9:00 am (eastern), Week 4 (18% of final grade) Congratulations! You have just gotten the opportunity of a lifetime to work as a senior financial advisor for Warren Buffett.

Assignment 1: Enterprise Risk Management and Moat Strength

Due: Monday, 9:00 am (eastern), Week 4 (18% of final grade)

Congratulations! You have just gotten the opportunity of a lifetime to work as a senior financial advisor for Warren Buffett. You will be responsible for conducting financial analyses on two companies Mr. Buffett is reviewing NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) and Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) and providing recommendations for action to the CFOs of those companies.

Instructions

In this assignment, you will evaluate several risk scenarios and make recommendations on how to position the company for success by putting in place “reasonable” protections against downsides. To prepare for the assignment: (1) download and review the latest annual reports for both companies from the Investor Relations page of each company’s website; (2) read the Shareholder Letter and the Risks section carefully; and (3) read the Morningstar Analyst Reports with particular emphasis on the Moat and Risk sections.

Complete the Assignment 1 Worksheet to create risk profiles for both companies. The guidance for this is found in Chapters 3 & 4 of The CFO Guidebook.

Summarize your Analysis and Recommendations by addressing the following questions:

Where is each company in its corporate lifecycle (startup, growth, maturity, or decline)? Explain.

Based on your review of the analysts’ reports and the 10-K reports, whichcompany appears to have more risk? Why?

Which categories of risk pose the greatest threat to each organization? Why?

Which company has the stronger economic moat? Explain.

For the company that has the weaker economic moat, what two risk factors should they prioritize to improve their risk mitigation and strengthen their competitive advantage? Make specific reference to the applicable risk management tools discussed in Chapter 4 of The CFO Guidebook.

© Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University confidential and proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed, in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University. This document is subject to change based on the needs of the class.

Submission Requirements

Complete and submit the Assignment 1 Worksheet component of the Workbook, along with your written work for Part B, through the assignment link in Canvas.

Format your written responses for Analysis and Recommendation as follows:

Typed, double-spaced, professional font (size 10-12), including headings and subheadings (to identify main topics and subtopics), with one-inch margins on all sides.
References must be included and provide appropriate information that enables the reader to locate the original source.
Application and analysis of course materials and resources is expected.
At least one additional source beyond the course materials must be cited to support your analysis and recommendations.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, your name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date.
The maximum length is 4 pages, excluding your cover page, completed worksheets, and reference list.

RUBRIC

Weight: 18% of Course Grade	Assignment 1: Enterprise Risk Management and Moat Strength
CRITERIA	Honors	High Pass	Pass	Low Pass	Unsatisfactory
1. Complete the assignment worksheet Weight: 30%	Submitted worksheet had 90% or higher correct data sets.	Submitted worksheet had between 80% and 89% correct data sets.	Submitted worksheet had between 70% and 79% correct data sets.	Submitted worksheet had between 60% and 69% correct data sets.	Did not submit worksheet or had fewer than 60% correct data sets entered.
2. Present synopsis of data Weight: 30%	Data synopsis was excellent; accurately highlighted key data presented in both annual reports and third-party sources.	Synopsis was very good; focused on the most critical elements with only minor elements unclear/missing.	Synopsis was good; provided general snapshot of key data, but did not focus on the most critical elements.	Synopsis was overly simplistic; restated the data, but did not provide a coherent overview.	Synopsis was missing, incomplete, inaccurate, or did not align with data.
3. Present and defend sound recommend- ed finance strategies Weight: 30%	Presented and defended excellent finance strategies; exemplary connection to core finance principles and to real-world circumstances. Excellent consideration of viable options with very clear rationale for why options were not chosen.	Presented and defended very good finance strategies; solid connection to core finance principles and to real-world circumstances. Very good consideration of viable options with good rationale for why options were not chosen.	Recommended strategies were good, but lacked clarity on how they could be implemented to drive outcomes. Addressed other options, but was unclear why these were not chosen.	Recommended strategies were basic or were not supported by data and analysis or tied to desired outcomes. Made minimal reference to options, and did not explain why these were not recommended.	Recommended strategies were missing, superficial, and/or were not supported by data and analysis. No options were presented.
4. Include appropriate citations and use professional writing standards Weight: 10%	Citations and references to both course materials and additional sources were properly documented; free from grammatical and formatting errors; adhered to maximum length.	Citations and references to both course materials and additional sources were properly documented; contained minor grammatical and formatting errors.	Citations and references to both course materials and additional sources were properly documented; contained some grammatical and formatting errors.	Included some citations and references to course materials, but failed to cite for several key references; contained distracting grammatical or formatting errors.	No citations provided and/or references to course materials were missing or did not support key content in submission; numerous writing mistakes.

Related Posts