Read against the assumption list, three years of statements for both firms confirm two inputs and challenge a third in this finished FI499 Unit 4 financial statement analysis. Searches like "fi 499 unit 4 assignment example", "fi499 unit 4 sample" and "fi499 unit 4 example" land here.
What a finished FI499 Unit 4 financial statement analysis looks like
Five pages: a findings summary, four exhibits and an assumption log. The target's margin slid from 28.1 to 26.4 to 25.0 percent over three years as labor rose from 31 to 34 percent of revenue, which puts the 27 percent recovery in A4 under pressure. Its membership share climbed from 44 to 52 percent, steadier revenue but more exposed to cancellation. Capital spending of 540,000 dollars across three years against 1.86 million of depreciation shows deferred upkeep, supporting the 900,000 conversion budget in A7. Revenue per site is 1.40 million against the buyer's 1.76 million, a gap the paper treats as upside it declines to count. The buyer's own statements show 12.0 million of debt at 1.63 times EBITDA and interest covered 5.3 times, room for the loan in A11.
How a FI499 Unit 4 example is structured
Findings lead, stated as their effect on the assumption list rather than as observations, so the first page reads as a verdict on A1 through A12. The body is ordered by question instead of by statement. First, is the target's earning power stable, answered from the margin trend and the cost lines driving it. Second, how durable is its revenue, answered from membership mix and monthly counts. Third, has the business been maintained, answered from capital spending set against depreciation. Fourth, can the buyer carry the deal, answered from its own leverage and coverage. Each question ends with a line naming the assumption it touches and whether that row stands, stands under a flag, or changes. The assumption log closes the paper with a single dated entry: a flag added to A4.
Verdicts before exhibits
The opening page lists each tested assumption with its status, so a reader learns what the statements changed before seeing any of the evidence behind it.
Wages behind the margin slide
Labor rising three points of revenue explains nearly all of the target's lost margin, which makes recovery a pricing question rather than a cost reversal.
Members as a double edge
A membership share up from 44 to 52 percent smooths monthly revenue and concentrates the risk that a change of owner triggers cancellations.
Depreciation outrunning spending
Three years of capital spending at under a third of depreciation point to worn tunnel equipment, the evidence behind the conversion budget.
The buyer read as a borrower
Leverage of 1.63 times and coverage of 5.3 times on the buyer's own statements show capacity for 14.0 million of new debt before any combined figures are built.
Where marks go in FI499 Unit 4
Statement analyses in a capstone lose the most when they read like the ratio work of an earlier course: every metric computed, none connected to the decision. A margin trend reported without the cost line behind it leaves the assumption list untested. Analyzing only the target, and never the buyer's ability to pay, skips half the question. Figures copied from the statements without checking that they reconcile draw comment where the case includes a deliberate inconsistency. A finding that undercuts an earlier assumption and never travels back to the list is the characteristic error of this unit, because the valuation that follows will inherit the old number. The strongest papers close by saying what changed in the assumption set, even when the change is only a flag.
Get a FI499 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Upload the statements your case supplies, the Unit 4 prompt and the rubric, plus the assumption set if one is on file. Each statement is then read against those assumptions, with a verdict on which rows stand, which need a flag and which change. A first sample comes free, returned within 24-48h in most cases.
FI499 Unit 4 questions, answered
Why organize by question rather than by statement?
Because the decision needs answers, and each answer draws on more than one statement. Whether the target has been maintained uses the cash flow statement for spending and the income statement for depreciation. Ordering by balance sheet, then income statement, then cash flows tends to produce description. The question order lets every section end on what it means for the case.
Should the analysis include standard ratios?
Where they answer one of the questions, yes. The sample uses margin, leverage, coverage and revenue per site because each bears on an assumption. A full ratio table can sit in an appendix if your section asks for one, but a capstone paper that walks through twenty ratios in the body usually crowds out the argument about what they mean for the case.
What if the statements contradict an assumption badly?
Then the assumption changes, and the log records why. In the sample the margin evidence only earns a flag, but a sharper decline would have forced A4 down, and every later schedule would carry the new figure. Changing it at this stage is far cheaper than defending an input the case's own numbers contradict when the final recommendation is read.