| Course | GF599 Graduate Capstone in Finance |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Feasibility memo |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Finance |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GF599 Unit 2
Every Input Accounted For: A Unit 2 Feasibility Memo on the Tollbrook Sale-Leaseback Comparison
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GF599: Graduate Capstone in Finance
Unit 2 Feasibility Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Tollbrook Tire and Service, its people, its documents and its figures are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
To: Course instructor, GF599 From: [Student name] Re: Feasibility of the Tollbrook financing comparison Date: [Date]
Summary
The project can be completed on schedule. Of the nine inputs the comparison requires, six are in hand, two are promised in writing with dates, and one has a public substitute ready if the original is withheld. No input depends on information the chain has refused to share.
Input Status
1. Investor's letter of intent. In hand. It states the $11,200,000 price, the fifteen-year absolute net lease, first-year rent of $756,000 and the 2 percent annual increase.
2. Reviewed financial statements, three years. In hand from the controller.
3. Fixed-asset register. In hand. It shows a tax basis of $8,300,000 for the seven sites: $2,300,000 of land and $6,000,000 of buildings, with depreciation of about $200,000 a year.
4. Credit agreement. In hand, including the definition of the fixed-charge coverage covenant.
5. Mortgage indication. Promised by the chain's relationship manager at the bank by the end of Unit 3. The chief financial officer has already discussed a ten-year fixed loan on the five strongest buildings.
6. Blended tax rate. Promised by the outside accountant by the end of Unit 3. The accountant has indicated 25 percent orally.
7. Broker's opinion of value. In hand as a two-page letter. The broker has not agreed to release his workpapers.
8. Cap-rate range for single-tenant auto service buildings. Public substitute identified: a national net-lease broker survey published twice a year, which reports cap rates by tenant type.
9. Forward interest rate curve. In hand from public Treasury and swap rates.
Six inputs in hand, two promised by named people with dates, and one covered by a published survey: no part of the comparison depends on a document the chain has not agreed to release.
Why Each Input Matters
The register and the accountant's rate decide the tax on selling. With a basis of $8,300,000 and net proceeds near $10,920,000 after a $280,000 selling cost, the gain is about $2,620,000, and the tax at 25 percent about $655,000. The register also sets the depreciation Tollbrook would give up by selling. Without it, the comparison would overstate the cash the sale produces.
The mortgage indication gives the borrowing route a real rate. Lease contracts are properly compared with the after-tax cost of secured borrowing the firm could actually obtain, not with a rate assumed for convenience (Myers et al., 1976).
The credit agreement matters because the sale proceeds would retire the revolving line, while a new fifteen-year rent obligation would enter the covenant calculation. Under current accounting rules, even an operating lease now sits on Tollbrook's statement of financial position, so the rent commitment shows up as a liability whichever way the chain goes (Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2016), so lenders will see the obligation either way.
The broker's letter and the survey together give a range for what the buildings are worth, which matters at both ends of the term: today's price and the value Tollbrook would own in year fifteen if it keeps them.
If a Promise Falls Through
If the bank does not provide an indication, the project will use a rate built from the ten-year Treasury yield plus the spread the bank charged on the chain's last equipment loan, and will say so in every exhibit. Two other lenders the chief financial officer has worked with could also provide quotes.
If the accountant does not confirm the rate, the comparison will run at 21, 25 and 30 percent, which brackets the federal and state rates that could apply, and report all three.
If the survey is not updated in time, the prior edition will be used with its date stated.
Confidentiality
The owner-president has asked that the investor not be named. All exhibits will refer to "the investor," and the chain's figures will be presented as they appear in reviewed statements, with no customer or employee information.
Schedule
The method defense is due in Unit 4, the data access plan in Unit 5 and the base model by Unit 6. Standard corporate finance texts treat lease-or-buy analysis as a single discounted cash-flow comparison (Brealey et al., 2023), and the base model can be built as soon as the two promised inputs arrive.
References
Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2023). Principles of corporate finance (14th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2016). Leases (Topic 842) (Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02).
Myers, S. C., Dill, D. A., & Bautista, A. J. (1976). Valuation of financial lease contracts. The Journal of Finance, 31(3), 799-819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1976.tb01924.x
What the GF599 Unit 2 assignment asks for
Unit 2 of GF599 asks you to prove the project can be finished. List every input the analysis requires, not only the ones already received. For each, give its status: in hand, promised by a named person with a date, or replaced by a public substitute you have already found. Explain briefly why each input matters, so the instructor can see which ones would stop the project if they failed to arrive. Provide a specific fallback for every promised item, such as another lender, a range of tax rates or an earlier edition of a survey. Note any confidentiality conditions the organization has set and how you will honor them. End with a schedule that shows when the base analysis can begin. Write it as a memo to the instructor, with a short summary at the top. Cite the accounting standard and the finance sources that explain why each input is needed in APA 7.
How the GF 599 Unit 2 example is put together
A summary paragraph gives the verdict: the project can be completed on schedule. The status list covers nine inputs, from the investor's letter to a forward rate curve, with the asset register showing $2.3 million of land, $6.0 million of buildings and $200,000 of yearly depreciation. The highlighted sentence condenses the table. A section on why each input matters works through the $2.62 million gain and $655,000 of tax, cites Myers, Dill and Bautista on using a real borrowing rate, and notes that Topic 842 puts the lease on the balance sheet either way. A paragraph on the broker's letter and the survey explains why value matters at both ends of the term. Three fallbacks cover the bank, the accountant and the survey. A confidentiality section masks the investor, and the schedule cites Brealey, Myers and Allen on lease-or-buy analysis.
GF599 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
Points on this GF599 memo depend on completeness and honesty about status. Instructors check that every input the method needs appears on the list, including the ones the student has not yet secured. A status of promised earns credit only when it names a person and a date. Fallbacks are heavily weighted, because a feasibility memo that assumes every promise will be kept has not tested feasibility. Explaining why each input matters shows the student understands the method well enough to know which gaps are fatal and which only widen a range. Confidentiality handling is graded as professional conduct. A clear summary at the top lets the instructor see the answer in one sentence. The accounting standard on leases and two finance sources, cited in APA 7, ground the explanation of why the tax basis, borrowing rate and covenant terms are needed.
GF599 Unit 2 help from the desk
GF599 Unit 2 memos often list only the data already received, which hides the inputs most likely to cause trouble. Others mark items as promised without saying who promised them or when, so the instructor cannot judge the risk. Fallbacks are frequently missing or vague, such as promising to find another source. Some memos skip the reasons each input matters, which makes every item look equally important. Confidentiality is often forgotten until a figure appears in a draft that the organization did not approve. A related problem is treating a non-binding quote as firm. Assume the instructor has forgotten your proposal: give the verdict first, list every input with its status, explain the role of each, attach a real fallback to each promise, and show when the base model can start.
Get a GF599 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Which figures does your project depend on, and who holds them? Send that list with your section's feasibility memo prompt and rubric. A memo built on your own inputs comes back with a status for each, a named holder, a fallback where one is needed and the verdict stated first. The first sample is free, generally within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GF599 papers and MS in Finance samples
- GF599 Unit 1: Sale-Leaseback Capstone Proposal
- GF599 Unit 3: Industry Review
- GF599 Unit 4: Methodology Defense
- GF599 Unit 5: Data Access Plan
- GF599 Unit 6: Seminar Progress Update
- GF599 Unit 7: Interim Findings Report
- GF599 Unit 8: Limitations Statement
- GF599 Unit 9: Implementation Roadmap
- GF599 Unit 10: Final Project Report
- GF500 Unit 2: Flow of Funds Brief on a 401(k) Dollar
- GF593 Unit 2: Ohio Widower Probate Property Inventory
- GF510 Unit 2: Pool Maker Risk Identification Memo
- GF592 Unit 2: Nine Receipts Gross Income Worksheet
GF599 Unit 2 questions, answered
What counts as proof that data is available?
Something a grader could check: an email agreeing to release a document, a file already received, or a public source with a link and a date. A conversation remembered from a hallway does not qualify. The sample marks each input in hand, promised with a date, or substituted, and only the first category is treated as settled in the verdict.
Should the memo include the tax basis figures themselves?
It helps to show that the register arrived and what it says at the level the analysis needs, here 8.3 million split between land and buildings. Detailed asset lists belong in an appendix or nowhere. Where your organization restricts figures, a statement that the document is in hand, with its date, usually satisfies this memo.
What if a key source refuses outright?
Then the memo says so and shows the substitute, or it proposes narrowing the question. In the sample, losing the broker's workpapers would widen the price range rather than stop the project. Losing the credit agreement would be worse, since covenant terms have no public substitute, and the memo names that as the one refusal that would force a new question.
Where can I find a free GF599 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries a full GF599 Unit 2 feasibility memo listing nine inputs for a sale-leaseback comparison, with status, reasons, fallbacks for each promise, confidentiality rules and APA 7 references.
Why does the tax basis matter in GF599 Unit 2?
It decides the tax on selling and the depreciation the chain would give up. With an $8.3 million basis and about $10.92 million of net proceeds, the gain is about $2.62 million and the tax at 25 percent about $655,000.