Nine inputs, each marked in hand, promised or substituted, let a GF599 feasibility memo for Unit 2 show that the tire chain's lease-or-own comparison can actually be run. Searches like "gf 599 unit 2 assignment example", "gf599 unit 2 sample" and "gf599 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GF599 Unit 2 feasibility memo looks like
A two-page memo with a status table at its center. Nine rows list what the comparison needs: the investor's letter of intent, three years of reviewed statements, the fixed-asset register showing 8.3 million of tax basis (2.3 million of land, 6.0 million of buildings), the credit agreement, a mortgage indication, the blended tax rate the outside accountant uses, a broker's opinion of value, a cap-rate range for single-tenant auto service property and a forward rate curve. Six are marked in hand. Two are promised, each with a date and a name: the mortgage indication from the chain's bank and the accountant's rate confirmation. One has a public substitute, a published cap-rate survey, should the broker decline to release his workpapers. What the project would do if either promise falls through is set out in a last paragraph.
How a GF599 Unit 2 example is structured
The memo opens with its verdict: the project is feasible, with two dependencies. The status table follows immediately, because the verdict is only as good as the rows behind it. Each row carries the item, why the analysis needs it, who holds it, its status and the fallback if it never arrives. Under the table, each dependency gets a paragraph explaining the risk plainly: the bank may quote only after a formal application, and the accountant's rate might shift if the gain is split between depreciation recapture and capital gain. A short section on confidentiality records the owner-president's condition that store-level figures appear only as totals. The memo closes on a revised timeline that moves the modeling start back by one unit if the mortgage indication arrives late, and names the date by which a substitute would take over.
Verdict in the first line
Feasible, subject to two named dependencies, is stated before any evidence, so the instructor can approve or push back without reading beyond the table.
Nine rows, five columns
Item, purpose, holder, status and fallback appear for every input, which makes the gap between what was requested and what arrived visible at a glance.
Two promises with dates
The bank's mortgage indication and the accountant's tax confirmation each carry the promised date and the name of whoever made the promise.
Substitutes chosen early
A published cap-rate survey stands behind the broker's opinion, and the memo estimates how much wider the price range becomes if that substitute is needed.
Totals only, by agreement
Store-level sales and margins are reported in aggregate at the owner's request, and the memo says which later exhibits that condition will constrain.
Where marks go in GF599 Unit 2
Feasibility memos are marked on proof, and the weakest assert access instead of documenting it: data will be obtained from the company is a hope, not a finding. Rows missing a fallback draw steady comment, since the question a grader always asks is what happens when a source goes quiet. Memos listing inputs the analysis never uses suggest the method has not yet been thought through. Confidentiality handled vaguely costs ground as well, because a condition on how figures may appear shapes every later exhibit and belongs settled now. Timelines that ignore a late dependency read as optimistic rather than planned. The strongest memos state the verdict first, attach a date and a holder to every promise, and put a figure on the precision a substitute would give up.
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.
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.