| Course | GF599 Graduate Capstone in Finance |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Limitations statement |
| Length | About 780 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 8
What the Evidence Will Not Carry: A Unit 8 Limitations Statement for the Tollbrook Capstone
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GF599: Graduate Capstone in Finance
Unit 8 Limitations Statement
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Tollbrook Tire and Service and all figures are composite and illustrative, computed in the project's model; source codes refer to the Unit 5 register; the sources cited are real.
To: GF599 instructor From: [Student name], capstone author Re: Limitations of the Tollbrook financing analysis
Purpose
The interim findings show that selling and leasing back would carry an implied after-tax rate near 7.57 percent, well above the mortgage's 5.18. Before that result goes to the owner-president, this memo states what could make it wrong, in which direction and by how much. A finding that holds only under one set of assumptions is weaker than one whose fragility has been tested and reported (Leamer, 1983).
The Six Limitations
1. The buildings' value in year fifteen. This is the largest assumption. The base case lets values grow at 2 percent a year, in line with rents, so the buildings would be worth about $15,070,000 at the end of the lease. Holding everything else fixed, the sale-leaseback becomes the cheaper route only if the seven buildings lose about 2.86 percent of their value every year for fifteen years, ending near $7,250,000, roughly 65 percent of today's price. Direction: a sharp decline would favor selling. Size: measured.
The recommendation holds unless seven working auto service buildings lose about a third of their value over fifteen years while rents on them rise 2 percent a year, a combination the project judges unlikely but cannot rule out.
2. Price evidence. The price rests on one non-binding letter (S1) and a published survey (S7); the broker's workpapers were withheld (S9). Priced anywhere in the survey's band, from a 6.5 to a 7.5 percent cap rate, the lease route's after-tax cost runs from 7.24 up to 8.47 percent. Direction: either way. Size: measured, and the answer holds across the band.
3. The tax rate. The accountant's blended 25 percent rate (S6) applies to an owner whose income and state may change. At 21 percent the gap is 7.82 against 5.45 percent; at 30 percent, 7.24 against 4.83 percent. Direction: small either way. Size: measured.
4. The mortgage rate. The bank's 6.90 percent figure came by email and binds nobody (S5). Because the sale-leaseback's implied after-tax cost is 7.57 percent, the mortgage would have to cost more than about 10.1 percent before tax for selling to become the cheaper borrowing. Direction: higher rates favor selling. Size: measured.
5. Options the model does not value. The lease's four five-year renewal options give Tollbrook a right to stay at market rent after year fifteen, which favors the lease. Ownership gives Tollbrook the right to sell, redevelop or relocate any store when it chooses, which favors keeping. Neither is priced. Direction: offsetting. Size: not measured.
6. A single composite case. The analysis covers one chain, seven buildings and one offer. Its inputs are drawn from that case alone.
The Two Weakest Sites
As agreed in the Unit 6 seminar, a partial sale was tested as a sensitivity case. If the two buildings in flat-sales towns are expected to lose value faster than about 2.86 percent a year while the other five hold theirs, selling only those two could cost less than borrowing against them. The investor's letter covers all seven, so this result is reported as a question for a separate offer, not as a recommendation.
Three Claims the Project Will Not Make
1. That sale-leasebacks are a poor choice in general. Sellers of corporate real estate vary in credit, tax position and use of the proceeds, and studies of sale-leaseback announcements find results that vary with those circumstances (Rutherford, 1990). This project's answer applies to Tollbrook's terms only.
2. That the buildings will grow in value at 2 percent a year. The base case uses that rate because it keeps the cap rate unchanged; the project reports the break-even instead of asserting the forecast.
3. That the investor would accept different terms. A lower rent, a shorter lease or a sale of fewer sites might change the result, but no such offer exists, and the project does not assume one.
How the Limitations Will Appear in the Final Report
The final report will carry this table forward unchanged, place the end-value break-even in the executive summary beside the main result, and state in one sentence that the analysis applies only to this offer. Standard practice in corporate finance treats break-even and sensitivity analysis as part of the answer, not an appendix to it (Brealey et al., 2023).
References
Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2023). Principles of corporate finance (14th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Leamer, E. E. (1983). Let's take the con out of econometrics. American Economic Review, 73(1), 31-43.
Rutherford, R. C. (1990). Empirical evidence on shareholder value and the sale-leaseback of corporate real estate. Real Estate Economics, 18(4), 522-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.00535
The Purdue Global GF599 Unit 8 instructions
GF599's eighth unit asks for a limitations statement that strengthens rather than weakens the recommendation. Start by restating the result in a sentence. Then list each limitation with its source, the direction it could push the answer and, wherever the model allows, by how much. The most useful form is a break-even: how far an input must move before the recommendation reverses. Separate limitations of the analysis from risks the organization faces after deciding, and leave risks to the roadmap. Report any partial result that the evidence does not fully support as a question, not a finding. End with a short list of claims your work will not support, such as general verdicts beyond your case. Explain how the limitations will appear in the final report. Write the statement as a memo to the instructor. Cite work on reporting fragile results, evidence on sale-leaseback outcomes and a standard finance text in APA 7.
How this GF599 Unit 8 example is built
A purpose paragraph restates the 7.57 against 5.18 result and cites Leamer on testing the fragility of conclusions. Six numbered limitations follow, each marked with direction and size. The first, end value, gives the break-even decline of 2.86 percent a year to about $7.25 million, and the highlighted sentence puts that in plain terms. Price evidence reports the after-tax cost across the cap-rate band, the tax rate is tested at 21 and 30 percent, and the mortgage rate would need to exceed about 10.1 percent before tax. Renewal options and ownership flexibility are named as offsetting and unmeasured. The two weakest sites are reported as a question for a separate offer. Three refused claims follow, the first citing Rutherford on how sale-leaseback outcomes vary. A closing paragraph, drawing on Brealey, Myers and Allen, explains that the table will move into the final report unchanged.
GF599 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points
Graders reward this GF599 statement for measurement and discipline. Each limitation should carry a direction and, where possible, a size, because a list of caveats without numbers gives the reader nothing to weigh. Break-even values earn the most credit, since they let the decision maker judge likelihood from her own knowledge. Instructors check that the main result is tested against its most influential input and that the statement does not hide a limitation that could reverse it. Separating limitations from implementation risks shows clear thinking. A partial result labeled as a question, rather than promoted to a finding, demonstrates restraint. The list of refused claims protects the recommendation from being quoted beyond its evidence. A commitment to carry the table into the final report unchanged signals integrity. Leamer's essay, Rutherford's study and a standard corporate finance text, cited in APA 7, support the statement.
GF599 Unit 8 help from the desk
GF599 Unit 8 statements often list generic limits, such as a small sample or limited time, that say nothing about this analysis. Others name the right limits but give no direction or size, leaving the reader unable to judge how much they matter. A common mistake is softening the most important limitation or leaving it out because it seems to weaken the case. Some writers confuse limitations with risks, filling the memo with things that could go wrong after the decision. Partial results are sometimes presented as new recommendations. The claims-not-made list is often missing, so the conclusion gets quoted more broadly than it should be. For each limitation, write one sentence on what it is, one on which way it pushes the answer and one on how far it would have to go to reverse it. Then list the claims you refuse to make.
Get a GF599 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Tell us what your analysis concluded and where you suspect it is weakest, plus the limitations prompt and its rubric. Each limitation in the statement drafted for you is ranked by its power to change your answer, measured where your model allows, and followed by the claims your evidence will not carry. It comes free as a first sample, usually in 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 2: Capstone Data Feasibility Memo
- GF599 Unit 3: Tire and Net Lease Industry Review
- GF599 Unit 4: Lease Versus Borrow Method Defense
- GF599 Unit 5: Capstone Data Provenance Plan
- GF599 Unit 6: Capstone Seminar Progress Update
- GF599 Unit 7: Sale-Leaseback Interim Findings Report
- GF599 Unit 9: Implementation Roadmap
- GF599 Unit 10: Final Project Report
- GF500 Unit 8: Bond Issue Securities Market Case Study
- GF593 Unit 8: Federal Estate Tax Calculation
- GF510 Unit 8: Citibank Payment Error Case Study
- GF592 Unit 8: Roth or Traditional Account Comparison
GF599 Unit 8 questions, answered
Won't a long limitations section weaken my recommendation?
Usually the reverse. A decision maker trusts a verdict more when the analyst has shown where it could break and how far. The sample names six limitations and still recommends against the offer, because each tested one leaves the gap in place. What weakens a recommendation is a limitation a reader discovers that the paper never mentioned.
What is the difference between a limitation and a risk?
A limitation is a weakness in the analysis, such as a price resting on one non-binding letter. A risk is something that could happen to the organization after the decision, such as rates rising. The sample keeps the two apart and treats risks later, in the roadmap, where each one receives a response and a responsible role.
Should I state what my evidence does not support?
Yes, in a short closing list. It protects the recommendation from being quoted more broadly than the work allows. The sample declines three claims, including any general judgment about sale-leasebacks, because one composite chain and one offer cannot carry a conclusion about a whole financing market.
Where can I find a free GF599 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page carries a full GF599 Unit 8 limitations statement for a sale-leaseback capstone, with six limitations measured by direction and size, a break-even on building value, three refused claims and APA 7 references.
What would make the sale-leaseback the better choice?
Holding everything else fixed, the seven buildings would have to lose about 2.86 percent of their value every year for fifteen years, ending near $7.25 million, roughly 65 percent of today's price, while rents on them rise.