Become Financial Analyst

Proof required

Submit a Google Sheets or Excel file with the three statements, the integration checks (cash flow from balance sheet movement matches balance sheet change), and a separate assumptions tab naming and explaining the basis for each forecast assumption. Submit a 150-word note explaining which company you modelled and where you sourced the historical figures.

What gets checked

• Integration check passes — the ending cash balance on the cash flow statement matches the cash balance on the balance sheet for each period modelled
• Assumptions tab names the basis for each assumption ('revenue growth of 8% based on 3-year average CAGR from FY2021–FY2023') not just the value
• Historical figures match the published financial statements — pick 2 line items and verify them against the source filing

Common mistakes

• A model where the three statements are separate tables with manual links rather than formula-driven integration — if changing a revenue assumption requires updating 4 separate cells manually, the model is not integrated
• Assumptions that are not explained ('revenue growth: 10%') — every assumption must be tied to a rationale (historical trend, industry benchmark, management guidance)
• Using a simplified model template without building it from scratch — the learning value is in constructing the integration, not in filling in a pre-built template

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Change one revenue assumption and confirm the cash position on the cash flow statement changes — this is the single test that proves integration
• Ask the submitter to explain the rationale for the largest single assumption (typically revenue growth) — the answer reveals whether the model was built with financial judgement or just filled with round numbers
• Pick one historical line item (e.g. gross profit) and ask the submitter to show you where it comes from in the source filing — this confirms the model was built from primary sources
• Ask what would change the most important assumption — this tests whether the submitter understands the business, not just the accounting

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit the investment thesis document (500–1,000 words): company description, investment thesis summary, key financial metrics compared to at least 2 peers, a valuation summary (method, key assumptions, and output), 3 named risks with a sentence on each, and the verdict with price target or valuation range. Include the supporting valuation analysis as a separate file or tab.

What gets checked

• Valuation is method-transparent — the document names the method used (P/E multiple, EV/EBITDA, or DCF) and the key inputs; 'it looks undervalued' is not a valuation
• 3 risks are genuinely adverse to the thesis — not boilerplate risks ('interest rates may change'); risks that would specifically and materially damage this company's specific thesis
• Price target is a number or range, not a direction — 'bullish' is not a price target; '£12.50–£15.00 per share (20–40% upside from current £10.75)' is

Common mistakes

• A thesis that describes the company without making a clear verdict — an investment thesis that ends with 'there are opportunities and risks on both sides' has not done the synthesis work
• Risks that are symmetric with the opportunity rather than genuinely adverse — 'if revenue grows faster than expected, the valuation looks cheap; if slower, expensive' is not a risk thesis
• Valuation based on a single multiple with no sensitivity analysis — real financial analysis shows how the valuation changes under different assumptions

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to name the single biggest risk to their thesis and what evidence would cause them to change the verdict — this tests whether the thesis was genuinely stress-tested
• Check the price target: ask the submitter to walk through the valuation calculation step by step — if they cannot reproduce it from memory, the model was not built with deep understanding
• Ask what the most important assumption in the valuation is and what a 20% change in that assumption would do to the price target — this tests sensitivity analysis understanding
• Ask what the submitter would need to see in the next earnings report to confirm or reject the thesis — this tests whether the thesis is predictive, not just descriptive

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your M1 model and M2 thesis plus the reviewer's written assessment: the model assumption challenge and response, the valuation method challenge and response, the what-would-change-your-mind response, the novel scenario and your live impact analysis, and their sign-off confirming their role and a live session.

What gets checked

• Valuation method challenge response names the specific reason this method is more appropriate than the alternative for this company (e.g. 'P/E is not useful for this company because it has negative earnings; EV/EBITDA is more appropriate for capital-intensive businesses at this stage')
• Novel scenario live analysis names specific line items and directions — 'a 200bps interest rate increase would increase interest expense by approximately £X because this company has £Y of floating rate debt'
• Reviewer sign-off confirms 5+ years in financial analysis (not accounting or financial reporting only)

Common mistakes

• Valuation method challenge response that defends the method without engaging with the specific counter-argument — the reviewer is testing understanding of why different methods suit different situations
• Novel scenario analysis that is directional ('it would hurt revenue') without naming specific amounts or line items
• A reviewer who is an accountant or finance manager without investment analysis experience — the challenge questions require someone who has built and defended investment cases

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Prepare the novel scenario by identifying one real macro event or company-specific risk relevant to the submitter's company — it should be something that requires adjusting specific line items in the model
• The what-would-change-your-mind question is the most important — the answer reveals whether the submitter has a falsifiable thesis or a post-rationalisation
• Reviewer minimum qualification: 5+ years of investment analysis (buy-side or sell-side) or CFO/FD experience with direct accountability for financial projections
• Ask the submitter what they now know about the company that they did not know when they started M1 — this tests whether the modelling process produced genuine business understanding

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.