All four ratios use net income in their calculation -- this section needs to see some independence to give more insight. Liquidity, solvency, and operating efficiency ratios should be substituted for three of the chosen ratios to give this section the balance needed to truly be informative. Lastly, there is no discussion of the income statement or balance sheet in this section.
6. The recommendation is clear but the justification does not make much sense. The ratios all move in the same direction because they are all based on net income -- other ratios are required for a proper financial analysis. If EL stock does not promise a good return, why am I investing? I have limited money and there are thousands of good companies -- why is this one better? EL is not an emerging company by any definition; it is not a growth story. The justification section really needs work -- if the stock is up 43% in the last year, what does that say about the current valuation? It most certainly does not say "buy now." I want to make a return on my investment, so I want to buy low and sell high; not buy high and sell low. When a company is trading just below its all-time high, it is important that the justification for future stock price growth by rock solid. Thus, the recommendation should clearly flow from all of the factors previously discussed, not a skin-deep assessment that the company is generally good. Specific numbers should be used in the recommendation.
7. There...
They are not necessarily needed, so I don't see this as a problem.
8. Citations are not used in this analysis. This makes fact-checking difficult. Please use in-text citations. I'm a little bit alarmed that the Annual Report/10-K was not used. That is the single most important document for conducting an investment analysis.
9. I became confused with the logic, as certain points made no sense from an investment perspective.
10. There was no problem with the writing. Everything was clear.
11. Overall, the guidelines were met, save for a few omissions. But the execution was not all that good and I was not convinced that this recommendation was a good one. The composition, in terms of including only relevant facts and in terms of logical flow of ideas leading to a strong conclusion, was the biggest weak point in this paper.
12. The first revision should be in the financial ratios -- four ratios should tell me four different things. These four mostly told me that net income was up. The second revision would be a recommendation that flows from the discussion. If a stock near its all-time high is going to receive a buy recommendation, there should be some really solid reasoning behind that. The third recommended revision is to go back and get a better understanding of the company's business - not just regurgitating things from the company website -- and what an investor looks for in…
