Fina PPTX Author

Finance Presentation Author

When to use

Use this to build a new finance deck from a blank file: pitch, board, strategy, or committee materials where you need to construct the storyline, write the slides, choose the exhibits, and source them. This is the authoring workflow that turns finished analysis into a persuasive, defensible deck.

Not for: creating the reusable template/master (use fina-ppt-template-creator first), refreshing an existing deck to current data (use fina-deck-refresh), or the final proofing pass (use fina-ib-check-deck). The numbers must already exist — build them in fina-comps-analysis, fina-dcf-model, or fina-3-statement-model, and their tables in fina-xlsx-author, before you author slides on top.

Method

1. Start from the template, not a blank slide. You open the fina-ppt-template-creator master so every slide inherits layouts, styles, and the source band before you write a word.
2. Write the storyline before any slide. You draft the argument as SCQA (Situation, Complication, Question, Answer) and lay the supporting points out as a pyramid — the answer on top, grouped MECE arguments beneath. Decision point: if you cannot state the deck's single governing answer in one sentence, you stop and resolve the thesis before building slides.
3. Convert the pyramid to a slide flow. You map each pyramid node to one slide so the horizontal logic (reading only the titles top to bottom) already tells the story.
4. Write action titles. You title each slide with its takeaway, not its topic — "Margin expansion drives 60% of value creation," not "Margins." Each title is a full assertion the exhibit below proves.
5. Enforce one message per slide. You keep each slide to a single argument; if a slide carries two messages, you split it. Decision point: if an exhibit needs more than one takeaway to explain, you either split the slide or demote the detail to the appendix.
6. Select the right exhibit. You choose the visual that fits the message — table for precise values and comparisons across many metrics, chart for trends, composition, or distribution — matching message type to exhibit type deliberately.
7. Source every exhibit. You add a source footnote with provider and as-of date to every data slide as you build it, so the deck is defensible before it reaches fina-ib-check-deck.
8. Write the executive summary last. You distill the pyramid's top level into a one-page executive summary that stands alone.
9. Impose appendix discipline. You move supporting detail, methodology, and backup exhibits to a clearly separated appendix, keeping the main body tight.
10. Hand off for QC. You pass the completed deck to fina-ib-check-deck for the deck-check before it goes out.

Example

You author a sell-side pitch. SCQA: Situation — the target holds #2 share in a growing niche; Complication — organic growth is decelerating; Question — how does it re-rate and who pays for it; Answer — a strategic acquirer captures $180mm of synergies justifying a 30% premium. The one-sentence answer passes the decision-point gate. The pyramid's three groups (market position, synergy case, valuation) become three sections. A slide arguing peers trade up on scale gets the action title "Scale leaders command a 3x turn premium" over an EV/EBITDA-vs-revenue scatter (trend + relationship → chart, not table). The valuation slide uses a football-field bar (range comparison → chart), while the synergy build uses a table (precise, multi-line values). Every exhibit gets a source line as built. You write the one-page exec summary last, push the sensitivity detail to the appendix, and hand off to fina-ib-check-deck.

Pitfalls

• Topic titles. "Revenue" as a title makes the reader do the work; state the takeaway so the title flow alone tells the story.
• Two messages per slide. Cramming two arguments onto one slide buries both; split or demote to appendix.
• Slides before storyline. Building slides before the SCQA/pyramid produces a deck that lists facts instead of arguing; write the logic first.
• Wrong exhibit type. A table where a trend chart belongs (or vice versa) hides the message; match exhibit to message type.
• Unsourced exhibits. Skipping the source line at authoring time guarantees a scramble later; source as you build.
• Bloated body. Leaving backup detail in the main flow dilutes the argument; enforce appendix discipline.
• Non-MECE grouping. Overlapping or gappy argument groups weaken the pyramid; make groups mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

Output format

DECK PLAN — Project Vantage Sell-Side Pitch
STORYLINE (SCQA)
  S: Target holds #2 share in a growing niche
  C: Organic growth is decelerating
  Q: How does it re-rate, and who pays?
  A: Strategic acquirer captures $180mm synergies -> 30% premium justified

PYRAMID -> SLIDE FLOW (action titles)
  Sec 1  Market position
    1  "Target owns #2 share of a market growing 12% p.a."   [chart: share trend]
  Sec 2  Synergy case
    2  "$180mm of run-rate synergies are actionable in 24 months" [table: synergy build]
  Sec 3  Valuation
    3  "Scale leaders command a 3x turn premium"             [chart: EV/EBITDA scatter]
    4  "Precedents support a 30% control premium"            [chart: football field]

EXEC SUMMARY: one page, top of pyramid, stands alone (written last)
APPENDIX: sensitivity tables, methodology, detailed comps
SOURCING: every exhibit carries provider + as-of date
NEXT: hand to fina-ib-check-deck

Reference

Storyline frameworks

Action-title rules

Exhibit choice by message

Slide-anatomy checklist

Sourcing conventions