Valuation Review
Use this skill after research evidence exists and the requested universe has a supportable valuation or scenario lens.
Universe method:
- Public equity: choose DCF, comps, reverse DCF, scenario, estimate revision, or event probability methods only when the evidence supports them.
- Treat a forward per-share DCF as decision-usable when current attributable evidence supports the cash-flow base, reinvestment/CAPEX, working-capital posture, net debt or cash, diluted shares, and the relevant forecast bridge. Prefer audited filings or issuer disclosures for historical accounting facts, but allow verified OpenBB/provider-normalized fundamentals, reputable consensus estimates, and credible secondary evidence when provider, period, units, adjustments, and material conflicts are checked. Missing source-of-record evidence lowers confidence or widens sensitivity unless the unresolved input drives the conclusion. When the overall foundation is materially insufficient, prefer a reverse DCF or market-implied expectation threshold, a clearly labeled scenario screen, or abstention. Do not publish a precise target merely because assumptions can be entered into a model.
- For each selected method, state why it fits the business, which driver it tests, and which sensitivity would break the conclusion.
- ETF/index: focus on exposure, constituent/benchmark, factor, flow, and valuation-through-holdings logic when data exists.
- Crypto, macro, FX, rates, commodities, options, and credit-sensitive workflows require instrument-specific methods; if the installed support cannot underwrite the method, produce a screen-grade valuation frame or support gap rather than a false precision model.
- Always state current price or market anchor source/as-of when the user asks for risk/reward, target, entry, or action.
Expected output:
- Universe and valuation method fit
- Valuation method used
- Key assumptions
- Market-implied expectation check
- Scenario range
- Sensitivity points
- Method-selection limits and key sensitivity table or notes
- Valuation risk
- What would change the valuation
- Source/as-of posture, unsupported assumptions, and model/readiness label
Decision quality fields when applicable:
evidence_grade,source_freshness,source_qualityscenario_cases,contrary_evidence,update_triggersinvalidation_conditions,decision_readiness,confidenceforecast_required,forecast_allowed,forecast_block_reasonforecast_target,forecast_horizon,probability,probability_rangebase_rate,evidence_ids,resolution_source,review_date
Role-specific quality:
- Choose methods that fit the business and available evidence; do not force a framework.
- State why each method is appropriate or limited.
- Include at least downside/base/upside scenario logic when evidence allows.
- Identify scenario inputs, cost and capacity assumptions, and modeling choices explicitly in prose.
- Distinguish model output, derived calculation, consensus/provider data, user input, and PM judgment.
- Label reverse-DCF break-even assumptions and scenario screens explicitly; neither becomes audited intrinsic value without the missing foundation.
- Use
not-decision-readywhen a missing current price, base case, valid probability, source date, or instrument-specific assumption materially prevents decision support. Do not downgrade solely because adequate evidence is provider-derived or secondary. - State parameter sensitivity and lower confidence when the valuation range depends on fragile inputs.
- Separate valuation output from portfolio or execution recommendation.
- State what evidence would most change the range.
Write outputs under trading/reports/valuation/.