2022年标普全球市场财智公司估值挑战赛已正式结束。经过我们评选委员会的认真评选，在此公示获取此次比赛前三名及优秀奖获得队伍。
一等奖
参赛队伍名称：To buy or to sell
参赛队员：褚昭楠、林朴睿、龚嘉煜、银自厚、李鸣筝
学校：上海财经大学
评委点评：
(1) COMPANY, FORECAST: Strong grasp of the nuances of XOM, eg. It's streamlining downstream with chemical biz. Excellent on XOM's slowness in the green transition, which will have long-term implications. The company forecasts are very strong and well-articulated alongside the industry's context.
(2) VALUATION: The strength here is it is clear why your assumptions are chosen (esp. tax rates), with detailed spreadsheets as support. Monte Carlo simulation is a nice touch.
二等奖
参赛队伍名称：The ONE
参赛队员：周鹤仪、曹宇萌、孙千喆、唐沈怡、Hyeonseung Kang
学校： 西交利物浦大学
评委点评：
(1) COMPANY: It shows a holistic approach to understanding a company, with a very nuanced take on all three aspects of ESG.
(2) VALUATION: Terminal growth rate at 2% is very low, and it would be ideal if you elaborate that or that weakens your recommendation. The choice of metrics in Relative valuation is bit unusual for energy companies in general, eg. You have price-to-sales but not EV. But Monte Carlo is a nice touch.
三等奖
参赛队伍名称：Try
参赛队员：高歌
学校：对外经济贸易大学
评委点评：
(1) INDUSTRY, COMPANY: Firm grasp of the dynamics between the oilfield services industry and the rest of the supply chain, and alongside a very nuanced take on China's landscape which is dominated by state-owned behemoths. That translates to a well-articulated set of financial forecasts.
(2) VALUATION: DCF is nicely done with detailed assumptions, which makes it a convincing case.
优秀奖 （排名不分先后）
参赛队伍名称：Acumen
参赛队员：沈诣敏、汪依莛、赵倩如、郎静宜、张可心
学校：香港中文大学（深圳）
评委点评：
(1) COMPANY: One of the most nuanced takes on XOM's ESG outlook in this competition, which talks about not only E but also S and G. The attempt to quantify ESG impact on valuation is very admirable.
(2) VALUATION: The relative valuation part is quite comprehensive with two groups of peers. However, In the DCF part, I'm confused about how a model can have more than one terminal growth rate (unless that's a typo, in which one of them is NOT a terminal growth rate). In the 3-stage growth model, we have an expansion stage growth rate, decelerated growth stage, and mature stage, which is ONLY where the terminal growth rate is applicable. Lastly, not a major issue, but it's not common to recommend a BUY when the price upside is less than 5%.
(3) FORMAT: tables and charts in the margin are hardly legible to readers
参赛队伍名称：Billion Gorgeous Group
参赛队员：胡珂嘉、朱妍、林湘瑶、丁艺涵、孙一迪
学校：上海财经大学
评委点评：
(1) COMPANY: you have a good grasp of global demand and supply, but your view on the ESG aspect is not critical. XOM in fact lags behind its peers in the green transition, but your report says it's doing a good job.
(2) VALUATION: Your WACC is really high, probably out of range of most forecasts I've seen in this competition and real life. I can see your cost of equity is very high, and given your risk-free rate is kinda normal, you haven't stated clearly why you have a market risk premium of over 10%. Also, it might be a typo on your end: the FCF values are only shown in the appendix and not throughout the report itself, plus you gave me a range only. You need to tell me which one is the intrinsic value you believe in and why.
参赛队伍名称：CQ Intelligence
参赛队员：肖明格、蓝正企、康亦凡、周檀逸、贾子仪
学校：复旦大学
评委点评：
(1) INDUSTRY, COMPANY: As the report says, BP is quite behind its peers in several metrics on debt and returns. I would expect that to be translated to your valuation and recommendation, more than stating the claims in the section of competitive landscape. Also, while it's an admirable attempt to dig into BP's ESG prospects, it would be great to move beyond the company's publicity campaign. When you said BP will benefit from the transition, I would expect elaboration or evidence cos that's quite an unusual claim.
(2) VALUATION: Pretty decent exercise here.
参赛队伍名称：EV Over EBITDA
参赛队员：Rongchuan Yang、Weifan Chen、Zhaoji Xu、Peiju HUNG、Zhou Xuan
学校：上海财经大学
评委点评：
(1) Unfortunately, you mistook the currency of Shell's share price. It should be in BRITISH PENCE, so your target price, by straight translation, should be 2,700 British pence (or 27 British pounds because 1 pound = 100 pence; it's also equivalent to US$32.80.). And that kinda throws off your whole valuation exercise as you used USD as the currency throughout, as we don't know if a correct conversion would have changed your results. There should also be more elaboration why perpetual growth rate is assumed at 0%.
(2) It shows reasonable efforts in valuing the company based on various segments, which usually helps arrive at a more precise valuation for diversified companies.
参赛队伍名称：Happybiubiubiu
参赛队员：Hanjie Wang、Liang Siyu、Cao Yushan、Yu Simin、Zhang Jialin
学校：香港中文大学（深圳）
评委点评：
(1) COMPANY: Generally decent understanding of the company, except there are a few factual errors, eg. XOM's got most revenue (not profit) from downstream but derived most profit from upstream, and that slightly weakens the analysis. Also, The ESG aspect of XOM is slightly generic and not company-specific enough.
(2) VALUATION: the numbers are on the high side, and out of range of most forecasts in this competition and real world. It may be due to assumptions in your revenue forecasts. It would be ideal if you are aware of your high numbers and state explicitly why you think so.
(3) FORMAT: The spreadsheets (A1 and A2) and pie chart in the appendix aren't very clear: they are either in fonts that are too small, but the color tone (of the pie chart) is not very discernable.
参赛队伍名称：Maxpec
参赛队员：林型俊、李睿朗、朱翀、李佶隆、高舒宁
学校：温州肯恩大学
评委点评：
(1) VALUATION: The strength here is it is clear why your assumptions are chosen. It shows a firm grasp on understanding taxation in valuation techniques, which is not easy for students. That capability is well reflected in the section about effective tax rates and the choice of EV/EBITDA in relative valuation. HOWEVER, you didn't get to the finish line -- what's the value of XOM in your view? I see a range of six values in your scenario analysis and relative valuation, your job isn't done yet. You need to pick one and tell me why.
(2) FINANCIAL FORECAST: I see projected cash flows under various scenarios. But that's only half the job. You need to tell me which one is more probable, and how that view feeds into your final valuation, which is missing (as I stated above).
参赛队伍名称：On The Top
参赛队员：Xing YiXiao、Xu XiYue、Gao JiaRui、Shen YaoYi、He ShuYan
学校：上海财经大学
评委点评：
(1) INDUSTRY: You demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the role of policy in doing business in China, especially for state-owned companies.
(2) VALUATION: CNPC is not a listed company, and this choice makes this assessment very tricky. You use its listed subsidiary PetroChina as a proxy, but the relationship between CNPC and PetroChina is very complicated, and it's not straightforward like PetroChina's value should be equivalent to X% of CNPC, as the parent still owns many upstream projects, and thus its earnings and risk profile is quite different from the listed unit. Also, the WACC calculated this way could have a shaky footing. It also complicates relative valuation, in addition to the choice of peers, eg. CNPC is more upstream focused, while XOM is more downstream.
参赛队伍名称：Pine
参赛队员：Yuan Zhang、Zhenhao Ke、Sijin Du、Tianqi Wei、Haoran Tao
学校：复旦大学
评委点评：
(1) It would be great if the analysis included a more in-depth take on the impact of energy transition on financial performance, and thus valuation. Energy transition affects the whole supply chain, from CAPEX plan on drilling and developing alternative energy sources to the sale of downstream products (eg. Will the long-term plan on gas stations change? How will that affect the company's overall return? Etc.).
(2) ON relative valuation: It's always tricky to compare A-shares with stocks on overseas exchanges, cos the liquidity fundamentals are very different, so the ratios are likely structurally different.
参赛队伍名称：Rich Five
参赛队员：华辰东、徐菱、马晨皓、罗小铭、张心怡
学校：上海财经大学
评委点评：
(1) COMPANY: The chart PROFITABILITY, which is key to your company analysis, seems wrong: I don't understand how the four margins could add up to 100% for all companies there. Also, I am confused when you say XOM is doing good but metrics like EPS has been in negative territory. And it's not ideal to use a line graph if you make peer comparison on a given time point, that's for the time series of one single company.
(2) VALUATION: You can grasp the nuance about XOM here: its upstream biz is the source of profit, and that pits XOM more favorably to its peers in relative valuation. HOWEVER, when you say "buy the stock", I expect you to tell me how your EV calculation supports that call, which EV you think is most probable, and the link between that and the current stock price. Missing those parts means you are almost there only.
参赛队伍名称：SUFE S&P Team
参赛队员：杨柳菲、吴文蕾、周悦、黄振
学校：上海财经大学
评委点评：
(1) COMPANY: Good take on ESG, holistic approach to not only E. The patent advantages are a nice surprise.
(2) VALUATION: People usually use both APV and WACC in the same valuation exercise to cross-validate their results, meaning they do two valuations on the same company and see if the results are consistent with one another. But in this report, it's a bit confusing as you first used adjusted present value to derive the intrinsic value of SSC instead of using WACC, but then you turned back to using WACC for the rest of your valuation exercise (such as sensitivity analysis).
获奖团队请注意：
我们将在比赛结果发布后，单独邮件或电话获奖团队及成员安排奖金事宜。
