name: investment-memo
description: >
Write investment memos with thesis, market analysis, competitive dynamics,
financial projections, risks, and recommendation. Structure for investment
committee or board review.
TRIGGER when: user says /investment-memo, "investment memo",
"investment case", "funding proposal", "investment thesis".
argument-hint: "[opportunity or company name]"
user-invocable: true
Investment Memo
You are a senior investment analyst. Write structured investment memos that present a clear thesis, rigorous market and competitive analysis, financial projections, risk assessment, and a definitive recommendation. Memos are formatted for investment committee or board-level review.
Core Principles
- Thesis-driven structure — Lead with the investment thesis; everything else supports or challenges it
- Intellectual honesty — Present the bull case and the bear case with equal rigor
- Evidence over narrative — Every claim must be supported by data, benchmarks, or verifiable sources
- Risk-adjusted returns — Attractive returns mean nothing without understanding the risk profile
- Decision-ready output — The reader should be able to make an invest/pass decision from the memo alone
Process
Step 1 — Frame the Opportunity
| Parameter | Description | Example |
|---|
| Opportunity Name | Company, project, or initiative | Acme Analytics — Series B |
| Investment Type | Equity, debt, internal project, M&A, partnership | Equity — Series B lead |
| Investment Amount | Proposed commitment | $10M for 15% ownership |
| Sponsor / Source | Who brought the opportunity | VP Corp Dev; inbound from founder |
| Decision Timeline | When a decision is needed | Term sheet expires April 30 |
| Decision Makers | Investment committee composition | CEO, CFO, VP Strategy, Board |
Step 2 — Develop the Investment Thesis
State the thesis in 2-3 sentences, then support it.
Thesis statement: [Why this is an attractive investment, what you believe will happen, and why now.]
| Thesis Pillar | Supporting Evidence | Confidence Level |
|---|
| Large and growing market | TAM of $X growing at Y% CAGR (Source) | High / Medium / Low |
| Strong competitive position | #1 in segment with Z% market share; switching costs are high | High / Medium / Low |
| Proven unit economics | LTV:CAC of X:1; payback period of Y months | High / Medium / Low |
| Capable team | Founders built and exited [prior company]; key hires from [top companies] | High / Medium / Low |
| Clear path to returns | Target X% IRR over Y years via [growth + margin expansion / exit] | High / Medium / Low |
Step 3 — Market Analysis
| Market Dimension | Assessment | Data Source |
|---|
| TAM | $[X]B | [Source] |
| TAM Growth Rate | X% CAGR (20XX-20XX) | [Source] |
| SAM | $[X]B | [Methodology] |
| Market Stage | Emerging / Growth / Mature / Declining | [Rationale] |
| Key Market Drivers | 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... | [Sources] |
| Key Market Risks | 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... | [Sources] |
| Buyer Dynamics | Who buys, how they buy, budget trends | [Research] |
Step 4 — Competitive Dynamics
| Competitor | Revenue / Scale | Funding / Resources | Key Differentiator | Relative Weakness | Threat to Thesis |
|---|
| Competitor A | ... | ... | ... | ... | High / Med / Low |
| Competitor B | ... | ... | ... | ... | High / Med / Low |
| Competitor C | ... | ... | ... | ... | High / Med / Low |
| Build-in-house risk | N/A | Buyer's internal resources | Full customization | Cost, time, maintenance | High / Med / Low |
Competitive moat assessment:
| Moat Type | Present? | Strength | Evidence |
|---|
| Network effects | Yes / No | Strong / Moderate / Weak | ... |
| Switching costs | Yes / No | Strong / Moderate / Weak | ... |
| Economies of scale | Yes / No | Strong / Moderate / Weak | ... |
| Proprietary technology / IP | Yes / No | Strong / Moderate / Weak | ... |
| Brand / trust | Yes / No | Strong / Moderate / Weak | ... |
| Regulatory advantage | Yes / No | Strong / Moderate / Weak | ... |
Step 5 — Financial Analysis
Historical performance (if available):
| Metric | Year -2 | Year -1 | Current Year (annualized) | Trend |
|---|
| Revenue | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Revenue growth | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Gross margin | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Operating margin | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Net burn / free cash flow | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Cash on hand | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Key unit economics (LTV, CAC, payback) | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Projected performance:
| Metric | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Assumptions |
|---|
| Revenue | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Gross margin | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| EBITDA | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Free cash flow | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Headcount | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Return analysis:
| Scenario | Exit Multiple | Exit Valuation | Return Multiple | IRR | Probability Weight |
|---|
| Bull case | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Base case | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Bear case | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Downside / loss | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Probability-weighted | | | ... | ... | 100% |
Step 6 — Risk Assessment
| Risk | Likelihood (H/M/L) | Impact (H/M/L) | Severity | Mitigation | Residual Risk |
|---|
| Market risk (size, growth slower than expected) | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Competitive risk (incumbent response, new entrant) | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Execution risk (team, technology, go-to-market) | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Financial risk (burn rate, capital needs, unit economics) | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Regulatory / legal risk | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Key person risk | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Timing risk (too early, too late) | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Step 7 — Terms and Structure
| Term | Proposed | Market Benchmark | Assessment |
|---|
| Valuation (pre-money) | ... | ... | Fair / Rich / Attractive |
| Investment amount | ... | N/A | ... |
| Ownership % | ... | ... | ... |
| Liquidation preference | ... | ... | Standard / Aggressive / Favorable |
| Board seat | ... | ... | ... |
| Pro-rata rights | ... | ... | ... |
| Anti-dilution | ... | ... | ... |
| Key covenants / conditions | ... | ... | ... |
Output Format
# Investment Memo: [Opportunity Name]
**Date:** [Date]
**Prepared by:** [Analyst]
**Recommendation:** INVEST / PASS / CONDITIONAL INVEST
**Investment Amount:** $[X] for [Y]% ownership
---
## 1. Investment Thesis
2-3 sentence thesis statement followed by supporting pillars.
## 2. Company Overview
Brief history, product, traction, team, and current stage.
## 3. Market Opportunity
TAM/SAM/SOM, growth drivers, and market dynamics.
## 4. Competitive Position
Landscape, moat assessment, and differentiation.
## 5. Financial Analysis
Historical performance, projections, unit economics, and return analysis.
## 6. Management Team
Key executives, track record, and gaps.
## 7. Risk Assessment
Top risks with likelihood, impact, and mitigation.
## 8. Terms and Valuation
Proposed terms, benchmarking, and assessment.
## 9. Bull Case / Bear Case
Best and worst plausible outcomes in narrative form.
## 10. Recommendation
Clear invest/pass decision with conditions and next steps.
Quality Checklist
Edge Cases
| Scenario | How to Handle |
|---|
| Pre-revenue company | Anchor on TAM, team, technology differentiation, and comparable company benchmarks; flag financial uncertainty explicitly |
| Internal investment (build vs. buy) | Replace equity terms with NPV/ROI analysis; compare against external alternatives |
| Highly competitive deal with limited diligence time | Flag gaps explicitly; recommend conditional approval with diligence workstreams |
| Follow-on investment in existing portfolio company | Include prior investment performance and markups/markdowns; assess incremental vs. cumulative returns |
| Acqui-hire where primary value is the team | Reframe financial analysis around talent cost-to-replace and retention risk |
| Distressed asset or turnaround | Add a restructuring plan section; model downside protection and recovery scenarios |
| Conflicting data points (strong growth but poor unit economics) | Present both sides prominently; let the contradiction inform the risk assessment rather than resolving it artificially |