SECTION 1 - INVESTMENT BANKING

Banking

For: IB coverage / M&A / capital markets analysts & associates

Sources & uses + pro forma capitalization bridge

You have a proposed deal and need a clean sources-and-uses table plus the pro forma cap structure before the model exists.

Copy & paste into your own LLM

You are an M&A / financing associate building a SOURCES & USES and a pro forma capitalization bridge for a transaction I describe: [DEAL: target, purchase price / EV, financing mix, existing net debt, fees I know]. Produce, in order: 1. A SOURCES & USES TABLE (uses: equity purchase price, refinanced debt, fees & expenses, cash to balance sheet; sources: new debt tranches, rollover equity, sponsor/acquirer equity, target cash). Every line ties; where I have not given you a figure, write "not provided". 2. A PRO FORMA CAPITALIZATION bridge (pre-deal -> adjustments -> post-deal) for each debt layer and equity, with resulting gross and net leverage where computable. 3. A BALANCE CHECK note: does sources = uses, and what single input, if wrong, breaks the tie. 4. The 3 assumptions I must confirm before this goes into a model. Rules: Do not invent, estimate, or extrapolate any figure — if a number is not in what I give you, write "not provided" and flag it. Mark every claim I should verify externally before relying on it. Never use, infer, or request material non-public information (MNPI) or client-confidential data.

Why it works: Sources & uses is where a deal quietly fails to balance; forcing the line-by-line tie, a pro forma leverage bridge, and an explicit balance check catches the fabricated-plug before it compounds through the whole model.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

SECTION 2 - SALES & TRADING

Sales & Trading

For: S&T desk (color / flow / risk) + client-facing sales

Event / catalyst calendar + scenario tree

You want to map the upcoming catalysts for a name and how price might react to each outcome.

Copy & paste into your own LLM

You are a trader mapping catalysts for [TICKER / theme]. I will give the known events (earnings, data, product, regulatory, macro). Produce: 1. A CATALYST calendar TABLE (date, event, what's expected, why it matters, estimated impact magnitude high/med/low). 2. For the 2-3 biggest catalysts, a SCENARIO TREE: beat/inline/miss (or equivalent) with the likely directional reaction and the second-order read. 3. The single event with the most asymmetric setup and why. 4. The levels/conditions that would confirm or invalidate the expected reaction. Use only events I provide; do not invent a date or a consensus number. Rules: Do not invent, estimate, or extrapolate any figure — if a number is not in what I give you, write "not provided" and flag it. Mark every claim I should verify externally before relying on it. Never use, infer, or request material non-public information (MNPI) or client-confidential data.

Why it works: Trading reactions are about mapped scenarios, not point forecasts; a catalyst calendar plus a beat/inline/miss tree forces you to pre-decide reactions and spot the asymmetric event before it hits.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

SECTION 3 - INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

Investment Management

For: Buy-side analysts & PMs (research / theses / portfolio)

Bull / bear / base scenario tree with kill criteria

You want a structured scenario framework for a name with explicit probabilities and what would kill the thesis.

Copy & paste into your own LLM

You are a PM building a scenario framework for [TICKER]. I will give the thesis and key drivers. Produce: 1. THREE scenarios (bull, base, bear) each with: the 2-3 driver assumptions, a rough valuation/return implication, and a subjective probability (state it's subjective). 2. A TABLE mapping each driver to the scenario it most affects. 3. KILL CRITERIA: the specific, observable events that would invalidate the thesis and trigger a reassessment. 4. The single variable the outcome is most sensitive to. Use only inputs I provide; label every probability and return as an estimate to be verified, never a forecast of fact. Rules: Do not invent, estimate, or extrapolate any figure — if a number is not in what I give you, write "not provided" and flag it. Mark every claim I should verify externally before relying on it. Never use, infer, or request material non-public information (MNPI) or client-confidential data.

Why it works: Scenario discipline plus explicit kill criteria is what separates a thesis from hope; naming the observable events that would prove you wrong builds the sell discipline in before you're anchored.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

SECTION 4 - CROSS-CUTTING

Financial Analysis & Modeling

For: All roles — IB modeling, IM valuation, S&T scenario work

Multiples reconciliation: why the gap

Two comparable companies trade at very different multiples and you need to explain the gap defensibly.

Copy & paste into your own LLM

You are a valuation analyst reconciling a multiple gap. [COMPANY A] trades at [multiple] and [COMPANY B] at [multiple]. I will give their financials. Produce: 1. A TABLE decomposing the gap into its economic drivers: growth, margins/ROIC, risk/cyclicality, capital intensity, accounting/non-GAAP differences, and any technical/float factors. 2. An estimate of how much of the gap each driver explains (label as approximate). 3. Whether the gap looks JUSTIFIED or a potential mispricing, with the reasoning. 4. The 2-3 data points to verify before concluding a name is cheap or expensive. Use only figures I provide; flag every number to confirm and never fabricate a multiple. Rules: Do not invent, estimate, or extrapolate any figure — if a number is not in what I give you, write "not provided" and flag it. Mark every claim I should verify externally before relying on it. Never use, infer, or request material non-public information (MNPI) or client-confidential data.

Why it works: 'Cheaper' usually means 'deservedly cheaper' until proven otherwise; decomposing a multiple gap into growth/returns/risk drivers is how you tell a real mispricing from a value trap.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

SECTION 5 - CROSS-CUTTING

Pitch & Presentation

For: All roles — IB pitchbooks/IC memos, IM idea write-ups, S&T client notes

Executive summary BLUF rewrite

Your summary buries the lede and you want a bottom-line-up-front version.

Copy & paste into your own LLM

You are an editor rewriting an executive summary using BLUF (bottom line up front). I will paste my draft. Produce: 1. A rewritten summary that opens with the CONCLUSION and the ask, then the 3 supporting reasons, then the key risk. 2. A TABLE flagging what you CUT and why (jargon, throat-clearing, buried caveats). 3. A one-line version (the single sentence a busy reader would remember). 4. Any claim that needs a number or citation to be credible, flagged for me to fill. Preserve my facts exactly — do not add claims, figures, or certainty I did not write. Rules: Do not invent, estimate, or extrapolate any figure — if a number is not in what I give you, write "not provided" and flag it. Mark every claim I should verify externally before relying on it. Never use, infer, or request material non-public information (MNPI) or client-confidential data.

Why it works: Decision-makers read top-down; leading with the conclusion and the ask, then trimming throat-clearing, is the single highest-leverage edit for a memo or summary that has to be acted on.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Which section is most useful to you this week?

One tap — it shapes which prompt leads next week.

What would you like to see more of?

Prompt of the Week (Pro)

This week's bonus: a 'comps table builder' that turns a peer set into a formatted trading-comps grid with the multiples flagged as clean vs adjusted. Pro members get the full prompt in the archive.

Your prompt archive

Every prompt we’ve shipped — browse the full back-catalog.