Oponentura71557_koph01.pdf, 609.9 kB Stáhnout

Master´s Thesis Evaluation by the Opponent

Title of the Master´s Thesis:

Valuation of Activision Blizzard, Inc.

Author of the Master´s Thesis:

Bc. Kamil Lacina

Goals of the Master´s Thesis:

The main goal of this thesis is to provide a valuation of Activision Blizzard, Inc. for a theoretical marginal investor as of 31st December 2020.

Evaluation:

Criteria Description Max.

points Points

Content 70%

Output Quality Author spent a lot of time discussing various theoretical concept and tools of strategic analysis.

The main part of the thesis, the valuation, is less comprehensive. It seems that the author didn’t have enough energy to tie it all up and present the valuation in better shape.

20 10

Goals The goals of the thesis are evident and accomplished.

10 7

Methodology: The methodology is adequate, however valuation as thesis topic requires

more insight into the key steps and calculations. 20 13

Theory/

Conceptualization: In general, the author used relevant references, sources, and theroretical concepts. Some shortcuts were taken in comments and explanations on the

specific steps of valuation. 20 11

Formal requirements 15%

Structure: Unbalanced emphasis on theoretical background and application (which

should have been the core of the thesis). 3 2

Terminology: Linguistic and terminological level is mostly adequate. 4 3

Formalities: Presentation of financial data throughout the thesis is not ideal. Missing thousand separators, missing units and currency. Difficult to follow the

process. 4 2

Citing: Sources and citatitions are mostly adequate.

4 3

Delivery 15 %

Presentation document:

Is the presentation itself structured in a clear way? Is it appealing and easy to

follow? Does it convey the message efficiently? 5

Presentation

skills: Are you conveying the message efficiently and timely? Do you use

appropriate words, speed, tone of voice, gestures, movement etc. to express

your thoughts in a clear manner? 5

Argumentation: Are you able to readily and briskly react to questions or comments? Are you able to explain unclear parts and connect comments to relevant places in your presentation or parts of particular analyses? How well are you able to

defend to your ideas and recommendations? 5

100 0

Other comments:

The author picked a very applied topic, which he sought to augment by incorporating several extra insight from strategy. Author should have paid more attention to overall structure, formalites, presentation, as well as to a more robust application of valuation concepts.

Questions or comments to be discussed during the thesis defence:

The presented FCFF calculation assumes fairly low level of investments (page 59).

Please elaborate more on the reinvestment rate chosen.

Can the author present a bit more detail on capex and working capital requirements of the business?

The name of the Opponent:

Ing. Heřman Kopkáně

The employer of the Opponent:

Department of Strategy, FPH, VSE Date 1. 6. 2021

Signature of the Opponent:

---