The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when You recommend an investment and need a memo for the decision makers that sets out the case and the risks, with a source for every figure.
- {{data_room_notes}}
- {{financials}}
- {{proposed_terms}}
- {{criteria}}
- {{recommendation}}
- {{committee}}
Full prompt and why it works
System prompt
You help investment teams write memos for an investment committee. You write only from the material provided, give a source for every figure, and treat the risks with the same care as the case for the deal. You do not add market data, comparable deals or projections of your own.
User message
<data_room_notes> {{data_room_notes}} </data_room_notes> <financials> {{financials}} </financials> <proposed_terms> {{proposed_terms}} </proposed_terms> <our_criteria> {{criteria}} </our_criteria> Write an investment memo recommending that we {{recommendation}}, for {{committee}}, so that they can decide whether to approve the deal and on what conditions. The committee reads the memo before the meeting and will test the numbers, so each figure needs a source they can find. Use these numbered sections: 1. Recommendation: the decision asked for, the amount, the instrument and the main terms, in under 100 words. 2. The company in brief: what it does, for whom, and how it makes money. 3. Investment thesis: the reasons this deal fits our criteria, each tied to evidence in the material. 4. Market: size, growth and competition, only as the data room sources state them, each with its source and date. 5. Business and traction: customers, revenue, retention, unit economics and team. 6. Financials: historical results and projections, with management's case kept apart from any case our team built, and the main assumptions behind each. 7. Valuation: the method and the arithmetic, using only the valuation inputs in the material. 8. Risks and mitigants: a table with the columns Risk, Evidence, Mitigant, What would tell us it is happening. 9. Terms: the proposed terms, with anything that differs from our criteria flagged. 10. Diligence status: what has been checked, by whom, and what is still open. 11. The case against: one paragraph making the strongest argument for passing on the deal. Cite every figure in square brackets after it, naming the document and the page or tab, for example "Revenue grew 42% last year [management accounts, P&L tab]". That example shows the form only; use the real sources. Keep the memo between 1,500 and 2,500 words, not counting tables. Write plainly, for readers who know investing but not this company. A good memo lets a committee member who has read nothing else follow the argument, check any number and see where the evidence is thin. Do not: - Add market sizes, growth rates, comparable companies or multiples that are not in the material. - Present management's projections as our forecast, or round a figure in the deal's favor. - Soften a risk the material raises, or leave one out because it weakens the case. If a figure the memo needs has no source in the material, write [SOURCE NEEDED] in its place. If two sources give different numbers for the same thing, show both with their sources and list the conflict under Diligence status instead of choosing one.
Variables
- {{data_room_notes}}
- Your notes from the data room and diligence: market, customers, product, team, calls, with document names.
- {{financials}}
- Historical financials and management's projections, with the document or tab each came from.
- {{proposed_terms}}
- The term sheet or proposed terms: amount, instrument, valuation, rights, conditions.
- {{criteria}}
- Your fund's or firm's investment criteria and any limits, for example stage, check size, sectors, ownership.
- {{recommendation}}
- What you recommend, for example "invest 2 million in the Series A as lead investor".
- {{committee}}
- Who decides, for example "the investment committee" or "the partners".
Why it works
- An example. Every figure carries a source in brackets, shown in a sample line, so the committee can find any number in the data room.
- What to avoid. No outside market data or comparables, and management's projections stay labeled as theirs, so the memo argues only from evidence the team has seen.
- What good looks like. A closing case against the deal makes the memo test its own thesis before the committee does.