This document provides a business analysis of Alibaba Group. It discusses that Alibaba is a Chinese e-commerce company and the largest e-commerce firm in the world. It operates online marketplaces like Taobao and provides payment services like Alipay. The document then analyzes Alibaba's financial ratios, valuations, and sensitivity to assumptions. It finds that Alibaba has strong operating performance but some issues with efficiency, valuation, and governance that it could improve. The document provides recommendations on factors like sales growth and capital expenditures that could maximize Alibaba's firm valuation.

1. Corporate Financial Management (Spring 2016)
Instructor: Dr. Scott Fung
Zhou Wang
Alibaba Group
Business Analysis
Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a Chinese e-commerce company that provides consumer-to
consumer, -business-to-consumer and business-to-business sales service via web portals. It also
provides electronic payment services, a shopping search engine and data-centric cloud
computing services. It is also the largest e-commerce firm in the world in terms of gross
merchandise volume. The company offers multiple online platforms or marketplaces for
merchants to enable online transactions and thus operates a business model similar to that of
eBay. It does not sell any goods directly or hold any inventory. Its most competitive products
and services are Taobao, a marketplace that founded by Alibaba as a pioneer in China, and
Alipay. Alipay, a payment service similar to Paypal, is a key component of Alibaba’s business.
Bulk of transactions that happen on Alibaba’s China marketplaces are done through Alipay. At
closing time on the data of its initial public offering (IPO), 19 September 2014, Alibaba’s market
value was $231 billion. Even through Alibaba would rank among the 25largest companies in the
S&P 500 Stock Index, S&P will not include it because it’s a Chinese rather than an American
company. Alibaba will also not be eligible for listing in the NASDAQ 100, a popular technology
index that includes the Chinese company BAIDU, because Alibaba trades on the New York Stock
Exchange.
Based on the preliminary analysis of capital market imperfections on Alibaba, which is
transparent information, high agency cost, controlling by manager + equity-holder + debt-holder,
moderate risk and uncertainty, plus its market cap=$29.9 billion, I consider it as a mature, large-
cap firm.
As major value drivers for Alibaba, I believe the rapid growth of Chinese e-commerce market is
the most important growth driver. Additionally, international expansion and investments in
other Internet companies could also add significantly to company’s revenue stream over the
long run. For international investments, Alibaba is trying to be competitive with eBay and
Amazon, it intends to duplicate similar business model in China, which is basically focused on
expend market share and channels. When Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba, started his career with

2. Alibaba, e-commerce is a whole new concept in China, which makes it the origin of e-commerce
in China. And after Alibaba’s unbelievable success, Chinese booming e-commerce market
became a perfect opportunity for Alibaba’s consistent value driver. Besides, the large number of
active buyers on Taobao(one of Alibaba’s marketplaces) and online market services revenues
are significantly higher than commissions, which also provide value sources for Alibaba. Since
Alibaba is deploying several investment projects to different industries, including online video,
data-centric cloud computing services and virtual reality, etc. I believed Alibaba is able to
generate sustainable growth in the future.
As major risk drivers and corporate financial challenges in Alibaba, first, Alibaba’s growth may
slow down in the next few years as a larger base will make year-over-year comparisons much
more difficult. Then, rising competition from JD.com could impact Alibaba’s market share on
B2C and mobile commerce markets. Besides, Alibaba’s short-term financing could affect its
flexibility and liquidity because its investment programs, but currently, there aren’t any signals
that would suggest Alibaba is facing any business risk or financial risks.
Basically, the financial condition of Alibaba is healthy and excellent in the industry. Comparing to
its industry peers’ average market cap ($5,642 mil), net income ($1,201 mil) and leverage ratio,
Alibaba has market cap=$30,153 mil, net income=$10,614 mil and leverage ratio=25.8%.
Based on M-M Theorem, financing decisions and capital structure are irrelevant; dividend and
liquidity are irrelevant; risk management is irrelevant; control is irrelevant and with the different
sources of market imperfection, including asymmetric information, agency problems, corporate
governance and control allocation, taxes, financial distress, inefficient market, transaction cost
and issuing costs, etc. I discovered three market imperfections in Alibaba, which are agency
problems, corporate governance and inefficient market.
Financial Analysis
In this part, I choose Amazon, eBay and JD.com as major comparable firms for Alibaba. Amazon
and eBay are two international e-commerce companies that have similar business model, and
both of them are mature firms like Alibaba. Besides, Alibaba intends to make investment
internationally, which will just make the competitions with Amazon and eBay more intensive.
JD.com is a rising star in the Chinese e-commerce industry and Alibaba’s current assets and core
business are still in domestic and JD.com also went IPO in U.S, which should be consider as main
competitor of Alibaba in domestic.
1. Financial ratios of Alibaba:
All information comes from Morningstar.com and Yahoo Finance

3. Financial
Ratio/Information
Result Interpretations
Firm size
(Market Cap)
$30,153 m Large-Cap firm
Leverage ratio 25.8% (2015)
21.6% (2014)
100% (2013)
0% (No long-
term debt)
(2011-2012)
(1) Overall average: 20-30%
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=38.09%
 eBay=50.76%
 JD.com=8.27%
 Industry Average=32.37%
Step 1: In the range of overall average and lower than
critical value of 40%.
Step 2: Lower than industry average as well.
Interpretations:
Alibaba doesn’t have high risk of financial distress
problem.
Liquidity ratio
(Current ratio)
3.58 (1) Overall average: 2-2.5, critical value: 1.5
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=1.08
 eBay=3.49
 JD.com=1.19
 Industry Average=1.92
Step 1: Higher than overall average.
Step 2: Higher than industry as well.
Interpretations:
Alibaba has maintained a good position of its corporate
liquidity with low risk of short term liquidity or financial
distress problem.
Efficiency ratio
(Assets Turnover)
0.42 (1) Overall average: 0.5-2
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=1.78
 eBay=0.27
 JD.com=2.39
 Industry Average=1.48
Step 1: Asset turnover has large variations across
firms/industries. It is important to compare with its
comparable firms.
Step 2: Much lower than industry average.
Interpretations:
Alibaba has lower efficiency than other competitors.
ROA 13.16% (1) Overall average: 9-10%
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=0.99%
 eBay=5.48%
 JD.com= -12.37% (Outliner)
 Industry Average=3.24%
Step 1: Higher than overall average of 10%.

4. Step 2: Much higher than industry average.
Interpretations: Alibaba has much higher ROA than its
competitors, suggesting that it has competitive
advantage and good operating performance.
ROE 27.63% (1) Overall average: 10-11%
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=4.94%
 eBay=13.03%
 JD.com= -27.57% (Outliner)
 Industry Average=8.99%
Step 1: Significantly higher than average ROE of 11%.
Step 2: Also much higher than industry average.
Interpretations:
Alibaba has higher ROE than its main competitors,
suggesting that it has absolutely competitive advantage
and better operating performance.
Payout ratio NA (1) Overall average: 30-40%
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=NA
 eBay=NA
 JD.com=NA
Interpretations: Since three comparable firms and
Alibaba aren’t paying dividends, this ratio would not
indicate current performance of Alibaba. It would also
indicate that these three firms have higher information
asymmetry, which will elaborate in dividends policy.
Forward P/E 128.2 (1) Overall average: 13-15
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=57.5
 eBay=11.6
 JD.com=510.6
 Industry Average=193.2
Step 1: Significantly higher than average ROE of 13-15.
Step 2: Its forward P/E is higher than Amazon and eBay,
but JD’s ROE increases the industry average to 193.2,
and it makes Alibaba’s P/E lower than the industry
average.
Interpretations:
Alibaba has lower P/E than industry average, this result
suggest the market valuation of growth opportunities
are lower. And if we consider JD as an outliner, which is
way higher than industry average, Alibaba’s market
valuation of growth opportunities is not bad.

5. Price/Book 5.9 (1) Overall average: 1.5-2
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=22.2
 eBay=4.2
 JD.com=7.3
 Industry Average=11.2
Step 1: Higher than overall average of 1.5-2.
Step 2: Lower than industry average of 11.2.
Interpretations:
Alibaba has higher P/E than overall average, but lower
P/E than industry average, which may indicate Alibaba
has issues on operating performance and market
expectation of growth opportunities.
Analysis coverage 10 (1) Overall average: 3-4
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=13
 eBay=11
 JD.com=4
 Industry Average=9
Step 1: Higher than overall average of 3-4.
Step 2: Similar with the industry average of 9.
Interpretations:
Alibaba’s analysis coverage is higher than overage and
industry average, which suggests Alibaba does not have
information asymmetry problems.
Institutional
ownership
25.48% (1) Overall average: 20-30%
(2) Comparable firms:
 Amazon=66.26%
 eBay=89.97%
 JD.com=51.57%
 Industry Average=69.27%
Step 1: In the range of overall average of 20-30%.
Step 2: Significantly lower than industry average.
Interpretations:
Although Alibaba’s institutional ownership ratio is in
the range of overall average, but it’s much lower than
industry average of 69.27%, which may suggest that
Alibaba’s institutional investors can’t provide enough
monitoring and corporate governance.

6. 2. Overall financial condition for Alibaba:
The market cap of Alibaba is $30,153 mil, which makes Alibaba a large-cap firm.
Advantages: The current ratio, leverage ratio, ROA and ROE of Alibaba are higher than industry
average, which indicates Alibaba has maintained a good position of its corporate liquidity with
low risk of short term liquidity or financial distress problem; it has competitive advantage and
good operating performance. And the analysis coverage of Alibaba is higher than overall average
and industry average, which suggests that Alibaba may not have information asymmetry
problems.
Disadvantages: The efficiency ratio (Assets Turnover), forward P/E, P/B and institutional
ownership are all lower than industry average, which means Alibaba has lower efficiency than
other competitors; it has issues on market expectation of growth opportunities and Alibaba’s
institutional investors can’t provide enough monitoring and corporate governance. Besides, the
FCF in 2015 is negative, which would suggest Alibaba has high agency cost.
So as a conclusion, Alibaba’s operating performance is excellent in the industry and it doesn’t
have information asymmetry problem or financial distress. While, in the same time, there are
issues including corporate governance, market inefficiency and agency problem (FCF>0) that
Alibaba should work on in the next few years.
Firm Valuation (with Sensitivity Analyses)
In the firm valuation models that include Free Cash Flow (FCF), Residual Earning (RE), and
Economic Profits.
For assumptions, the sales growth rate (28.5%) and Beta (1.4) I used in the models are found
through Morningstar.com and Nasdaq.com; I assume the long-term growth rate for Alibaba is 3%
because both market and publics are estimating high long-term growth. As a mature firm and
there aren’t any signals that would suggest the industry or Alibaba will be facing financial
distress. In the same time, its future goodwill and investment projects will maintain or even
higher than its current sales growth, so I would consider its sales growth rate and Beta should be
sustainable in the next few years.
And the firm valuation models and sensitivity analyses are following:

8. 1. Changing one factor in sensitivity analyses, including Sales Growth, Beta, Cap Exp Reduction,
ROIC and ROE.

9. 2. Changing two factors in sensitivity analyses and reverse engineering on reasonable
assumptions in order to project an intrinsic value that is close to market value.
3. Optimal assumption ratios for Alibaba to project an intrinsic value that is close to market
value to all three firm valuations.

10. Interpretations for firm valuation models:
 Alibaba is creating value for their shareholders in 2015 with a positive FCF. The positive FCF
does not suggest sign of agency problem. The estimated stock price of FCF is 15.57, which is
lower than current price of 75.82
 Alibaba is creating value for their shareholders in 2015 with a positive RE. The estimated
stock price is 18.68, which is similar with result from FCF and lower than current price of
75.82 as well.
 Alibaba is creating value for their shareholders with positive EP. The estimated stock price is
41.78, which is higher than former two results but still lower than current price of 75.82.
 All three estimated results of FCF, RE and EP are much lower than current price, which
suggests Alibaba has been overvalued and it’s a signal of market inefficiency problem for
Alibaba.
Interpretations for sensitivity analyses:
For Alibaba, the sales growth rate is 28.5%, Beta is 1.4, capital expenditure reduction is 0.4, ROIC
is 13.99% and ROE is 27.63%.
①. Changing one factor in sensitivity analyses:
 Alibaba has a high sensitivity on sales growth.
 Alibaba has a high sensitivity on cap-expenditure reduction.
 Alibaba has a low sensitivity on Beta.
 Alibaba has a low sensitivity on ROIC.
 Alibaba has a low sensitivity on ROE.
②. Changing two factors in sensitivity analyses:
 Alibaba has the highest sensitivity on sales growth & cap-expenditure reduction.
 Alibaba has high sensitivity on sales growth & Beta.
 Alibaba has relatively lower sensitivity on Beta & cap-expenditure reduction
③. Reverse engineering and optimal ratios for Alibaba
 If maintain ROIC and ROE to be consistent, the assumptions of sales growth, Beta and cap-
expenditure reduction are 38.6%, 1.2 and 0.2, which will project an intrinsic value that is
close to market value in firm valuation of FCF.
 If maintain sales growth, Beta and cap-expenditure reduction to be consistent, the
assumption of ROIC and ROE are 30% and 43%, which will project an intrinsic value that is
close to market value in firm valuation of EP and RE.
 If change 5 factors in the same time, and make reasonable assumptions (No dramatically
increase or decrease) to project an intrinsic value that is close to market value in all three
firm valuations, it would be sales growth=38.5% (Increase 10%), Beta=1.2 (Decrease 0.2),

11. cap-expenditure=0.2 (Decrease 0.2), ROIC=30% (Increase 16%), and ROE=30% (Increase
2.37%).
Conclusions for Firm Valuation and Sensitivity Analyses
In the three firm valuation models, Alibaba is creating value for their shareholders in 2015 with
positive FCF, RE and EP, which don’t indicate any market imperfection problem. And in the
sensitivity analyses, Alibaba has higher sensitivity on sales growth and cap-expenditure
reduction than Beta, ROIC and ROE, so I would recommend Alibaba put more concentration on
sales growth and try to reduce their cap-expenditure in order to create more value with less
effort. And with changing two factors, Alibaba has the highest sensitivity on the combination of
Sales Growth and Cap-expenditure, which is consistent with result from one-factor scenarios.
Besides, with changing 5 factors to reverse engineering the optimal ratios for Alibaba to project
an intrinsic value that is close to market value in all three firm valuations, I believed 10%
increase on Sales Growth, 0.2 increase on cap-expenditure and 16% increase on ROIC are the
three factor that Alibaba should stick at in the next years in order to maximize its firm valuation
of FCF, EP and RE
Policy Analysis
1. Corporate financing and capital structure decisions
I. For corporate financing, there are two types of financing decisions, which are short-term
financing and long-term financing.
In short-term, based on Total Sources of Cash=Collections on accounts receivable +Other, I
would consider a consistently increase in the next few years. And based on Total Uses of
Cash=Payments on accounts payable +Increase in inventory +Labor and other expenses +Capital
expenditures + Taxes, interest, and dividends, since the payments on accounts payable and
labor & other expenses would be consistent, and tax, interest and dividends (Alibaba isn’t
paying dividends) should also be similar. While for the capital expenditures, Alibaba is investing
in several different industries and in the FCF valuation can also indicate that the capital
expenditures for Alibaba will increase in the next years to a certain extent, which will increase
the total uses of cash. So based on Total Sources of Cash (→)–Total Uses of Cash (↑)= Cash
Surplus or Cash Shortage (↓), there aren’t any signal or data that will suggest the sources of
cash will dramatically increase but the total uses of cash will increase, which means Alibaba may
face a cash shortage in the next few years. In the same time, the changes in net working capital
are also dramatically increasing in the past few years, which is also a signal of potential liquidity
problem for Alibaba in the short-term.

12. In long-term, with credit scoring models, Altman’s Z”-score (Alibaba 2015) =6.56*(NWC/Total
Assets) +3.26*(RE/Total Assets) +6.72*(EBIT/Total Assets) +1.05*(Book Equity/Total Liabilities)
+3.25 =6.56*0.40+3.26*0.097+6.72*0.09+1.05*1.32+3.25=8.18, which put Alibaba into Safe
zones and suggest the solvency of Alibaba is excellent. And this result indicates that Alibaba can
issue more debt or short-term loans to support their external financing needs. Based on the
formula, external financing needs=Total Uses & Fund – OCF, assume that Alibaba’s fixed assets
maintain a same growth rate as OCF and keeps a same dividends policy, the investment
programs, both on domestic and international, will definitely increase the net working capital
dramatically, which will increase the external financing needs as a result.
II.Capital structure
With Static Tradeoff Theory, the optimal debt policy for leverage ratio is 30-40%, and leverage
ratio of Alibaba is 25.8% and industry average is 32.37%. In the same time, Alibaba doesn’t have
plenty of taxable income to shield and it doesn’t have risky assets and intangibles. So based on
STO, I would not commend Alibaba issue more debt than now. But if considering that Alibaba is
making a strategy of investment in different industries, the financing could be a problem and it
will need more cash, it still can issue some debt but don’t raise the leverage ratio more than
35%, or it will face a financial distress problem.
With Asymmetric Information and Pecking Order Theory, as I mentioned before, Alibaba could
constructing some investment strategy in the next few years, even if there isn’t any sign of
information asymmetry problem for Alibaba now, e-commerce company like would definitely
prefer non information asymmetry problems. So if Alibaba is actually looking for resource of
financing, I would commend a choice of internal fund, risk-free debt or risky debt, but not hybrid
securities and equity. However Alibaba hasn’t announced the exact amount of the investment
program, it wouldn’t be able to calculate the exact number for internal and external financing
need for Alibaba, but it will definitely increase the financing need on internal and external.
With Agency Theory, although the FCF is negative in 2015 and it suggests an agency problem,
I’m not able to identify which exact form of agency problem that Alibaba is facing now with
limited information. But in financial analysis, the institutional ownership of Alibaba is 25.48%,
significantly lower than industry average of 69.47%, which is a signal of monitoring and
corporate governance problem. And the FCF is $(9,268) million, which indicates Alibaba has
agency problem and a high agency cost in 2015. So I would commend Alibaba consider to review
the actions of managers and provide incentives to maximize shareholder value. In the same time,
issuing more debt in short-term would improve the agency problem and lower the high agency
cost.
Recommendations:
Based on analysis of short-term financing, long-term financing and capital structure with
Alibaba’s current strategy and problems, and since the liquidity and flexibility are not current
problems for Alibaba now, I would recommend Alibaba issue more debt in short-term to finance

13. its investment and solve the agency problem, which I consider an optimal leverage ratio for
Alibaba in next few years is 30-35%, raises its current leverage ratio five to ten percent. After
issuing more debt in short-term and sustain a leverage ratio around 30-35%, I would not
recommend Alibaba issue more debt in the long-term, which will cause a financial distress risk
and lost a current advantage from its competitors.
2. Dividends policy
There are 5 dividends types, which are cash dividends, regular cash dividends, special cash
dividends, stock dividends and stock repurchase. And in this case, Alibaba is not paying
dividends, neither its three competitors.
In short-term, even though Alibaba’s high profitability, in the firm valuation model of FCF, the
FCF in 2012 and 2015 are negative, the other three years are positive. It may suggest its FCF is
unstable and related to its investment strategy. In the same time, based on the analysis of
corporate financing for short-term, there isn’t any evidence that would indicates there are new
sources of cash or dramatically increase in sales growth. And in the capital structure analysis, I
recommended that Alibaba should issue more debt to improve its current situation, which will
definitely reduce its flexibility. Since dividends are smoothed (changes in dividends per share are
infrequent) and affect financing constraint and reduce financial flexibility, I would not
recommend Alibaba apply any dividends programs in the short-term.
In the long-term, the investment program would probably take 3-4 years to deploy and start to
generate profit for Alibaba. As I mentioned, Alibaba is currently facing agency and monitoring
problem and the investment strategy may just increase them more. Since a company make
investment in order to generate profit in the future, after 5 years, both the FCF and profitability
will be increasing and stable. Besides, three main comparable competitors, Amazon, eBay and
JD are not paying dividends, since Alibaba has the highest FCF than three of them and isn’t even
paying dividends, I would not consider its main competitors will be affordable for dividends in
the short-term. Once Alibaba finished its investment program, it will have enough cash to
support any kinds of dividends and will increase signal a company’s good fortune and its
manager’s confidence in future cash flows, which may affect Alibaba’s stock price in a positive
way as well.
Recommendations:
In the next 3 years, I would not recommend Alibaba apply any dividends policy, which will only
reduce its current advantage in the industry and affect its performance efficiency. In long-term,
after finishing its investment programs, Alibaba should consider a stock dividends or share
repurchase at first and then cash dividends, which will obtain one more advantage than its
competitors and reduce agency problem, increase firm’s external financing needs, hence
monitoring activities by outside investors and serve as corporate governance mechanisms to

14. curb managerial opportunism, overcome incomplete contracting problems. In the same time,
dividends may increase stock price as well by sending positive news and reducing information
asymmetry, which will affect Alibaba’s currently lower P/E and P/B ratio in a positive way in the
same time.
3. Corporate governance of Alibaba
Before 2013, Jack Ma was the CEO of Alibaba and also he served on the board of directors,
which means Alibaba didn’t have independence of board directors. Besides, in financial analysis,
the institutional ownership of Alibaba is 25.48%, lower than industry average of 69.27%. Both
phenomena suggest Alibaba’s institutional investors can’t provide enough monitoring and
corporate governance. And the total shareholder’s equity is negative 24 in 2013, because the
total liabilities are more than total assets. The factor contributing to their large increase in
liabilities in 2013 may have connection with their investment program, which may be
considered as overinvestment in 2013. Whatever the exact factor that contributed to negative
equity, I believe this result may be the reason why Jack Ma resigned the CEO of Alibaba and
keep himself as independence of board directors of Alibaba. In the same time, after Jack Ma
resigned, the new CEO of Alibaba isn’t on the board, which improves the corporate governance
of Alibaba and increases the shareholder’s equity to reasonable amount.
Apart from what happened in 2013, there is still corporate governance problems remained as I
mentioned before. In order to improve it, as I recommended, Alibaba should apply a dividends
policy in the long-term. In the short-term, due to its investment programs, and negative FCF in
2015, I would not recommend any dividends policy, which may reduce governance problem but
cause bigger problems, like financial distress and flexibility problem
4. My stock recommendation of Alibaba
Based on its current Beta of 1.4, situations and problems that Alibaba are having, I won’t
consider its stock price will vary with time and I won’t recommend a short-sell strategy either.
But after Alibaba finishes its investment and does what I recommend about debt and dividends,
I would suggest buying Alibaba’s stock in about 3 years and hold for about six month to one year.

15. Conclusion
As a large-cap and mature e-commerce firm like Alibaba, which contains a market cap of
$30,153 mil, there’re several advantages and disadvantages comparing with its three
comparable competitors, Amazon, eBay and JD.com. As advantages, Alibaba maintains
competitive current ratio, leverage ratio, ROA, ROE and analysis coverage, which suggest
Alibaba has good operating performance, maintains a good position of its corporate liquidity
with low risk of short term liquidity or financial distress problem and doesn’t have information
asymmetry problems. As for disadvantages, negative FCF, lower efficiency ratio (Assets
Turnover), forward P/E, P/B and institutional ownership, which indicates Alibaba has high
agency cost, lower efficiency, market expectation of growth opportunities and doesn’t have
enough monitoring and corporate governance. Consistent with firm valuation models (FCF, RE,
EP) and sensitivity analyses, Alibaba is overvalued and has more sensitivity on sales growth and
cap-reduction.
With further analysis with policies, due to its effect from investment programs, current capital
structure and market imperfections, in short-term, I would recommend Alibaba issue more debt
but control the leverage ratio around 35% to obtain more sources for short-term financing and
maintain a healthy capital structure in the same time. Besides, it should not apply any dividends
policy, since the FCF is negative in 2015. With issuing more debt in short-term, Alibaba will be
able its disadvantages of negative FCF and lower efficiency. In long-term, maintain its leverage
ratio, don’t issue more debt and start to deploy dividends program. Because if leverage ratio
increases to more than 35%, it would cause financial distress and if Alibaba can afford dividends
with positive FCF, it will improve Alibaba’s monitoring from corporate governance. My
recommendation would be start paying dividends at 5% and raise two percent each year and
comprehend the optimal payout ratio for Alibaba.
During this individual assignment of equity research, I was able to increase my familiarity with
corporate finance concepts and learn how to identify financial conditions in a firm, which taught
me how to think, interpret, value and make recommendations by myself. Implications of
concepts and theories are critical to this assignment, which is a great opportunity to value my
individual abilities of judgement on corporate finance conditions. It’s quite a productive
research-learning journey that I personal enjoyed and I want to thank Professor Fung for
providing us this precious experience.