Overview

This competition is designed to inspire original, thought-provoking investment theses and rigorous analysis of publicly listed companies. Participants will choose a single stock and build a complete 5-year investment case around it  combining macroeconomic context, industry dynamics, ESG impact, financial analysis, and a creative approach to projecting returns. The goal is not to find the “right” answer but to think like a real analyst: develop a defensible point of view, support it with evidence, weigh it against alternatives, and have the intellectual honesty to argue against your own conclusion. The strongest submissions will demonstrate genuine curiosity about how businesses create value, sharp reasoning under uncertainty, and the willingness to commit to a view while remaining open to being wrong.

Sponsored by

Rules

1. Students must be in High School or on a gap year before University.
2. Students must work independently. Only individual submissions will be accepted.
3. Students may not use generative AI or copy sources without crediting them.
4. Students must register for the competition before their submission will be acknowledged.
5. Students can be from any country. However, students from countries not supported by international banking platforms may not receive their prize money. These students can choose which charity to donate their prize money to instead.
6. The company chosen must already be publicly listed on a stock exchange.
7. Investment return should be viewed from a medium term perspective of 5 years and based on valuation analysis.

Submission Requirements

Format

• Times New Roman; font 12
• Double-spaced
• 1-inch margins
• You may use tables, charts, and/or statistics, but please provide MLA citations and acknowledge ownership of all images and other media.

Page 0: Title Page

• Participant Name, School, Grade
• Company Chosen

Page 1: Overview

Provide the company’s ticker symbol, the stock exchange it is listed on, and a share price chart for the past 5 years.

Page 2: Macroeconomic View

Based upon which stock exchange the Company is listed on, describe how the country in which the Company is listed on is doing. If the Company is listed on multiple stock exchanges in different countries, choose a country to focus on.

Page 3: Industry View

• Identify what industry the Company is in. Describe the Company’s business/revenue model.
• Describe the current state of the industry.

Page 4: ESG Impact

• Identify at least one key UN SDG goal impacted by your Company.
• Identify how your Company is unique within its industry in at least two of the three ESG metrics (environment, social, governance).

Pages 5–6: Financial Analysis

• Cite financial statistics in relation to other companies in the same industry.
• Conduct qualitative analysis via SWOT analysis, etc.

Page 7: Noting Risks

• What could the Company improve on with regards to both its finances and ESG?
• What could go wrong in the future?

Pages 8–9: Return Expectations

Instead of projecting a single price target, present three scenarios:

• Bull case : what has to go right, your target price, and your assigned probability
• Base case : your central estimate, target price, and probability
• Bear case : what goes wrong, target price, and probability

Probabilities must sum to 100%. From these, compute a probability-weighted expected return and IRR. Show your work on revenue growth, earnings, and P/E assumptions for each case.

When building each scenario, it is up to you to decide how complex you want to make it. Consider how the P/E ratio would change by changes in earnings. Think about the industry’s direction over the next few years. Evaluate the potential effect from your SWOT analysis findings. Anything goes, as long as you can back it up.

Page 10: Kill the Thesis

Now argue against your own recommendation. What is the strongest case for not owning this stock? If the bear case started playing out, what specific piece of evidence would you need to see to change your mind and sell?

This section is graded on intellectual honesty and the rigor of the counter-argument — not how persuasive it is. Weak or defensive counter-arguments will cost you points; a genuinely threatening one earns them.

Additional pages: Bibliography & appendices

Please keep these additional pages to a reasonable amount.

Rubric

Your report will be evaluated across six criteria.

1. ESG Impact (15%)

• Clearly identifies at least one relevant UN SDG with a specific link to the company’s operations or products
• Articulates how the company is genuinely differentiated from peers on at least two ESG dimensions, with evidence (not generic claims)
• Avoids “greenwashing” — engages with ESG trade-offs and limitations honestly

2. Investment Case Quality (25%)

• Macroeconomic analysis connects directly to the company’s prospects, not generic country statistics
• Industry analysis identifies the real competitive forces shaping the business
• Financial analysis uses appropriate metrics for the industry (e.g., same-store sales for retail, ARR for SaaS) and benchmarks against relevant peers
• Qualitative analysis (SWOT or equivalent) surfaces non-obvious insights rather than restating known facts

3. Creativity in Return Expectations (15%)

• Goes beyond a simple P/E × earnings calculation
• Incorporates industry trajectory, SWOT findings, or unconventional valuation lenses (sum-of-parts, reverse DCF, scenario-conditional multiples, etc.)
• Assumptions are creative but defensible — every number traces back to evidence

4. Scenario Coherence (20%)

• Bull, base, and bear cases describe genuinely different futures, not the same future at different price points
• Probabilities reflect real uncertainty (a 90/5/5 split needs strong justification)
• Revenue, earnings, and multiple assumptions in each scenario are internally consistent
• Probability-weighted IRR is correctly calculated and clearly presented

5. Kill the Thesis (15%)

• Engages with the strongest possible counter-argument, not a weak strawman
• Identifies specific, observable evidence that would falsify the thesis
• Demonstrates intellectual honesty — willing to acknowledge real weaknesses without retreating into hedges
• A counter-argument that genuinely threatens the main thesis scores higher than a polished but toothless one

6. Clarity, Concision, and Visual Design (10%)

• Writing is precise and free of filler
• Charts and tables earn their space — each communicates something the text cannot
• Citations are complete and formatted correctly
• The report respects the reader’s time

Contact admin@sow4future.com for any questions or clarifications.