Forecasting An Income Statement And Balance Sheet: A Case: Fill & Download for Free

A2A but this is a very hard question to answer in a Quora post. If I were to break it into three parts though, I would say you need to:1) Define strategy and scenarios for company with a baseline case in mind.2) Map that strategy to operations and set of proforma financial statements that include building an income statement and balance sheet. From those derive the statement of cash flows, which then give you a basis for valuation (e.g., DCF) and sensitivities3) Calibrate strategy, operations, financial statements, valuations, capital requirements, and financings against as much competitive and market information you can.Level of detail and finessing depends on the purpose of your exercise and stage of company.I can't think of a single book or source for you, but I would recommend Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies by a number of McKinseyites. Might be tough if you do not have financial analysis background, but there are still elements to glean from the structure of their approach. Not sure if it perfectly matches the process I outline above, but heck I am writing this on a train ride...Good luck.

The basic answer anyone could find over internet is that, the thorough analysis of cash flow statements, income statements and balance sheets in order to understand the financial statement of the specified period of time is called financial analysis.a lot of things depend upon financial analysis such asthe upcoming investmentsprofit and loss statementsthe bonuses of the workers along with incrementsthe forecast for the upcoming financial yearAlthough the above mentioned points can also be judged, if the company performs a case study analysis sometimes of their old records.Performing such financial analysis case study assignment help the managers in making a better decision as they come through various prospects of the company’s bills and monetary investment resultants in the past years.

With Twitter's public market cap of $20+ billion and Facebook's at $100+ billion. it now seems pretty clear that:Instagram sold way too early and should have turned down acquisition offers and stayed independent.Had Instagram stayed independent, it would have had a very good shot at a Twitter or even FB-sized outcome.History may remember the FB/Instagram deal as the only time when a great, market-leading consumer internet company decided to sell when it didn't have to.Facebook's aggressive strategy to acquire Instagram was a masterstroke -- arguably the most brilliant acquisition ever in Consumer Internet. Previously, Google's acquisition of YouTube would have held this title, but Instagram is arguably more important.More thoughts:Instagram has an extraordinarily strategic and valuable competitive positionInstagram is valuable because:It dominates stranger-to-stranger social photos. By "stranger-to-stranger," I mean products that connect people who don't know each other. Tumblr is another product that people use for stranger-to-stranger photosharing.Given the strength of Instagram's competitive position, had it stayed independent, it would have had a very strong opportunity to challenge Facebook in the friend-to-friend photos.Here's a simplified diagram of the social communications category:So in those four quadrants, you've got $150B in market cap. It's really not hard to imagine that Instagram's ultimate opportunity was $25-50+B.In summary:Near-term, Instagram is now the Twitter for photos.Longer-term, Instagram could have been the one credible threat to Facebook in friend-to-friend social communications.Given its insane growth & mega-revenue prospects, Instagram's investor valuation today could have been $10+BInstagram had 30 million users before the Facebook acquisition. Today it has more than 150 million users.And check out the revenue forecasts that one equity analyst recently projected for Instagram:These numbers are probably inflated and on steroids (because that's what sell-side analysts do), but you get the idea. This could have been Instagram's income statement future, and its breathtaking.Rather than sell, Instagram's team could have had their cake and eaten it tooYes, yes -- hindsight is 20/20. And a billion dollars is an enormous sum. But the interesting thing is that Instagram didn't have to make a binary "hold vs. sell" decision. Instagram could have had it all:Near-term liquidity for the founders plusStaying independent and the opportunity to go for it.By 2012, it was pretty standard in the venture and growth equity markets for founders of successful companies to sell some of their shares in growth investment rounds, so that they could get some liquidity and comfort and lock-in some gains on what they've built. I think there's a pretty good chance that Instagram's early investors and board members would have been totally fine with the Instagram founder team selling a significant portion of their stake in return for their continued commitment to keep building value in the company.They could have gotten some of this liquidity in 2012 (i.e., at the ~$500mm valuation that Sequoia invested in), or waited. Had they waited (and yes this is hindsight), the company's value would have skyrocketed and they could have sold ~1/3 of their stake (or less) in return for as much cash.Sell vs. stay independent: historical analoguesOver the past 10-20 years, most consumer Internet market leaders have considered acquisition offers. Here's how I'd look at it:Great decisions to not sell. Over the past 20 years, there were certain moments when staying independent was a great decision by the founder. The list includes: (1) Facebook not selling to Yahoo in 2006, (2) Twitter not selling to Facebook in 2008, and (3) [rumor has it] Yelp not selling to Google in 2010.Great decisions to sell. On the other hand, there were other situations where selling the company was an awesome decision. This list includes: (1) Bebo selling to Time Warner and (2) Broadcast.com selling to Yahoo.Tough decisions to sell. Then, there were some decisions that feel tragic -- because the companies are so awesome -- but you can really understand the decision. Two companies in particular come to mind:YouTube. I've heard people say that if YouTube had held on just one more year, they could have achieved a purchase price north of $5B. But YouTube apparently felt significant pressure to sell in 2006 in part because it was facing significant legal problems that represented a giant overhang on the company and represented a potentially massive and catastrophic risk. After the acquisition, Google apparently invested a huge amount of financial resources (hundreds of millions of dollars or more) settling YouTube's legal battles with the record labels, movie studios, etc.Zappos. It would have been awesome if Zappos had stayed independent, and July 2009 was clearly a low-point in tech valuations versus the subsequent four years. However, Zappos was facing at least two huge hurdles when it sold: (1) the giant financial burdens of inventory that I presume were getting worse as the company grew and (2) the potential competitive threat from Amazon.In each of these 2 cases, the company was very capital intensive and would probably have had to raise hundreds of millions of dollars of growth / private equity money to stay independent. In YouTube's case, I bet that felt nearly impossible, given their lack of revenues and massive legal challenges. I'm less sure about Zappos, but I bet 2009 private equity investors would have been pretty nervous about the prospects of funding the company's balance sheet and income statement in the face of the two threats I describe.Instagram however, wasn't Zappos or YouTube. Instagram wasn't a capital-intensive business and had plenty of access to the private capital markets. In fact, the company had closed on a $50 million fundraising right before the Facebook sale.Thanks to Jackson Mohsenin for his help thinking about the ideas in this answer and for editing help.