Creates board presentation materials with strategic analysis, financial performance, and transaction recommendations. Use when preparing board decks, creating governance presentations, or summarizing strategic options.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add CaseMark/skills --skill preparing-board-materials --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Preparing Board Materials?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/casemark-preparing-board-materials)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: preparing-board-materials
language: en
description: Creates board presentation materials with strategic analysis, financial performance, and transaction recommendations. Use when preparing board decks, creating governance presentations, or summarizing strategic options.
tags:
- preparation
- investment-banking
metadata:
author: casemark
practice_areas:
- Investment Banking
- Mergers and Acquisitions
- Corporate Finance
document_types:
- Preparation Document
skill_modes:
- Preparation
---
# Preparing Board Materials
## When To Use
- Preparing a board deck for a strategic alternatives review, M&A transaction approval, or capital markets decision
- Creating quarterly or special-meeting presentations summarizing financial performance and outlook
- Assembling materials for a board vote on a specific transaction (sale, acquisition, financing, dividend, buyback)
- Drafting governance-focused presentations on committee updates, risk oversight, or management succession
- Building a fairness opinion summary or banker recommendation slide set for director review
## Inputs To Gather
- **Meeting context**: Type of board meeting (regular quarterly, special session, committee), date, attendees, and agenda items
- **Company financials**: Recent income statement, balance sheet, cash flow statement; budget vs. actuals; LTM and NTM projections
- **Transaction details** (if applicable): Deal structure, valuation range, key terms, counterparty information, timeline, and conditions
- **Market data**: Comparable company trading multiples, precedent transaction multiples, sector indices, relevant benchmarks
- **Strategic alternatives considered**: Options evaluated (status quo, sale, merger, recapitalization, IPO) with pros/cons for each
- **Prior board materials**: Previous deck for continuity of format, numbering, and narrative arc
- **Confidentiality designation**: Project code name, distribution restrictions, and watermark requirements
- **Fairness opinion or valuation work**: DCF, LBO, sum-of-parts, or other analyses supporting the recommendation
## Workflow
1. **Confirm scope and format**
- Identify the specific board action required (informational update, resolution to approve, advisory vote)
- Determine page/slide count target and whether the format is a slide deck, memo, or hybrid
- Confirm whether a fairness opinion summary, management presentation, or both are needed
2. **Structure the deck**
- **Cover slide**: Project code name, "Confidential — Board of Directors," date, bank/advisor logo
- **Executive summary**: 1–2 slides with situation overview, recommendation, and key decision points
- **Strategic context**: Market landscape, competitive positioning, rationale for exploring alternatives
- **Financial overview**: Historical performance (3–5 years), projections, key KPIs (revenue growth, EBITDA margin, leverage)
- **Valuation analysis**: Summary of DCF, comparable companies, precedent transactions — present as football field or waterfall chart
- **Transaction overview** (if applicable): Structure, pricing, key terms, synergies, pro forma impact
- **Strategic alternatives comparison**: Matrix or side-by-side of options with financial and strategic scoring
- **Risk factors**: Execution risk, regulatory/antitrust, financing contingencies, market timing
- **Recommended next steps**: Timeline, required approvals, open items
- **Appendix**: Detailed financial models, backup schedules, sensitivity tables, disclaimers
3. **Draft content slide by slide**
- Use concise bullet points — directors scan, not read; aim for 5–7 bullets per slide maximum
- Present all dollar figures consistently (millions vs. billions, rounded) with clear period labels
- Label every chart and table with source and date; mark projections as "Management Estimates" or "Consensus"
- Flag any figures not yet confirmed with [VERIFY]
- Use neutral, balanced language when presenting alternatives — avoid advocacy before the recommendation slide
4. **Build the recommendation section**
- State the recommended course of action clearly and the specific board resolution language needed
- Summarize the basis for the recommendation (valuation support, strategic fit, shareholder value creation)
- Address likely director questions: "Why now?", "Why this counterparty?", "What if we wait?"
- If a fairness opinion is involved, include a summary of the opinion basis and key assumptions
5. **Review and finalize**
- Cross-check all financial figures against source models — verify totals, percentages, and period labels
- Ensure consistent formatting: fonts, colors, decimal places, chart styles across all slides
- Confirm all pages carry the confidentiality legend and project code name
- Verify the deck tells a coherent narrative from executive summary through recommendation
## Output
A board presentation package containing:
- **Slide deck** (typically 20–40 slides) with executive summary, strategic context, financials, valuation, transaction details, alternatives analysis, risk factors, and recommendation
- **Appendix** with detailed backup: sensitivity analyses, full comparable/precedent tables, pro forma financial statements
- **Board resolution language** (draft) if a specific approval is being sought
- All pages marked confidential with appropriate project code name and distribution restrictions
## Quality Checks
- [ ] Every financial figure ties to the source model or filing — no orphaned numbers
- [ ] Valuation ranges are internally consistent (DCF, comps, and precedents don't contradict without explanation)
- [ ] Projections are clearly labeled with source (management case, street consensus, bank case)
- [ ] Recommendation is supported by the analysis presented — no logical gaps
- [ ] Confidentiality markings appear on every page; project code name used throughout (no real names if code-named)
- [ ] Formatting is uniform: consistent fonts, number formatting, chart color scheme, slide layout
- [ ] [VERIFY] tags remain on any data points not confirmed against primary sources
- [ ] Deck reads as a standalone document — a director who missed the pre-read can follow the narrative
- [ ] No stale data from prior versions left in slides or appendix
- [ ] Regulatory and antitrust risk factors reflect current [VERIFY] jurisdiction-specific filing thresholds and timelines
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!