Creates board presentation materials with strategic analysis, financial performance, and transaction recommendations. Use when preparing board decks, creating governance presentations, or summarizing strategic options.
Installs 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 with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/casemark-preparing-board-materials)
---
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