| Course | MGMT 8605M Financial Risk Management and Decision Making for Organizations |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Board memo |
| Length | About 580 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8605M Week 10
Memorandum
To: Chair of the Board and Audit Committee, Torrance Stamping Company
From: Chief Financial Officer
Date: October 20, 2026
Re: Resolutions on a steel cost limit and funding for a risk reporting function
The Two Resolutions
Management asks the board to adopt two resolutions at its November meeting. First, a limit: unrecovered steel cost, meaning steel cost increases not passed through to customers under contract, shall not exceed $2.5 million in any fiscal quarter without the board being informed within ten business days. Second, a budget line: $420,000 a year to fund a two-person risk function in the finance department that will measure and report unrecovered steel cost and other material exposures against limits the board sets.
The Exposure in One Sentence
Torrance Stamping, a composite supplier of steel brackets and stampings to vehicle manufacturers in Ohio and Michigan, buys about 140,000 tons of flat-rolled steel a year, and because about 35 percent of its customer contracts reprice steel only once a year, a sustained rise of $100 a ton in steel prices would leave about $4.9 million a year, roughly $1.2 million a quarter, unrecovered, as set out in management's September analysis, "Steel Cost Pass-Through and Margin Exposure, Fiscal 2027."
What the Evidence Shows, and How Strong It Is
Directors will reasonably ask whether a formal risk function adds value. The research gives a qualified answer. Hoyt and Liebenberg (2011), studying U.S. insurers, found that firms with enterprise risk management programs had higher market value, by roughly 20 percent on their measure. Two cautions apply. Their sample was insurers, whose business is managing risk, not manufacturers. And the finding is a correlation: better-run firms may both adopt risk programs and earn higher valuations. Beasley et al. (2005) found that adoption was more extensive where boards were more independent and chief executives and financial officers called for it, which suggests that adoption reflects governance as much as it causes results. Mikes and Kaplan (2015) argued from field research that risk management practice differs widely across firms and that no single design fits all, which is one reason this memo leaves design to management.
The memo does not claim the function will raise Torrance's value. It claims something narrower: the board currently receives no regular measure of unrecovered steel cost, and it cannot oversee an exposure it does not see.
What the Board Will Receive
If both resolutions pass, the board will receive a quarterly report beginning with the first fiscal quarter of 2027, delivered with the quarterly financial package. It will show unrecovered steel cost for the quarter against the limit, the steel price index used, the share of contracts repricing in the next two quarters, and any other exposure that management proposes for a board limit. The first report is due February 10, 2027.
Design Left With Management
The memo deliberately does not specify how the function will measure exposures, what systems it will use or whether Torrance should hedge steel through futures or contract changes. Those are management decisions, and the board's role is to set the limit and hold management to it. Management will bring any proposal to hedge or to change contract terms to the board separately.
Cost and Alternatives
The $420,000 covers two analysts and data subscriptions. The alternative, asking the controller's team to produce the report, was considered and rejected because the team's close calendar leaves no capacity in the weeks the report is due.
References
Beasley, M. S., Clune, R., & Hermanson, D. R. (2005). Enterprise risk management: An empirical analysis of factors associated with the extent of implementation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(6), 521-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.10.001
Hoyt, R. E., & Liebenberg, A. P. (2011). The value of enterprise risk management. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 78(4), 795-822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6975.2011.01413.x
Mikes, A., & Kaplan, R. S. (2015). When one size doesn't fit all: Evolving directions in the research and practice of enterprise risk management. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27(1), 37-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12102
The Walden MGMT 8605M Week 10 instructions
Week 10 asks for a memo to a board seeking approval of a limit and a budget, not a plan. State the resolutions in the first paragraph. Size the exposure in one sentence and cite the earlier analysis by title. Present evidence on whether a risk function adds value, and be explicit about its strength, including sample and design limits. Tell the board exactly what it will receive and when. Leave the design of the response to management and say so. Three pages under a memo header addressed to the board chair and the relevant committee is typical, with a short note on cost and alternatives. Cite the earlier analysis by its exact title.
How this MGMT 8605M Week 10 example is built
The sample opens with two resolutions, the steel cost limit and the risk function budget. A one-sentence exposure statement gives tonnage, the share of contracts repricing annually and the unrecovered cost per $100 rise, citing management's September analysis. The evidence section reports the insurer study's valuation premium, its sample and its correlational design, then adds findings on what drives adoption and on the diversity of practice. A section lists the contents of the quarterly report and its first due date. A section explains that design and hedging choices remain with management. A final section gives the budget's components and the rejected alternative. Margin notes flag the limits of each study.
Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8605M Week 10 rubric
Keeping the board's role narrow and stating evidence strength honestly carry the grade. Memos that ask the board to approve a detailed program, or that cite research as proof of value, score low. Graders look for resolutions stated first, a one-sentence exposure figure tied to a source, evidence presented with its limits and a clear description of what the board will receive. Leaving design to management, and saying so, shows understanding of governance roles. Arithmetic in the exposure sentence is checked. Memo format, brevity and correct citations complete the Week 10 marks. Overstating what the research proves is the most common weakness. A first report date makes the commitment concrete.
MGMT 8605M Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often write board memos that try to do management's job. Limit yourself to what the board must decide: a limit and a budget. Size the exposure in one sentence a director can repeat. When citing research, state the sample and whether it shows cause or correlation. List exactly what reports the board will see and when. Say plainly that design belongs to management. Keep it to three pages. A tutor can help you trim the evidence section, and the steel cost memo above stays inside three pages. Directors read the first paragraph most closely. Ask a colleague outside finance whether the exposure sentence is clear on first reading.
Get a MGMT 8605M Week 10 example written to your instructions
Along with the Week 10 prompt and rubric, send the analysis from earlier weeks that the memo summarizes, and say whether the audience is a full board or a committee; a finished memo returns in 24 to 48 hours at no charge the first time. Actual board papers from a workplace belong there, not in a request.
More MGMT 8605M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8605M Week 1: Discussion Post
- MGMT 8605M Week 2: Exposure Inventory
- MGMT 8605M Week 3: Risk Register Entry
- MGMT 8605M Week 4: Assumptions Note
- MGMT 8605M Week 5: Scenario Analysis
- MGMT 8605M Week 6: Sensitivity Write-Up
- MGMT 8605M Week 7: Peer Replies
- MGMT 8605M Week 8: Decision Brief
- MGMT 8605M Week 9: Tolerance Statement
- MGMT 8605M Week 11: Final Risk Paper
- MGMT 8525M Week 10: Decision Brief
- MGMT 8425M Week 10: Adaptation Limits Paper
MGMT 8605M Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8605M Week 10 sample paper?
The Week 10 sample is the steel cost board memo printed above.
What resolutions does the MGMT 8605M Week 10 memo seek?
A quarterly limit on unrecovered steel cost and funding for a two-person risk reporting function.
How large is the steel exposure?
About $4.9 million a year unrecovered for each sustained $100 a ton rise in steel prices.
How does the memo treat the evidence on enterprise risk management?
It cites a roughly 20 percent value premium among insurers but notes the sample and the correlational design.
Why does the memo leave design to management?
The board's role is to set limits and fund oversight, while management decides how to measure and respond.