Assessment Task
This assessment requires students to produce an individual report analyzing the performance and operations of a company listed on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange within a selected sector.A list of companies is provided for students to select from.This assessment represents 50% of the total marks.
Module Assignment Information
FINM036 Written Assignment
The aim of this assignment is to test students’ knowledge and understanding of key accounting, corporate finance concepts, theories and tools that can be used to critically analyse organisations. It will also test the ability to present non-financial information
Required:
You have been asked to write a report to the board of directors of one of the selected companies below as part of the interview process for your first appointment as a Finance Director of a company listed on AIM (which is the Alternative Investment Market for small companies) within the London Stock Exchange (LSE). The board of directors have asked you to write a report about your vision and strategic financial goals for the company.
The companies are within a selected sector of the AIM. Assume that your selected company has ambitions and plans to become a FTSE 100 (the largest UK listed companies) company in the near future.
Guide:
You need to introduce the company, discuss the product or services, location, turnover, number of employees, etc. The report should be maximum 2,500 words (+/- 10%). Remember you need to make an impression on the board of directors for you to be considered for the critical post of Finance Director.
The essence of this assignment is to test your knowledge and understanding of key accounting and corporate governance concepts, theories and tools and ability to present data in a concise manner.
Required:
You have been asked to write a report to the board of directors of one of the selected companies below as part of the interview process for your first appointment as a Finance Director of a AIM company. The board of directors have asked you to write a report about your vision and strategic financial goals for the company.
The companies are within the AIM index. Assume that your selected company wants to become a FTSE 100 (the largest UK listed companies) company in the near future.
Additional Guidance
You need to introduce the company, discuss the product or services, location, turnover, number of employees, the contribution of the sector to the UK economy. To analyse, you need to compare the financial data / ratios of your selected company with either a competitor within the sector or the average of the sector. The report should be maximum 2,500 words. Remember you need to make an impression on the board of directors for you to be considered for the critical post of Finance Director.
Please note that you must select a company from the list below for 2019/20
List of companies to select from for 2019/2020
Section A- 2000 words.
- Analyse the performance of your chosen company using relevant financial and non-financial ratios (5 years). Your analysis should include profit ratios, efficiency, liquidity and other ratios that you consider relevant.
Section B 500 words
- Critically evaluate the company’s corporate governance compliance and its impact on the brand and reputation as reported in the press (print, online and social media)
- Discuss the proposed medium term financial strategies for your selected company to become a FTSE100 company or for your company to become dominant in the industry / sector.
Please note:
If
you select a company outside of the list above, you will
automatically fail this part of the assignment, unless you get a
prior written approval from your tutor.
You can use www.northcote.co.uk, pro-share and the FT to identify companies within their sectoral classifications. It is essential that all sources of information are correctly referenced using the Harvard system.
Word Limits
The word limit for this assignment is 2500 words (+/- 10%)
Where the submission exceeds the stipulated word limit by more than 10%, the submission will only be marked up to and including the additional 10%. Anything over this will not be included in the final grade for the assessment item. Abstracts, bibliographies, reference lists, appendices and footnotes are excluded from any word limit requirements.
Where a submission is notably under the word limit, the full submission will be marked on the extent to which the requirements of the assessment brief have been met.
Assessment Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes to be addressed through this assignment are:
(a) Demonstrate a critical understanding of the nature and role of the finance professional and how financial control processes impact on the organisation and its stakeholders.
(b) Critically evaluate the impact of the external context on the financial domain, both domestically and internationally.
(c) Identify, critically appraise and analyse the content, relevance and use of key financial accounting information and techniques, both within organisations and by reference to relevant research.
(d) Demonstrate the ability to evaluate critically and communicate effectively the financial performance of an organisation by reference to internal or published financial information.
Assessment Grading Criteria
The marking criteria
| Criteria | Exceptional 70-100% A- to A+ |
| Good C- to C+ | Pass D- to D+ | Fail F- to F+ |
| Introduction, presentation and refereeing of the report 10% | 7-10 Exceptional report. The introduction is exemplary and provides evidence of a complete understanding of the company’s activities. The industry and the company analysed are outline and justified clearly. The significance of the industry and comparative report is presented clearly. There is clear evidence of originality and ability to justify the research effort. Compelling evidence of research. |
| 6 -6 points Good: The introduction is relevant and illustrates an attempt to address the assessment requirements. The industry and company are described in detail. The rationale and comparative data is limited. Good rationale, but lacks the details expected to score top marks probably due to general unsupported statements or grammatical / spelling mistakes. | 5 to 5 points Satisfactory: The introduction shows some correlation with the project requirements. There is irrelevant information. The rationale and objectives are not vague. Generally descriptive. There is very limited evidence of research. | 1 to 4 points Fail. The introduction is descriptive and irrelevant. The work lacks clear justification of the report purpose. Industry and company choice are not justified. Limited support for the information given. The student selected a company not on the list without approval |
| Application of the theories underpinning the report 20% |
16to
20 points
Exceptional.
A clear demonstration of complete grasp of knowledge of the key
factors that drive performance in the chosen company and the
industry in general. Critical relevant theories are identified
such as the application of PESTEL or any other competition or
management theories to support your argument must apply and
critically appraise the theories. Industry examples and
published literature are used to develop a logical case on the
relevance of the sector, its importance and some key financial
indicators such as the GDP contribution of the sector or
contribution to the country’s economy over the past five
years.
Theories such as the SWOT analysis (strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) within the sector or PEST analysis (Political, economical, social and technological) impact of the industry or sector |
| 13 to 15 points Good: The analysis demonstrates adequate knowledge of a fair range of the factors that affect company performance. There is intermittent evidence of an appreciation of the significance of the factors to the industry being analysed. Critical success factors are outlined. Some examples and limited literature are used. Contributions of the sector to the county’s economy may be missing | 10 to 12 points Satisfactory: The analysis is largely descriptive and narrative with little evidence of analysis. There is no clear evaluation of how the identified factors affect the selected company. Critical success factors are vague. Limited evidence of research. Lack of concrete supporting evidence | 1 to 9 points Fail: The analysis is not linked to the company. The analysis is descriptive and generally irrelevant to the company. Critical success factors are not clear or missing. No relevant examples are presented. Little evidence of research The student selected a company not on the list without approval. |
| Depth of research including the use of appropriate ratios / explained 30% | 22 to 30 points Exceptional. The selected financial ratios are clearly justified within the context of the industry being analysed. Selected financial ratios for the past five years are shown and clearly presented and labelled in appendices. Comparison to the competitors financial and non financial data or the sector figures. The use of examples and published literature to justify choice of ratios is compelling. The interpretation of financial ratios and their importance demonstrates complete grasp of knowledge. Relevant examples and references used in discussion |
| 18 to 21 points Good: Financial ratios are selected and outlined clearly. Most of the financial ratios for the past five years are presented in appendices. The interpretation and justification of financial ratios lack consistency. There is intermittent evidence of an understanding of the significance of the financial ratios. Some examples and references are used in discussion. | 15 to 17 points Satisfactory: Financial ratios are stated but not clearly justified. Incomplete financial ratios for the past five years are presented in appendices. A basic argument is evident but lacks clarity and coherence. Limited examples and references used in discussion | 1 to 14 points Fail: Financial ratios are defined and described with no justification. Financial ratios for the past five years are incomplete or missing. Insufficient evidence of knowledge and research. No examples and lack of cited published work. The student selected a company not on the list without approval |
| Formulation of an effective summary of key issues and potential actions/ changes 30% |
22
to 30 points
Exceptional.
The report summarises the key elements and brings out the
compelling reasons why potential investors and other
stakeholders should be keen to invest in the company.
The strategic direction of the company and key advice on competitor’s analysis and the future of the company when compared to other sectors within the economy. The main CG rules and the analysis of the company’s compliance with corporate governance rules such as rules on diversity, effectiveness, control, directors’ attendance at board meetings The arguments are logical and backed up with supporting evidenced that are within the report. Exceptional comparisons with competitors and advantages are enumerated and clearly stated including plan for future financial strategy for the company |
|
18
to 21 points
Good:
A good attempt to construct a coherent and logical discussion of
the relevant issues. The report shows some relevance and
justification but does not give details on corporate governance
compliance by the selected company
There is a lack of focus and consistency in the discussion. There is tendency to narrate and lacks analysis. Some examples and limited literature are used. |
15
to 17 points
Satisfactory:
Basic understanding of the report is understood, but lacks
coherent and logical flow of the discussion. Some of the
analysis are not customised to the selected company or
comparison made to the industry.
Very descriptive outline of company. Limited analysis with no links to industry. No or limited CG compliance issue |
1
to 14 points
Fail.
Intermittent and vague description of the report requirements
and their impact on the industry. The writing rarely goes beyond
simplifying paraphrase on the essential elements of the
requirements of the report without adequate justification or any
convincing demonstration of essence of the report
No discussion of CG rules or application of the rules to the selected company |
| Conclusion 10% |
7
to 10 points
Excellent.
The conclusion is a summative review of the report. The
evaluation is compelling, interpretation is accurate and the
discourse is clear. Citation and referencing is accurate,
up-to-date and well presented.
Justification
for appointment into the FD role
|
|
6
to 6 points
Good:.
The conclusion is a good review of the report. The discussion is
clear and orderly. Citation and referencing is clear throughout.
No details on the justification for the post
|
5
to 5 points
Satisfactory:
The conclusion is descriptive and lacks analysis and critical
evaluation. Citation and referencing is good in some parts.
Lacks the reason for the appointment as FD
|
1
to 4 points
Fail:
The conclusion show a lack of understanding of the report
requirement and material presented in the document. Conclusion
has some information that is irrelevant to the report. Citation
and referencing is incorrect / missing in most parts
|
Generic Grading Criteria for Level 7
See grading criteria below
Assessment Support/Feedforward
Please look out for announcement on NILE on additional support to help with your work. We are unable to provide individual review of the draft of your work
Assessment Submission
To submit, please go to the ‘Submit your work’ area on the NILE site and use the XXXX submission point to upload your work. The deadline for this is 11.59pm (UK local time) on the date of submission.
The work will be subject to Turnitin anti-plagiarism detection software. Turnitin checks student work for possible textual matches against internet available resources and its own proprietary database.
N.B Work emailed directly to your tutor will not be marked.
Late submission of work
Use either:
If an item of assessment is submitted late and an extension has not been granted, the following will apply:
- Within one week of the original deadline – work will be marked and returned with full feedback, and awarded a maximum bare pass grade of C-.
- More than one week from original deadline – maximum grade achievable LG (L indicating late).
Or, if a resit
Any work submitted late will be awarded a LG grade.
Extensions
Use either:
The University of Northampton’s general policy with regard to extensions is to be supportive of students who have genuine difficulties, but not against pressures of work that could have reasonably been anticipated. Please refer to Appendix I of the Post Graduate Handbook for advice on extensions.
Or, if a resit
There are NO extensions for resits
Feedback and Grades
Your grade and overall summary feedback will be available in Grade Centre. Please also click through to Turnitin for within text comments.
Academic Practice and Integrity
This is an individualassignment.
The University of Northampton policy will apply in all cases of copying, plagiarism or any other methods by which students have obtained (or attempted to obtain) an unfair advantage. Support and guidance on assessments and academic integrity can be found on: SkillsHub:
Home. If a case of academic misconduct is suspected the tutor will apply a ZZ grade in NILE.
Mitigating Circumstances
For guidance on Mitigating circumstances please go to https://www.northampton.ac.uk/about-us/governance-and-management/university-policies-procedures-and-regulations/ where under Student Issues you will find detailed guidance on the policy as well as guidance and the form for making an application.
Please note, however, that an application to defer an assessment on the grounds of mitigating circumstances should normally be made in advance of the submission deadline or examination date.
GENERIC GRADE CRITERIA
These are the criteria required to achieve each classification at:
Level 7
| An outstanding Distinction |
A+
| Work which fulfils all the criteria of the grade below, but at an exceptional standard |
| A very strong Distinction |
A
|
Work
of distinguished
quality which is evidenced by an authoritative comprehensive,
detailed and systematic knowledge base and understanding for
specialised area of study. A key feature will be the ability to
work with creativity and originality using knowledge and insights
at the forefront of the area of study. There will be a confident
grasp of disciplinary methodologies for the discipline/area of
study which will be consistently reflected in both own research
and advanced scholarship, effectively integrating advanced skills
of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application on a firm
foundation of critical facility. Work will be characterised by
strong technical expertise to high professional standards, and
there will be sustained evidence of confident, autonomous
operation and judgment in complex and unpredictable professional
situations both in relation to working with others and in
relation to own functioning. Self-direction, creativity,
practical understanding will be combined to demonstrate the
qualities expected of an effective self critical independent
learner exercising excellent measured judgment, and will be a
consistent feature of work.
| |
|
| A clear Distinction |
A-
| Work of very good quality which displays most but not all of the criteria for the grade above. |
| An outstanding merit |
B+
| Work of highly commendable quality which clearly fulfils the criteria for the grade below, but shows a greater degree of capability in relevant advanced intellectual or specialised skills. | |
|
| A very strong Merit |
B
| Work of commendable quality demonstrating a detailed and systematic knowledge base and understanding in specialised areas, informed by critical awareness of current issues, research based/theoretical insights at the forefront of the area of study. This will be supplemented by a good comprehensive understanding of disciplinary methodologies relevant to own research or advanced scholarship, which will be reflected in work which integrates skills of advanced analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application with critical awareness. There will be some evidence of originality in application of skills/knowledge, underpinned by good technical expertise which permits confident, autonomous operation in a range of complex and unpredictable professional situations. The ability to work autonomously, as a self critical independent learner exercising good and considered judgment, will be a consistent feature of work. |
| A Merit |
B-
| Work of good quality which contains most, but not all of the characteristics of the grade above. |
| An Outstanding Pass |
C+
|
Work
which clearly fulfils the criteria for the grade below, but shows
a greater degree of
capability in relevant
advanced intellectual or specialised skills.
|
| A Very Good Pass |
C
|
Work
of capable
quality which clearly demonstrates a systematic understanding of
knowledge in specialised areas and a critical awareness of
current issues, research based/theoretical knowledge at the
forefront of the area of study, together with a sound
understanding of methodologies applicable to own research or
advanced scholarship. There may be limitations to the
application of this knowledge and/or conceptual understanding of
advanced scholarship, but there will be evidence of critical
awareness in relation to analysis, synthesis, evaluation and
application. The ability to exercise initiative as an
independent and self critical learner in complex and
unpredictable professional contexts will be demonstrated, as will
threshold levels of technical expertise, although the scope of
expertise may be limited.
|
| A Pass |
C-
|
Work
of satisfactory quality which contains most, but not all of the
characteristics of the grade above.
|
| Fail |
F+
|
Work
which indicates some
evidence of a systematic, coherent and analytical engagement
with key aspects of the field of study, including familiarity
with current scholarship, and evidence of ability to utilise
specialised skills, but which also contains significant
limitations.
|
|
F
|
Work
that falls well short of
the threshold standards
in relation to one or more of knowledge, intellectual, subject
based or key skills at this level.
| |
|
F-
|
Work
of poor quality
which is based on only minimal understanding, application or
effort. It will offer only very limited evidence of familiarity
with knowledge or skills appropriate to the field of study at
this level.
| |
| AG | Work submitted but academic misconduct proven and penalty given was to award AG grade | |
|
| LG | Work submitted but given an LG grade due to late submission |
|
| NG | Work submitted but work comprises no value |
|
| G | Nothing presented |
The post MODULE NAME: Financial Decision Making appeared first on My Assignment Online.