Submission details:
- The deadline for submission into registry is on the Hand in Date shown on the Feedback sheet (1st Page)
- Students are to submit via Moodle before due date
- Students must submit before due date. Any assessments brought after will not be accepted
- THE UNIVERSITY’S REGULATIONS CONCERNING CHEATING, COLLUSION AND PLAGIARISM APPLY TO THIS ASSESSMENT.
Key Skills: The key skills addressed through this assessment are logical reasoning, analysis, evaluating, synthesis, learning and study, structure and consistency.
Harvard Referencing: Complete reference list which MUST conform to the Harvard System of Referencing must be included at the end of your assignment and in text citations where appropriate.
Learning Outcome
- Calculate, as demonstrated in lectures and seminars, and interpret investment ratios and other performance measures to facilitate the valuation of shares/businesses in the context of mergers and acquisitions.
- Evaluate competing theories relating to capital gearing and dividend policy and their impact on the development of corporate policies.
Assessment Brief:
You are required to select a public limited company from the list below, conduct research and write a 3,000-word assignment addressing the following questions:
- Analyse the firm’s financial performance during the last three years. Identify the financial actions taken and policies adopted during these years, as far as you can tell from the available information. Investigate and discuss to what extent you think the company has been able to increase shareholders’ wealth through the financial actions you have identified. (30%)
- Critically evaluate important qualitative factors analysts should consider when evaluating a firm’s likely future financial performance. (20%)
- Critically evaluate the extent to which you agree with the statement that corporate governance helps ensure achievement and retention of shareholders’ wealth using your selected company. (20%)
- Carry out a valuation of the company following three valuation methods seen in class and compare it to the company’s market value (Stock price) (30%)
Substantiate your answer with appropriate theories or concepts, relevant supporting calculations and empirical evidence/examples.
Assignment/coursework general submission requirements:
- The coursework is due for submission at the reception.
- Your formulae, workings and ratios should be shown in your appendices, not in the main body of your work.
- Your student identification number must be clearly stated at the top of each page of your work.
- A declaration that the work is your own (apart from otherwise referenced acknowledgements) must be included after the title page of your assignment.
- Each page must be numbered.
- Please use a minimum font size of 14.
- Where appropriate, a contents page, a list of tables/figures and a list of abbreviations should precede your work.
- All referencing must follow Harvard referencing.
- A word count must be stated at the end of your work.
- Your course, year of study and the relevant module must be included as a “footer” on each page.
- Appendices should be kept to the minimum and be of direct relevance to the content of your work.
- All tables and figures must be correctly numbered and labelled.
- Your assignment/coursework should be submitted in one A4 transparent pocket.
- Standard assessment regulations apply. You must reference your work as required by Cardiff Metropolitan University regulations and must include a bibliography.
Assessment Marking Criteria
Identification and application of relevant theories/concepts
Use of supporting evidence/workings
Clarity of critical analysis
Structure and presentation
Marking Scheme
Marking of this coursework would be based on the extent to which the following criteria are met.
Assessment criteria
Identification and application of relevant theories/concepts
Use of literature/ evidence of reading
Coherence and clarity of analysis
Structure and presentation
Answers should provide an examination of the key aspects of financial health such as profitability, efficiency, liquidity, financial gearing, and investment, and investigate possible linkages between the firm’s financial actions and shareholders’ wealth.
A more critical discussion by incorporating relevant theories/concepts on potential caveats of financial ratio analysis such as benchmarking, inflation, meaningful set of industry norms, seasonal factors, window dressing techniques, differences in accounting practices, effective use of financial statements, etc would be expected in better answers.
Answers should recognize that sound financial analysis involves more than just calculating numbers and that good analysis requires that certain qualitative factors be considered when evaluating a company. Such factors include whether the company’s revenues are tied to one key customer, the percentage of the company’s business that is generated overseas, the extent to which the company’s revenues are tied to one key product, the likely actions of the current competition and the likelihood of new competitors in the future, the extent to which the company relies on a single supplier, and how the legal and regulatory environment affects the company.
As regards the corporate governance and shareholders’ wealth, answers would be expected to discuss by applying theories relating to capital gearing & dividend policy and their impact on the development of corporate policies and shareholders’ wealth. Answers should be substantiated with appropriate theories or concepts, supporting calculations and empirical evidence/examples wherever relevant.
Marking Scheme
90 – 100 A quite exceptional and outstanding answer, providing insights which would not be available publicly, and would, with some editing, be publishable. In addition to the features of the next section, this range is distinguished by superior organization, economic use of language and totally comprehensive, given the conditions of the exercise.
80 – 89 An answer which demonstrates an excellent understanding of the question and of the complexity of the issues involved. There is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or the theoretical issues involved. Most of the important issues are dealt with in a detailed, specific and systematic way. There is either some measure of original thinking in the answer or an accurate and comprehensive account is given in a way which demonstrates understanding, for example by structuring the material such that it could not have been based just on reproduction of lecture notes and programme material. Evidence of creativity, critical approach, and wide reading beyond the core subject matter.
70 – 79 As above but a slightly less consistently excellent level. Alternatively, this range of mark may be given for an answer which, while not having original insights, gives comprehensive and accurate coverage of the issues at a high level throughout the answer, without significant omissions or errors.
60 – 69 An answer which demonstrates a clear understanding of the question and grasp of the complexity of the issues involved. There is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or of theoretical issues involved, with few significant errors. The issues involved are dealt with in a systematic way. Some of the issues may be limited in critical approach, but organized to display a comprehensive understanding and factual information essentially complete.
50 – 59 An answer which demonstrates an understanding of the major or basic issues in the question. There is a basis of factual knowledge and/or of relevant theoretical issues. Although some errors may be present, the overall framework of the answer is sensible and accurate. Most of all the issues may be dealt with at the level of obviously available programme material given to the student. The answer shows planning in its construction, with a clear train of thought or development of argument present. Average competent performance, well presented, demonstrating understanding of most of the essential issues.
40 – 49 An answer which demonstrates a limited understanding of the major or basic issues in the question. There is some relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues, but it is patchy. A few significant errors may be present. The answer is not well planned, with little development of argument, and often much irrelevant material is present. Lacks clarity of expression.
The lower range (40-45) would include an answer where relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues is poor and confused, but not absent. Many significant errors may be present. The answer is poorly planned, with little clear train of thought or development of argument, and much of the answer may be irrelevant.
38 – 39 An answer which fails to demonstrate any appreciable understanding of the major issues or basic issues of the question. Relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues, if present at all, is very poor and confused and very limited. Many significant errors may be present. Much or all of the answer may be irrelevant. Poorly organized and very limited in scope.
30 – 37 Attempts an answer, but relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues is very poor and confused, and very limited with many significant errors.
10 – 29 Not clear that an answer is properly attempted. Only a few minor points made at all relevant to the answer and these may be superficial. Most material is irrelevant or incorrect.
1 – 9 An answer that is so short or irrelevant that only a few marks are justified. For example, one or two points may be made which show some peripheral awareness of certain possibly relevant issues.
