ASSESSMENT GRADING – the four individual componenents will be graded as follows

 

CARDIFFSCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT: ASSIGNMENT FEEDBACK PROFORMA

 

STUDENT NAME:					PROGRAMME:
STUDENT NUMBER:					YEAR: 3		GROUP: NA
Module Number: HLT6005	Term: 1				Module Title: Corporate Finance
Tutors Responsible For Marking This Assignment: Raman Grewal
Module Leader: Raman Grewal
Assignment Due Date: 9 Jan 2020 – before 5 p.m.			Hand In Date:
ASSIGNMENT TITLE: Corporate Finance Course Work
SECTION A: SELF ASSESSMENT (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE STUDENT)
In relation to each of the set assessment criteria, please identify the areas in which you feel you have strengths and those in which you need to improve.  Provide evidence to support your self-assessment with reference to the content of your assignment.
STRENGTHS				AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
I certify that this assignment is a result of my own work and that all sources have been acknowledged:   Signed:____________________________________  Date___________________
SECTION B: TUTOR FEEDBACK (based on assignment criteria, key skills and where appropriate, reference to professional standards)
STRENGTHS				AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND TARGETS FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS
MARK/GRADE AWARDED		DATE:				SIGNED
It is anticipated that marked coursework with feedback will be available to candidates 20 working days after submission. Notice of availability will be posted on Moodle.

 

 

 

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

YSGOL REOLI CAERDYDD

 

 

 

Assignment/coursework general submission requirements

 

Written work

 

• Your student identification number must be clearly stated at the top of each page of your work.

 

• Each page must be numbered.

 

• Please use a minimum font size of 12.

 

• Where appropriate, a contents page, a list of tables/figures and a list of abbreviations should precede your work.

 

• All referencing must adhere to School/Institutional requirements.

 

• 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.

 

 

 

Learning Outcomes

 

1. Evaluate the different sources of long-term finance and analyse their impact on capital structure and evaluate the theories of capital value

 

2. Evaluate current Corporate Governance regulations and evaluate dividend policy

 

3. Evaluatating risk, adjusting for risk and the management of risk and the risk culture including appraisal of foreign exchange risk in international operations.
   You are required to select a company listed in the FTSE 250 and obtain its annual reports (after seeking prior permission from the Module Leader to research the selected company). Ensure your company will enable you to meet all of the criteria given below.

 

Using your chosen company you are required to:-

1. Explain the key sources of long-term finance used by the company and evaluate the suitability of the company’s choice on its financial gearing

(10 marks)

2. Analyse the impact of the long-term sources of finance using relevant theories on capital structure

(30 marks)

3. Critically evaluate the company’s dividend policy and examine the link between its dividend policy and corporate governance

(30 marks)

4. Discuss the company’s risk exposure and the companies strategy to manage business risk. Critically evaluate the suitability of your chosen organisations risks management strategy.

(25 marks)

 

Your assessment must be in the report format. An appropriate report format will contribute 5 marks.

(5 marks)

 

 

Your work should include:-

• information extracted from the latest annual report
• relevant ratios to justify your analysis, in particular reference to financial gearing and dividend policy

 

In view of the ‘real-life’ nature of the assessment, you are expected to research and reference media sources in addition to academic material.

 

Please note, each student is expected to choose a unique company. Therefore, it is vital you obtain permission from your Module Leader to research ayou chosen company at the earliest opportunity.

 

The maximum word limit for this assessment is 2,500 words.

 

Your financial analysis workings should be included as an appendix, rather than part of your main body of work.

 

 

 

SUBMISSION DETAILS:

WRIT1 should be submitted via Turn-it-in (Moodle) by TBC XXXX.

 

WRIT1 contributes 70% to the overall module mark.

 

WRIT1 will assess the following learning outcomes:

 

1. Evaluate the different sources of long-term finance and analyse their impact on capital structure and evaluate the theories of capital value

 

2. Evaluate current Corporate Governance regulations and evaluate dividend policy

 

3. Management of risk and the risk culture including appraisal of foreign exchange risk in international operations.

 

 

In each case, it is suggested that you evaluate the policies of your company in the areas above from the viewpoint of shareholders’ interests and best practice.

 

 

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT GRADING – the four individual componenents will be graded as follows:-

 

%

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 the superior organisation 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 the 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                     The answer shows evidence of ability to maintain a personal position in original terms and shows a command of the accepted critical positions with some attempts at innovation.  It is lively and highly articulated, giving evidence of knowledge, enthusiasm and control.  There is demonstration of a clear understanding of the question and a grasp of the complexity of the issues involved, and there is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or theoretical issues involved, with few significant errors

50  –  59                     The answer shows evidence of an ability to defend on the basis of evidence and personal position in relation to an issue or aesthetic.  It shows evidence of evaluation of information and synthesis of generalisations from it.  There is clear evidence of selection of appropriate material, logical structure and clear argument.  The answer demonstrates an understanding of the major or basic issues in the question, and there is a basis of factual knowledge and/or relevant theoretical issues.

40  –  49                     The answer demonstrates an understanding of the major or basic issues in the question.  There is evidence of a satisfactory level of analysis and judgement including a statement of criteria.  Evidence of selection of appropriate material, logical structure and clear argument are also present.  The overall framework is sensible and accurate.

30  –  39                     Significant errors may be present.  The answer is less well planned compared to above, or poorly planned, with a little clear train of thought or development of the argument.  There is some evidence of ability to collate information and construct generalisations, but with a limited comment on the weighting of evidence or opinion.

20  –  29                     The answer may meander around the general area of the question, but with very little convenience or structure.  There is no evidence of criticism, synthesis or evaluation.

10  –  19                     Some notes relevant to the question, but without coherence.

 

1  –  9                          Notes of little relevance to the question or only an introductory paragraph and one or two scattered thoughts