Case Study Based Project

Assignment Brief

Module Code and Title: FIN7A1
Corporate Finance

Assignment Number & Title:

Assessment 1, 50% of TMM, Group Assignment Project

Assessment Type: Group Case Study Based Project

Weighting of assessment (%TMM) :50%

Assessment Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion of this assessment the students will be able to:

A2: Demonstrate a command of relevant investment analysis, corporate finance and risk management techniques and methodologies applicable to problem solving, evaluation and strategy formulation in the global financial, trading and investment context.

A3: Provide a comprehensive understanding of the interaction of finance, economics and technology with the trading and investment sectors.

A5: Critically evaluate markets and organisations’ financial positions, carry out the risk assessment process and develop an investment decision making strategy that acknowledges ethical and diversity dilemmas of financial markets.

Module Leader: Nikos Nitsas

Internal Reviewer:

 External Examiner:

Submission Details

Submission Deadline: Week 13 28/12/2020 23.59 via Blackboard

Release of Feedback: 15/01/2021

 

Completing Your Assignment

What am I required to do in this assignment?

You are an equity investment analyst in a major investment bank in the city of London. As part of your job at the bank, you regularly carry out financial and operational performance analysis of companies listed on the London and Global Stock.

Requirements

Carry out a detailed analysis on two listed companies operating in the same sector/industry. The companies should be publicly traded and have at least a couple of years of trading history and two sets of annual financial statements. The companies can be listed in any market. The period of analysis should be for the last few years. Try to avoid a)Financial service firms (banks, insurance companies,investment banks) b) Money losing companies c) Companies with large capital arms (GE and the auto companies) d) Real estate investment trusts

Your report should include

I.                     Corporate Governance Analysis

Is there a separation between management and ownership within your chosen companies? If so, how responsive is management to stockholders? What are the other potential conflicts of interest that you see in those firms?

How do the firms interact with financial markets? How do markets get information on the firm?

How do the firms view their social obligations and manage their social image ?

II.                  Risk and Return ¨

What is the risk profile of your companies? How much overall risk is there in those firms? Where is this risk coming from (market, firm, industry or currency)? How is the risk profile changing? What return would you have earned investing in either company’s stock? Would you have under or outperformed the market? How much of the performance can be attributed to management? ¨ How risky is each company’s equity? What is its cost of equity? How risky is each company’s debt? What is its cost of debt? What is each company’s current cost of capital?

III.                Measuring Investment Returns

Is there a typical project for either of your firms? If so, what does it look like in terms of life (long term or short term), investment needs and cash flow patterns?

How good are the projects that the companies have on their books currently?

Are the projects in the future likely to look like the projects in the past?

Is there a size limit? 3,000 words plus or minus 10%.

What do I need to do to pass?                               

You must demonstrate the ability to meet learning outcomes,

 Answer most the questions above correctly

You should show evidence that you have clear capacity to analyse the corporate finance decision and strategies of real companies

You must show evidence that you can apply theories and models in practice using real data You must demonstrate an ability to critically analyse financial data

Demonstrate ability to understand market conditions

Show clear evidence of deep understanding, analytical skills and engagement independent learning.

Even though the assignment or report may be the product of a group, each individual member of the group is responsible for a given specific element/task. This shows the accountability of each group member for the work delivered by the group. A mark will be given to each individual student for the element of the task that he/she has completed. The task selection for each student will be noted in advance.

How do I produce high quality work that merits a 70% or above grade?

You should follow closely the below mentioned requirements:

70%+ means: Overall excellent report, all aspects of brief addressed in full, insightful analysis and reflection throughout. Logical and insightful recommendations included which logically follow from the main body of the report.

 

How does assignment relate to what we are doing in the scheduled sessions?

The group project is based on corporate finance theory and models discussed throughout the semester. It follows in practice the scheduled sessions. This means, you will apply the taught methods and techniques every single week within the context of context of real market conditions. The process is scaffolded and each week you should incorporate the models and techniques that have been covered in the teaching and learning according to module outline. Hence, the projects follow 100% the learning outcomes and the teaching material.

How will I receive formative feedback for this assignment?

 In week 9 you will have to produce a draft with summary of the outcomes

Formative feedback is provided to all students on submission of the draft.

Marks and Feedback

Name:                                                                                                                                                       Student no.
How will my assignment be marked?
Criteria	%	1	2	3	4	5	mark
Task 1	25
Task 2	25
Task 3	25
Appropriate links with the literature and accurate referencing including a bibliography/reports of relevant issues	5
Appropriate presentation, structure and sequencing of context, including clear tables and charts where appropriate, accurate analysis, justification and interpretation of findings	5
Capacity of critical thinking and effective independent learning and use of required technology	15
Total	100

 

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations above and the marking criteria below. You can use them to evaluate your own work and estimate your grade before you submit.

Marking Criteria Table

FIN7C5 Investment and Portfolio Management (Assessment 2)

 

Note: 1 – Poor, 2 – Satisfactory, 3 – Good, 4 –Very good, 5- Excellent

 *Please refer to the following page for the detail description of each rating.

70%+ Excellent report, all aspects of brief addressed in full, insightful analysis and reflection throughout. Logical and insightful recommendations included which logically follow from the main body of the report.

60-69%: Very good report, most aspects of brief addressed in full, clear analysis and reflection throughout. A good level of insight demonstrated through the development of the recommendations which are clearly informed by the main body of the report.

50-59%: Generally, a good report, most aspects of brief addressed with evidence of analysis and reflection. Recommendations included which follow, but not always from the main body of the report.

45-49%: A marginally fail report, most aspects of brief addressed but with omissions. Evidence of limited analysis and reflection. 30-39%: Little evidence of reflection. Tasks are not adequately addressed with a largely descriptive approach adopted. Recommendations are underdeveloped, requiring further development.

44%: Very poor report with little of substance. Little evidence of reflection. Tasks are not adequately <addressed

Rating	% Mark Equivalent	Significance
Poor	44 or below	Fail
Satisfactory	45-49	Marginal Fail
Good	50-59	Satisfactory (Pass)
Very good	60-69	Good (Merit)
Excellent	70-100	Outstanding (Distinction)

 

Feedback:

Marking Criteria

Issue	80% -100%	70%-79%	Grade 60%-69%	50%-59%	40-49%	0-
Relevance to assignment brief	Assignment’s aims and themes are integral to the assignment.	Clear focus on the themes of the assignment.	Mainly focused on the themes of the assignment.	Some of the writing is focused on the themes of the assignment.	Not relevant attempt to address the themes of the assignment.	Makes no attempt to address the themes of the assignment.
Extent of evaluation	Evaluation within assignment rigorous and appropriate.	Good clear evidence of evaluation carried out within assignment.	Evaluation reasonably well carried out	Some attempt at evaluation within assignment.	Not relevant attempt at evaluation within assignment	No attempt at evaluation within assignment
Quality of reasoning	Analytical and clear conclusions well- grounded in theory and literature, showing development of new concepts.	Good development as shown in summary of arguments based on theory/literature and beginnings of synthesis	Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.	Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by the literature and theory.	Lack of substantiated/valid conclusion, based on anecdotes and generalisations only	Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusion, based on anecdotes and generalisations only.
Skill at facilitating discussion	Excellent enabling pacing and summarising of discussion.	Clear evidence of ability to stimulate, facilitate and summarise discussion	Some ability to stimulate and facilitate discussion or be directive.	Some ability to facilitate discussion but tendency to miss opportunities.	Limited ability to stimulate/ facilitate discussion.	Inability to stimulate/ facilitate discussion.
Clarity and quality of written expression	Clarity of expression excellent. Consistently accurate use of grammar and spelling professional/academic writing style	Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Grammar and spelling accurate with fluent fluent.	Language mainly fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate and language fluent	Meaning apparent but.... language not always fluent, grammar and spelling still poor	Purpose and meaning of assignment unclear. Language, grammar and spelling weak.	Purpose and meaning of assignment unclear. Language, grammar and spelling poor.
Understanding of subject	Work shows a well-coordinated, grounded and reasoned understanding of topic and its relevance to practice	Consistent understanding demonstrated in a logical, coherent and lucid manner.	Demonstrates understanding in a style which is logical, coherent and flowing.	Attempts a logical and coherent understanding of the subject area.	Marginal fail to demonstrate understanding of the subject/topic area.	Fails to demonstrate understanding of the subject/topic area.
Referencing	Referencing clear, relevant and consistently accurate using the Harvard system.	Referencing relevant and mostly accurate using the Harvard system.	Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing using the Harvard system.	Referencing present but had inconsistencies and inaccuracies.	Referencing inaccurate	Wrong or absent.
Use of literature	Has developed own ideas and justified using a wide range of sources of theories and literature which has been thoroughly analysed, applied and tested	Ability to appraise critically the theory and literature from a variety of courses, developing own ideas in the process	Clear evidence and application of readings relevant to the subject within the text.	Evidence of reading around the subject.	Little evidence of some limited reading around the subject	No Evidence of reading around the subject

 

Regent’s University Generic Descriptors

Band	Conversion scale for PG Programmes	Generic descriptors
8	90 – 100	All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an exceptionally high standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment task is presentable in a professional context and may extend practical or theoretical knowledge in the field. It displays an exceptionally high level of understanding, evaluation, insight, analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the task set. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an exceptionally high standard.
7	80 – 89	All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an outstanding standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an outstanding display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight, analysis, reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study). Connections are developed both within and beyond the task set. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an outstanding standard.
6	70 – 79	All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to high standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an excellent display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight analysis, reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the task set. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to an excellent standard.
5	60 – 69	All learning outcomes have been achieved at a good and some to a very good standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a very good level of understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, reflection, criticality, some insight and/or very good research (according to the level of study), and connections are established within the task set, and in some cases reaching beyond. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to a very good standard.
4	55 – 59	Most learning outcomes have been met at a good standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a good understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, and some reflection, criticality and/or appropriate research. (According to the level of study) The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be appropriately developed.
3	50 – 54	All learning outcomes have been met to a minimum satisfactory standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment shows an adequate understanding, of major ideas, with little insight and basic research. Limited level of analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study). The outcome of the task shows ability to paraphrase concepts and theories, with limited ability to make connections. The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate.
2	36 – 49	Most learning outcomes have almost been met, whilst the rest have not (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment shows a limited understanding of major ideas, with little insight, very basic research, and very limited ability to make connections. No analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study) The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate
1	21 – 35	The majority of the learning outcomes have not been met (according to the Level). The outcome of the assessment task is incomplete, flawed, very limited and/or presents significant inaccuracies. The outcome of the assessment shows very limited understanding with no insight, and very limited ability to make connections within basic ideas in the field, very fragmented. Lacks research. No analysis, reflection or criticality (according to the level of study) The work is disorganised, and unstructured. Presentation is barely adequate
0	0 - 20	None of the learning outcomes have been met. The task has not been addressed by the student, or there is no assessable task.  The outcome of the assessment shows no understanding of basic ideas, with no insight and shows no ability to make connections within basic ideas in the field, or the connections are completely irrelevant. Lacks research. No understanding, analysis, reflection nor criticality.  The work completely lacks organisation and structure. Presentation is completely inadequate.