Recent Question/Assignment

London School of Commerce Malta
MODULE TITLE: Financial Analysis Management & Enterprise - FAME
PROGRAMME: MBA – Full Time
MODULE PERIOD: ????????????? 2019
GROUPS: ???????
Lecturer setting the Assessment: Stephen Fenech – stephenfenech71@gmail.com
DEADLINE FOR THE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED:
???
SUBMISSION METHOD/MODE:
Online via turnitin,
ASSESSMENT TYPE: 3000 Words Assignment Report
1. Your question is in 3 parts, as follows:
In your capacity as a financial advisor you have been approached by a large Asian food manufacturer to identify a possible client for their food products to initiate their export market. The management of the Asian food manufacturer has already initiated negotiations with two major supermarkets namely Sainsbury’s and Tesco about the possibility of supplying them with their products. Your task is to analyse the financial performance of these two chains and recommend which one looks to be the most prospective client of the Asian food manufacturer by looking into their financial position.
Guidelines:
Critically compare and contrast the financial performance of the two companies over the last FOUR years, (2015/6 – 2018/9), and write a report to the board of directors of the Asian food manufacturer with your findings and recommendations.
The report should include:
1. A detailed vertical, horizontal and ratio analysis of the financial statements of the two companies (https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/investors/results-reports-and-presentations and https://www.tescoplc.com/investors/reports-results-and-presentations/annual-report-2019/)
2. Outline the importance of analysing the working capital of both companies prior to making a decision. This report should include well referenced material to support the argument.
3. Finally the report should also include a critical analysis of the annual cash flow statements of both companies over the last two years. The findings should assist in the decision making process. This report should include well referenced material to support the argument.
2. Presentation
• Your reports and briefing paper should be clearly and logically structured in whatever format appears to be the most suitable for supporting the analysis, arguments, conclusions and recommendations. Locate the ratio calculations in an appendix and only present the actual ratios in the body of the report.
• Key points of the comparative analysis may be summarised as a bulleted list to optimise the use of your words.
• Tables, graphs and charts are a convenient way of organising your findings and presenting data. They also make it easier for the end user of your report (and the marker) to understand your findings and so you are recommended to use visual aids where appropriate.
3. Assessment Requirements:
• The submission of your work assessment should be organised and clearly structured.
• Maximum word length allowed is 3000 words, excluding words in Charts & Tables and in the Appendixes section of your report.
• Student is required to submit a type-written document in Microsoft Word format with Times New Roman font type, size 12 and line spacing 1.5.
• This assignment is worth 100% of the final assessment of the module.
• Indicate any sources of information and literature review by including all the necessary citations and references adopting the Harvard Referencing System.
• Students who have been found to have committed acts of Plagiarism are automatically considered to have failed the entire module. If found to have breached the regulation for the second time, you will be asked to leave the course.
• Plagiarism involves taking someone else’s words, thoughts, ideas or essays from online essay banks and trying to pass them off as your own. It is a form of cheating which is taken very seriously.
4. Marking Scheme:
Word Limit Marks (%)
Evaluation of the financial performance and financial position of Sainsbury’s and Tesco. 2000 50
Evaluation of the Working Capital. 500 20
Evaluation of the Cash Flow 500 20
Presentational and referencing. 10
Total 3000 100%
5. Learning Outcomes tested in this assignment
Upon successful completion of this module the student will be able to:
1. Demonstrate a critical awareness, comprehension and synthesis of a business and its future prospects.
2. Identify, organise, analyse and critically evaluate financial information, articulate conclusions and form recommendations, based on a disciplined, thoughtful and well-structured appraisal of the evidence and founded on clear theoretical underpinnings.

3. Structure and communicate ideas based on an understanding and appreciation of the practical application of key issues and theories in corporate financial management.
4. Display an ability to evaluate complex business issues, synthesise concepts and to formulate and propose advice based on informed judgement.
5. Articulate conclusions and make recommendations, in an independent manner, which are based on informed analysis and critical appraisal.

6. Notes on Plagiarism
Plagiarism is passing off the work of others as your own. This constitutes academic theft and is a serious matter that is penalized in assignment marking.
Plagiarism is the submission of an item of assessment containing elements of work produced by another person(s) in such a way that it could be assumed to be the student’s own work. Examples of plagiarism are:
• The verbatim copying of another person’s work without acknowledgement
• The close paraphrasing of another person’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order of presentation without acknowledgement
• The unacknowledged quotation of phrases from another person’s work and/or the presentation of another person’s idea(s) as one’s own.
• It also includes self-plagiarism' (which occurs where, for example, you submit work that you have presented for assessment on a previous occasion). And the submission of material from 'essay banks' (even if the authors of such material appear to be giving you permission to use it in this way)
Copying or close paraphrasing with occasional acknowledgement of the source may also be deemed to be plagiarism is the absence of quotation marks implies that the phraseology is the student’s own.
Plagiarised work may belong to another student or be from a published source such as a book, report, journal or material available on the internet.
7. Harvard Referencing
The structure of a citation under the Harvard referencing system is the author’s surname, year of publication, and page number or range, in parentheses, as follows:
• The page number or page range is omitted if the entire work is cited. The author’s surname is omitted if it appears in the text. Thus we may say: “Jones (2001) revolutionized the field of trauma surgery.”

• Two or three authors are cited using “and” or “&”: (Deane, Smith, and Jones, 1991) or (Deane, Smith & Jones, 1991). More than three authors are cited using et al. (Deane et al. 1992).
• An unknown date is cited as no date (Deane n.d.). A reference to a reprint is cited with the original publication date in square brackets (Marx [1867] 1967, p. 90).

• If an author published two books in 2005, the year of the first (in the alphabetic order of the references) is cited and referenced as 2005a, the second as 2005b.
• A citation is placed wherever appropriate in or after the sentence. If it is at the end of a sentence, it is placed before the period, but a citation for an entire block quote immediately follows the period at the end of the block since the citation is not an actual part of the quotation itself.
• Complete citations are provided in alphabetical order in a section following the text, usually designated as “Works cited” or “References”. The difference between a “works cited” or “references” list and a bibliography is that a bibliography may include works not directly cited in the text.

• All citations are in the same font as the main text.
Examples of book references are:
• Smith, J. (2005a). Dutch Citing Practices. The Hague: Holland Research Foundation.
• Smith, J. (2005b). Harvard Referencing. London: Jolly Good Publishing.
In giving the city of publication, an internationally well-known city (such as London, The Hague, or New York) is referenced as the city alone. If the city is not internationally well known, the country (or state and country if in the U.S.) are given.
Examples of journal references are:
• Smith, John Maynard. “The origin of altruism,” Nature 393, 1998, pp. 639-40.
• Bowcott, Owen. “Street Protest”, The Guardian, October 18, 2005, accessed February 7, 2006.
Name
Topic FAME Assignment Marks 29 or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-100
Task 1 1. A detailed vertical, horizontal and ratio analysis of the financial statements of the two companies The content is vague and random and shows no evidence of understanding of the ratio analysis and financial information. The explanation given shows unclarity on the review of the company, with little evaluation, no referencing to any material, no examples or ideas on the critical issues, nor identification of capabilities in the case scenario. The content is a collection of unlinked points that poorly refer ro or applies ratios and financial information. The explanation given shows vague and poor explanations on the review of the company and a weak description of the capabilities in the case scenario. The content barely answers the question or simply refers to ratio analysis and its interpretation. The explanation given is undeveloped and is a simply a verbose review of the company and limited insight into the critical issues of the case scenario. The content offers some good use of ratio analysis but is confined to basic ratios without a deeper evaluation. The interpretation is often standalone with an uneven review of the company, with some examples, some good observations and interpretations into the critical issues, but with no clear detailed argumentation, but with a reasonable review of the capabilities in the case scenario. The content is focused on the analysis of the case with a good application of the ratio analysis. The interprestation makes good use of a number and related ratios. The interpretation gives a detailed and clear review of the company, with good examples, a display of independent analysis and an appropriate interpretation into the critical issues, with a focused argumentation, and a well presented review of the capabilities in the case scenario. The content is highly focused on the analysis of the case with a detailed and excellent application of ratio analysis. The explanation of the ratio analysis presents a number of interpretations, with an excellent range of examples, a full critical assessment and independent insight into the key issues, with an excellent argumentation, and an effective and detailed review of the capabilities in the case scenario.
Available Marks 50 0 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 20 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 50
Marks Awarded
Task 2 2. Outline the importance of analysing the working capital of both companies prior to making a decision. This report should include well referenced material to support the argument. The response is based only on vague description and there is no additional information mentioned to the practical scenario proposed. There is no apparent structure, no alignment to any key area, whilst the response has a vague reference to how this information can be different. The response has showed an implicit understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is vague with poor explanations of how this information can improve the outcome. There is a poor structure, no identification or analysis of key areas, and the outcome is a poor presentation. The response shows a lack of a developed understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is limited to inappropriate examples of such information. There is some unacceptable structure and identification of information requirement but no insight of how this information can improve the answer and the response is a reasonable presentation. The response shows confidence but with a degree of looseness in the presentation of this additional information required. The analysis is with unclear or inexact examples of how the additional information can improve the answer. The evaluation is good and reasonably structure with a good interpretation and argumentation on key areas, whilst the response offers a good presentation. The response is well-focused on the information. The analysis is reasonable with good examples of how the information can improve the answer. The evaluation is very good, a well presented and robust structure, and an independent and critical assessment of key areas, whilst in conclusion the structure offers a very well presented answer. The response is a highly focused on the additional information required and how this information can give a better answer. The analysis is full of excellent examples. The evaluation is outstanding, a very good and excellent structure, with individual and insightful assessment of key areas, whilst the response offers a very effective presentation.
Available Marks 20 0 - 6 7 - 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 14 - 20
Marks Awarded
Task 3 3. Finally the report should also include a critical analysis of the annual cash flow statements of both companies over the last two years. The findings should assist in the decision making process. This report should include well referenced material to support the argument The response is based only on vague description and there is no additional information mentioned to the practical scenario proposed. There is no apparent structure, no alignment to any key area, whilst the response has a vague reference to how this information can be different. The response has showed an implicit understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is vague with poor explanations of how this information can improve the outcome. There is a poor structure, no identification or analysis of key areas, and the outcome is a poor presentation. The response shows a lack of a developed understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is limited to inappropriate examples of such information. There is some unacceptable structure and identification of information requirement but no insight of how this information can improve the answer and the response is a reasonable presentation. The response shows confidence but with a degree of looseness in the presentation of this additional information required. The analysis is with unclear or inexact examples of how the additional information can improve the answer. The evaluation is good and reasonably structure with a good interpretation and argumentation on key areas, whilst the response offers a good presentation. The response is well-focused on the information. The analysis is reasonable with good examples of how the information can improve the answer. The evaluation is very good, a well presented and robust structure, and an independent and critical assessment of key areas, whilst in conclusion the structure offers a very well presented answer. The response is a highly focused on the additional information required and how this information can give a better answer. The analysis is full of excellent examples. The evaluation is outstanding, a very good and excellent structure, with individual and insightful assessment of key areas, whilst the response offers a very effective presentation.
Available Marks 20 0 - 6 7 - 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 14 14 - 20
Marks Awarded
Presentation Logical and coherent structure to argument and effective presentation No structure apparent. Poor presentation. Poor structure. Poor presentation. Acceptable, but uneven structure. Reasonable presentation. Reasonable structure. Good presentation. Good argument. Well presented material. Excellent argument. Very effective presentation format.
Available Marks 10 0 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 10
Marks Awarded

Looking for answers ?


Recent Questions