BUSM4741 Financial Analytics for Managerial Decisions
Graduate School of Business and Law
Course Code: BUSM4741
Subject Name: Financial Analytics for Managerial Decisions
Assessment # 3: Case Study
Overview
The focus of this assessment is for students to apply the fundamentals of various accounting and finance principles to critically a analyse complex business scenario. Using various analytical tools covered in the course, students will evaluate its cashflow, profit, outcomes and propose strategic solutions, then succinctly present their analysis to their audience.
Before commencing this assignment, it is necessary that students have a sound understanding of the application of the fundamentals of financial and management accounting, financial theories about capital budgeting and cost of capital and other related principles. In particular, the various analytical managerial tools such as financial ratios, budgeting, cost-volume-profit
analysis, TVM, NPV analysis, cost of capital concepts together with the other relevant aspects revolving around these tools.
Along with the recommended readings, the activities and associated tasks on Canvas must be completed.
To do well, students should be able to do the following:
- Correctly identify the issues in the case scenario and interpret them to prepare budgets,
conduct relevant cost analysis and apply various analytical techniques for making investment decisions.
- Apply accounting concepts and contemporary financial knowledge to correctly analyse the scenarios in the case and raise solutions.
- Clearly interpret and communicate the findings and their implications along with the strategies to solve the problems in the case via broad research and design thinking. Also, to engage in scholarly viewpoints and innovative thinking by broad reading to clearly communicate solutions using business terminology with minimum grammatical or spelling errors.
- Professionally present key findings in a format that is logically structured and well designed, visually appealing, informative, and uses engaging communication aids such as powerpoint slides, and video this.
Course Learning outcomes
This Assessment is aligned with:
- CLO1: Analyse, interpret and critically evaluate global financial information from a variety of sources in order to develop sustainable business proposals.
- CLO2: Create effective business reports, advice and tables tailored to specific business needs
- CLO4: Select, communicate and advocate effective strategies using design thinking to address complex business problems and opportunities.
- CLO5: Apply ethical standards to the role and conduct of financial reporting.
How to succeed in this Assessment
The following analyses must establish clear outcomes and the strategies that are proposed should logically follow the results of the analyses.
- Application of financial and management accounting and finance knowledge: Students need to apply the fundamentals of financial and management accounting, financial theories about capital budgeting and cost of capital and other related principles. Apart from the recommended readings, students must have done the activities and associated tasks on Canvas.
- Critical evaluation: Students should be able to demonstrate a full grasp of the main aspects of the case study, portray key findings and make sound recommendations which are logically in line with the outcomes of their analyses.
- Presentation: Students are required to present their analyses and strategy/ies forward to their case client. This is to be done as a professional presentation, and videoed for submission. While recording your answers, attend to professionality, and parameters as set
out in assessment guidelines (i.e. rubric criteria, word limits, time limits, design and structure of presented information).
Submission format
- Upload your responses as one Word/PDF Document file via Turnitin submission for Assessment - 3 in Canvas.
- Upload your Excel Workbook as one Excel file. Your Excel workbook must show the flow of your calculations with proper annotations.
- Upload your presentation or provide link to it along with your presentation slides/other communication aids. It is strongly recommended that you use the Canvas Studio tool to record your presentation. For guidance and support on using Canvas tool to submit your assignment please follow this link.
Referencing guidelines
You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.
Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the appropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such as EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.
Referencing style
You should adopt the RMIT business style of referencing, i.e., in-text referencing (e.g., Winchester & Leenders, 2014). All quotations and references should be properly sourced. Inadequate details of publications and other sources will reduce the assessed grade.
Academic integrity and plagiarism
Academic integrity is about the honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas.
You should take extreme care that you have:
- Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your Assessment through the appropriate referencing methods,
Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites.
- If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own.
Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including o Failure to properly document a source o Copyright material from the internet or Databases Collusion between students.
o For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.
Assessment declaration
When you submit work electronically, you agree to the Assessment declaration.
The numerical components of the case study will be marked based on both the accuracy and the setting out of the calculations and resulting figures and tables.
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts | ||||||||
|
HD D |
C P N | |||||||||
|
Calculation Based Questions | ||||||||||
|
Criterion 1 Numerical components Calculates all required components within a complex business analysis to provide clear findings on which to base advice to client |
All key elements of case scenario identified. All figures selected for calculations are correct. Calculation of each financial component accurate: Cash budget, CVP Analysis, WACC, NPV and others. Analysis is set out in tables and figures to facilitate easy |
Most key elements of case scenario identified. All/most figures selected for calculations correct. Calculation of most of the financial components accurate or have small errors: Cash budget, CVP Analysis, WACC, NPV and others. |
Many key elements of the case scenario identified. Most figures selected for calculations correct. Some calculations are inaccurate with errors: Cash budget, CVP Analysis, WACC, NPV and others. Set out of analysis needs some improvement to |
Only some key |
Only some key | |||||
|
• • • |
elements of case scenario identified. Some figures selected for calculations incorrect A number of calculations are inaccurate: Cash budget, CVP Analysis, WACC, NPV and others. Presentation of analysis needs much improvement to provide a flow of information. |
• • • |
elements of case scenario identified. Some/most figures selected for calculations incorrect Most calculations have major inaccuracies: Cash budget, CVP Analysis, WACC, NPV and others. Presentation of analysis needs significant improvement to | |||||||
|
flow of • information Assumptions, if any, are clearly laid out and are reasonable. • |
Analysis is set out in tables and figures to facilitate good flow of information. Assumptions, if any, are clearly laid out and are reasonable. |
facilitate greater flow of information. All the assumptions made are not clearly laid out or are unreasonable or irrelevant. |
Assumptions made and not reported or are unreasonable or irrelevant. . |
flow in the information. Assumptions made and not reported or are unreasonable or irrelevant. |
|
28.0 to >22.39 pts 22. |
39 to >19.59 pts 19.59 to >16.79 pts |
16.79 to >13.99 pts |
13.99 to >0pts 28.0 | |
Criterion 2
Content and Structure of the Analysis
Verbally explain the reasoning behind the numerical analysis
- Extremely well organized when explaining numerical analyses; correct contents:
- Fully grasps all the main issues in the case.
- Accurate explanation of key concepts and theories.
- Logical and engaging sequence with
Presentation-Based Questions
|
Generally well organized when explaining numerical analyses; correct contents: A sound grasp of most of the main issues in the case. Explanation of key concepts and theories is mostly accurate. Logical and engaging sequence with |
Some organization when explaining numerical analyses; mostly correct contents: Grasps many but not all of the issues in the case. Some explanation of key concepts and theories. Improvements in the flow of arguments needed. |
- Somewhat
organized and some correct contents:
- Has only begun to grasp the issues in the case.
- Inaccurate
explanation of key concepts and theories.
- Confusing flow
in arguments.
- Poor/no
organization with some contents significantly incorrect:
- Has not grasped the issues in the case.
- Inaccurate explanation of key concepts and theories.
- Flow of arguments is seriously flawed.
- Week analyses.
|
systematic flow of arguments. Evidence of outstanding depth in the analyses. All questions answered. |
good flow of arguments. Evidence of depth in the analyses. All questions answered. |
Evidence of some depth in the analyses. Most questions answered. |
Demonstrates limited ability to analyse. Few questions answered. |
Some or none of the questions answered. | |
|
10.0 to >7.99 pts |
7.99 to >6.99 pts |
6.99 to >5.99 pts |
5.99 to >4.99 pts |
4.99 to >0 pts |
10.0 |
|
Criterion 3 Develop a range of business suggestions and solutions suiable for the business problems. |
Purpose and intent are clearly outlined. Propose appropriate solutions that logically flow from the analysis in a manner evident to the audience/viewer. Thorough evaluation and insightful comment on strategies and portray key findings. |
Purpose and intent are clearly outlined. Propose appropriate solutions that logically flow from the analysis in a manner evident to the audience/viewer. Good ability to evaluate and comment on strategies, portray key findings. |
Provides some purpose. Propose appropriate solutions to the cases. Evaluates and comments on strategies and some key findings. |
Provides some purpose. Just some of the solutions proposed were relevant Limited ability to comment on strategies or portray key findings. Not all questions answered. |
No purpose provided. No relevant solutions to the cases proposed. No ability to comment on strategies or portray key findings. Not all questions answered. |
5.0 to >3.99 pts 3.99 to >3.49 pts 3.49 to >2.99 pts 2.99 to >2.49 pts 2.49 to >0 pts 5.0
- All the content is relevant, impactful
and presented with consistent
theme.
- All/Most of the Majority of the Only some content Poor content, lack
content is relevant content is relevant is relevant but relevance and no and presented with some theme. presented with theme. with fairly poor theme. consistent theme.
|
Criterion 4 Presents key findings verbally and graphically in a creative and compelling manner |
Presentation is professional, creative & visually appealing, captures attention and adheres to time limit. Suggestions are well articulated in |
Presentation is professional, visually appealing, some originality, captures attention, and adheres to time limit. Suggestions well articulated, broad |
Presentation almost professional, some visually appealing, aspects, some originality, and fails to adhere to the time limit. Articulation of |
Presentation fairly poor: sloppy/poor visuals, no originality, fails to adhere to the time limit. Language issues in articulating suggestions, |
Poor presentation, visuals, creativity with no respect for time. Very poor articulation of suggestions, limited range of vocabulary often | |
|
excellent spoken English using a range of business terms and descriptive vocabulary (correctly used). Perfect authordate referencing, |
and fluent range of vocabulary, good spoken English, some business tems used (correctly). Near perfect referencing. |
suggestions needs improvement, fair range of vocab, correct use of some business terms, mostly good spoken English Some errors in referencing. |
limited range of vocab, inconsistent use of business terms. Many errors in referencing. |
inappropriately used, severe language issues; no attempt to use business terms; wordiness and lack of formality throughout. Referencing poor or missing | ||
|
7.0 to >5.59 pts |
5.59 to >4.89 pts |
4.89 to >4.19 pts |
4.19 to >3.49 pts |
3.49 to >0 pts |
7.0 | |
|
Total: |
50 pts | |||||
Resources
- 24 x 7 Availability.
- Trained and Certified Experts.
- Deadline Guaranteed.
- Plagiarism Free.
- Privacy Guaranteed.
- Free download.
- Online help for all project.
- Homework Help Services
