Financial Management FIN600
- Subject Code :
FIN600
ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF |
|
|
Subject Code and Title |
FIN600 Financial Management |
|
Assessment Task |
Case Study Report |
|
Individual/Group |
Individual |
|
Length |
1,500 words |
|
Learning Outcomes |
The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include: b) Critically evaluate the role and content of the four principal financial statements to inform decision making in contemporary business environments. c) Investigate and evaluate the different types of funding to aid decision making. f) Evaluate how decisions related to capital structure and payout policy affect firm value. |
|
Submission |
12-week duration: Due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Sunday, end of Week 8 6-week duration: Due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Sunday, end of Week 4 |
|
Weighting |
40% |
|
Total Marks |
100 marks |
Assessment Task
Drawing on your understanding of financial accounting concepts and financial statements analysis, write a 1,500-word case study report analysing, evaluating and comparing the financial performance and position of two comparative businesses using the annual reports provided in the Assessments area of the subject site. This assessment task will provide you with the opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills acquired in the subject. It is a practical task, involving the use of real?world accounting information. This is intended to consolidate your knowledge and skills relating to how investment opportunities are assessed.
Context
Financial statements analysis is the process of reviewing and analysing a company's financial statements, which include the balance sheet, income statement, cash flow statement and statement of changes in equity. This process helps individuals and organisations make informed decisions about investing, lending and managing their resources. Some of the most common uses of financial statements analysis include: evaluating a company's financial health, assessing profitability, identifying financial trends, assessing credit worthiness and making informed investment decisions.
This assessment task provides you with an opportunity to evaluate the knowledge you have acquired and apply the skills you have developed to undertake the analysis of financial statements published by companies in their annual reports. This employs techniques that a financial analyst uses to evaluate investment decisions for companies that are listed on a stock exchange.
Instructions
In this assessment task, you will assume the role of a financial market analyst and analyse the financial statements of two Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) listed companies in the same industry, offering recommendations to an investor on which companys shares to invest in. To be successful in this assessment task, you are required to follow the steps below.
- Readand understand the topics covered in Modules 3
- Retrieve,read and analyse the following additional information provided in the Assessments area of the subject site:
- Annual Reports Your case study report will be based on the reports of these two nominated companies.
- Assessment 2 Financial Analysis Template (MS Excel file) This file contains in-built formulae to compute a variety of financial ratios required for completing the assessment task.
- Based on the information contained in the financial statements (and the Notes to the FinancialStatements) of the annual reports, conduct financial analyses of the two companies using the following tools:
- Ratio analysis The analysis should consider financial ratios within each of the following categories: liquidity, profitability, efficiency, capital structure and market performance (also known as investment ratios). Your financial analysis should highlight and discusskey movements in all categories of ratio analysis over the latest two financial years. You should note that in calculating some of the ratios, such as return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA), you may need to get some information from a third annual report. For instance, if the two years of analysis are 2024 and 2023, calculating the ROE and ROA for 2023 may require some information from the balance sheet of 2022. It is your responsibility to download (from the companys website or Google) the 2022 annual report to extract the required
- Comparative analysis This analysis requires you to compare your evaluation of each company over the given two-year period with a view to determining whether you would advise investment in one or both of these companies, or neither of them.
- Youare required to use the Assessment 2 Case Study Report Template (MS Word file) provided in the Assessments area of the subject site to:
- summariseand present your analyses
- recommendto the client what position to take in relation to the two
Case Study Report Structure and Format
Your 1500-word case study report should follow industry standards and be structured as shown in detail below:
Executive Summary In this brief section (200250 words), you are required to summarise your entire report. As a minimum, you will need to discuss the purpose of your report, the methodology you have used and the key findings of your report. The executive summary is not included in the word count.
Table of Contents This section is not included in the word count.
- Introduction (around 150 words) Provide a description of the task, the tools and methods that will be applied, and how the report is organised.
- Analyses of Companies (around 200 words) Using the headline financial information about the companies in their annual reports, present an overview of their overall financial performance in the period of analysis. This should include:
- financialhighlights
- industryoutlook
- macroeconomic
Tables and figures are not included in the word count.
- Ratio Analyses (around 550 words) Calculate and tabulate various financial ratios from the financial statements in the annual reports to derive insights on the financial performance and positions of the companies. You are required to calculate, analyse and evaluate the ratios falling under the following categories:
- Liquidity
- Profitability
- Efficiency
- Capitalstructure
- Marketperformance
Tables and figures are not included in the word count.
In this section, include a Comparative analysis (around 300 words) that discusses and compares the investment prospects in each company using your analysis and the qualitative information available in the annual reports or in the news media.
- Conclusions, Recommendations and Overall Assessment (around 300 words) Comment on the business performance of the companies, as revealed by the analysis you have undertaken. Recommend what position the client should take after reviewing these investment
- References A minimum of six (6) academic and related references (e.g. journal articles, book chapters, conference papers) and at least two (2) non-academic and related references (e.g. company websites and annual reports, newspaper articles, government websites, consultant reports, etc.)are required to support the discussions in your case study report. Please make sure your references are current. All references should be in the current APA style. Using Wikipedia, Investopedia and similar sources should be This section is not included in the word count.
Read the assessment rubric, which is an evaluation guide with criteria for grading your assessment. This will indicate what features a successful Case Study Report should exhibit.
A case study template is also provided in the Assessment area on MyLearn for your reference.
Referencing
It is essential that you use current APA style for citing and referencing the sources that you use. Please see more information on citing and referencing guidelines on the Academic Success webpage.
Assessment Support
For a range of additional resources and support to help you complete your assessment, please consult the Study Support page on the Student Hub.
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that their submitted work is original, adheres to academic writing standards outlined in the Torrens University Academic Writing Guide, and is appropriately referenced according to the guidelines provided in the Torrens University APA Referencing Guide.
Students need to have read and be aware of the Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy, Academic Integrity Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. For more information, please refer to the Academic Integrity guidelines and the Torrens University Library.
Students must also keep all required evidence in making an assessment; a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Generative AI
Please refer to the Torrens University Library for guidance on the use of Generative AI. Please speak to your learning facilitator regarding the use of GenAI tools in your assessments.
Submission Instructions
Submit all components of Assessment 2 via Assessments > Briefs & Submissions in the main navigation menu in FIN600 Financial Management:
- Casestudy report (MS Word file)
- Financialanalysis (MS Excel file)
Please name your file using the following format:
- SubjectCode_Surname_FirstNameInitial_AssessmentNumber
e.g. FIN600_Jones_S_Assessment 2.docx Your marked assessment can be viewed in MyLearn.
Assessment Due Dates and Late Penalties
Assessments may be submitted on or before the due date. Late penalties apply for assessments that are submitted after the due date.
Refer to:
- AssessmentPolicy for Higher Education Coursework (HE) and ELICOS Torrens University | Think Education
- AssessmentSpecial Consideration Guidelines for Students (HE Coursework) Torrens University | Think Education
- StudentHub for Assessment Extension
Special Consideration
To apply for special consideration for a modification to an assessment task or exam due to unexpected or extenuating circumstances, please consult the Assessment Policy for Higher Education Coursework and ELICOS and, if applicable to your circumstance, submit a completed Application for Assessment Special Consideration Form to your learning facilitator.
Assessment Rubric
|
Assessment Criteria |
High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75-84% |
Credit (Proficient) 65-74% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% |
|
Analysis and critical evaluation of the relevant financial statements of two nominated ASX companies; overview and description of their financial performance and position Percentage for this criterion = 10% |
The overview and description of the financial performance and position of the two companies are insightful, exceptionally coherent and contextualised to the assessment brief. The analysis of the two companies is comprehensively substantiated with details drawn from the annual reports and readings/research provided in the subject. The report reflects an expert analysis and critical evaluation of the relevant financial statements of the two companies. |
The overview and description of the financial performance and position of the two companies is highly coherent and contextualised to the assessment brief. The analysis of the two companies is thoroughly substantiated with details drawn from the annual reports and readings/ research provided in the subject. The report reflects a thorough analysis and evaluation of the relevant financial statements of the two companies. |
The overview and description of the financial performance and position of the two companies is coherent and somewhat contextualised to the assessment brief. The analysis of the two companies is adequately substantiated with details drawn from the annual reports and readings/ research provided in the subject. The report reflects a developing analysis and evaluation of the relevant financial statements of the two companies. |
The overview and description of the financial performance and position of the two companies is generally coherent, however, it needs further contextualisation to the assessment brief. The analysis of the two companies resembles a recall or summary of key ideas extracted from the annual reports and the substantiation with details from readings/research provided in the subject is minimal. The report reflects a basic analysis and evaluation of the relevant financial statements of the two companies. |
The overview and description of the financial performance and position of the two companies lacks coherence and is not contextualised to the assessment brief. Limited understanding of the key concepts required to present an overview and describe financial position and performance. The report lacks an analysis and a critical evaluation of the relevant financial statements of the two companies. |
|
Critical analysis and calculation of a range of prescribed financial ratios using effective strategies and application of accounting information Percentage for this criterion = 30% |
All financial ratio calculations in the financial analysis spreadsheet are expertly completed. Critically analyses, evaluates and provides an excellent description of what the financial ratio results reveal about the company, referring to information provided by the CEO and directors reports, as well as other external sources. Key movements in all ratios are discerningly highlighted and exceptionally discussed. |
All financial ratio calculations in the financial analysis spreadsheet are thoroughly completed. Thoroughly analyses and provides a very good description of what some of the financial ratio results reveal about the company, referring to some information provided by the CEO and directors reports, as well as other external sources. Key movements in some ratios are highlighted and discussed. |
Most of the financial ratio calculations in the financial analysis spreadsheet are completed. Adequately analyses and provides a sound description of what some of the financial ratio results reveal about the company. Key movements in some ratios are somewhat discussed. |
Some financial ratio calculations in the financial analysis spreadsheet are completed but not all. Partially analyses and provides a definition of the financial ratio rather than a description about what the ratio result reveals about the company. There was an attempt to highlight key movements in some ratios, but these are not adequately discussed. |
Financial ratio calculations in the financial analysis spreadsheet have not been attempted or are incorrect. Analysis of financial ratio results is missing or is merely describing the result of the ratio calculated. Does not highlight and discuss the key movements in all ratios. |
|
Effective comparison of the financial performance and position of the two companies Percentage for this criterion = 20% |
The comparison of the financial status of the two companies is comprehensive and covers all the important information in the financial statements and associated financial ratios. There is significant evidence of analysis and evaluation in the comparison. |
The comparison of the financial status of the two companies is thorough and covers all the important information in the financial statements and associated ratios. There is substantial evidence of analysis and evaluation in the comparison. |
The comparison of the financial status of the two companies is adequate and covers most of the information in the financial statements and associated financial ratios. There is some evidence of analysis and evaluation in the comparison. |
The comparison of the financial status of the two companies is limited. The comparison draws mainly from facts and lacks inputs that could be derived from an analysis or evaluation. |
The comparison of the financial status of the two companies has not been attempted or is incorrect. |
|
Conclusions, recommendations and overall assessment of the companies for informed managerial decision-making Percentage for this criterion = 20% |
The commentary on the business performance of the two companies is a critical evaluation and not simply a reproduction of the publicly available information of the two companies. Provides an excellent conclusion of the two companies financial performance. The recommendations on the two companies are convincing and are based on evidence that expertly details which areas of the performance and structure are improving and which areas are becoming weaker; expertly relates back to the financial ratio results. Excellent overall assessment of the companies. An investment view/opinion is convincingly discussed. |
The commentary on the business performance of the two companies is a thorough evaluation and not simply a reproduction of the publicly available information of the two companies. Provides a thorough conclusion of the two companies financial performance. The recommendations on the two companies are highly suitable and based on evidence that clearly details which areas of the performance and structure are improving and which areas are becoming weaker; clearly relates back to the financial ratio results. Thorough overall assessment of the companies. An investment view/opinion is thoroughly discussed. |
The commentary on the business performance of the two companies is an adequate evaluation and not simply a reproduction of the publicly available information of the two companies. Provides a sufficient conclusion of the two companies. The recommendations on the two companies investment potential are suitable and based on evidence that somewhat details which areas of the performance and structure are improving and which areas are becoming weaker; adequately relates back to the financial ratio results. Adequate overall assessment of the companies. An investment view/opinion is adequately discussed. |
The commentary on the business performance of the two companies is basic evaluation, with reproduction of some of the publicly available information of the two companies. Provides a limited conclusion of the financial performance of the two companies. The recommendations on the two companies investment potential are provided, but these are not always suitable or not always based on evidence that details which areas of the performance and structure are improving and which areas are becoming weaker; they do not relate back to the financial ratio results. Basic overall assessment of the companies. An investment view/opinion is somewhat discussed. |
The commentary on the business performance of the two companies is missing or lacks evaluation and is simply a reproduction of the publicly available information of the two companies. Does not provide a conclusion of the financial performance of the two companies. The recommendations on the two companies investment potential are missing or lack evidence that details which areas of the performance and structure are improving and which areas are becoming weaker. Overall assessment of the companies and an investment view/opinion are missing. |
|
Professional, complete and organised report structure and format Percentage for this criterion = 10% |
The reports structure and format are highly professional and consistently adhere to industry practices/ standards. All components of the report are clearly and correctly identified. The report is expertly organised and orderly throughout. |
The reports structure and format closely reflect industry practices/standards on almost all occasions. All components of the report are correctly identified. The report is well-organised and orderly throughout. |
The reports structure and format adequately follow industry practices/standards on most occasions. The components of the report are adequately identified. Almost all sections of the report are well-organised. |
The reports structure and format follow industry practices/standards on some occasions. Some components of the report are identified. Most sections of the report are organised. |
The reports structure and format do not adhere to industry practices/standards. The components of the report are not adequately identified. All or most sections of the report are poorly organised. |
|
Research and Referencing Percentage for this criterion = 10% |
Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Refers to sources throughout; uses most recent edition of APA referencing, with no errors. |
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements. Refers to sources throughout; uses most recent edition of APA referencing, with very few errors. |
Demonstrates use of credible resources to support and develop ideas. Adequately refers to sources; uses most recent edition of APA referencing, with occasional errors. |
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well- developed. Rarely refers to sources; uses most recent edition of APA referencing, with frequent errors. |
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. Did not refer to sources; referencing does not resemble the most recent edition of APA. |
