Managerial Finance
- Subject Code :
MFI502
- University :
Australian Institute of Management Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
Australia
Australian Institute of Management Education and Training All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Australian Institute of Management Education and Training.
Disclaimer:
AIM does not invite reliance upon nor accept responsibility for the information it provides. AIM makes every effort to provide a high-quality service. However, neither AIM nor the providers of data give any guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up-to-date nature of the information provided. Users should confirm information from another source if it is of sufficient importance for them to do so.
DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TASKS
Assessment Summary
Assessment Task | Learning Outcomes covered | Due Date | Length | % of overall grade |
Report Financial statement analysis | 1, 4, 6 | Week 4 | 2000 2500 words | 40% |
Report Budgeting and cost analysis | 2, 3, 4, 5, | Week 7 | 3000 3500 words | 45% |
Self-reflective Assessment | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | Week 7 | 1050 words | 15% |
Assessment Task 1
Financial Statement Analysis Due: Week 4
Value: 40%
Format: Report
Word length: 2000 - 2500 words
Learning outcomes: 1, 4, 6
Task description
Prepare a report based on a selected organisation
This assignment requires you to examine, analyse, and discuss the information contained in the General Purpose Financial Statements (GPFS) of a chosen organisation in order to draw conclusions regarding its financial performance and financial position.
Instructions
1. Selecting an organisation
Choose a publicly traded organisation or another organisation for which you can access the audited GPFS. This should be the organisation you work for or another company that has been approved by your facilitator. Ensure that you have access to the most recent financial statements for this assignment.
2. Analysis techniques
Utilise a variety of financial analysis techniques, including but not limited to the ones covered in this unit (e.g. liquidity ratios, profitability ratios, solvency ratios). You are encouraged to research and apply additional relevant techniques to enhance your analysis.
3. Report structure
Structure your report as follows:
Introduction: Provide an overview of the chosen organisation and the purpose of the analysis.
Methodology: Describe the methods and analysis techniques you employed.
Analysis: Present your analysis of the financial statements, including the key findings and observations.
Discussion: Discuss the financial performance and financial position of the organisation as reflected by the financial statements and your analysis.
Conclusion: Summarise your conclusions and any recommendations for the organisation.
4. Depth of analysis
Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the financial statements. Your analysis should go beyond presenting raw numbers; it should include interpretation, discussion of trends, and assessment of financial health.
5. Critical evaluation
Emphasise the critical evaluation of your findings. Analyse the implications of your observations and provide thoughtful insights into the organisation's financial health.
6. Use of citations and references
- Ensure that you properly cite and reference external sources or research that you incorporate into your Adhere to academic integrity guidelines, avoiding plagiarism.
- Include a minimum of 3 suitable journal articles or other references that support your You can search the AIM Library database or use some of the ones provided in the Additional Resources section under each topic in myABS or in the Unit Guide. You may also have to research other articles related to your industry to support your research.
Assessment Submission Requirements
- Your assessment is to be written in a business report
- Your report must not exceed 2,500
- Note: The executive summary, table of contents, tables and reference list are not included in the word
- Appendices and tables may be used to clarify and support your arguments but should not be used to circumvent the word count If you use appendices, please use these sparingly.
- Submit to the Assessment section of myABS as one
Assessment Criteria
Please refer to the detailed marking rubric on the next page.
Rubric: Assessment Task 1
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% | |
Criteria 1 Report structure, writing style and development of argument | Report structure is inaccurate or incomplete. Many inconsistencies in writing style apparent: errors in grammar. language and/or sentence structure. Argument is unclear or unsupported. Limited progression of argument or does not align with the assessment topic. | Assessment is submitted as a report following the recommended report format, meets the prescribed word count, is written with a logical flow between sections, is proofread and edited. Satisfactory writing style, conveying clear information and meaning. Some language and grammatical errors may be evident. Satisfactory progression of argument. Some inconsistency in progression evident. Points flow in a sequence and provide satisfactory support of argument. | Pass standard met. In addition: - report is fluently written, contains tables and/or graphics which are correctly referenced and labelled. Clear writing style that includes few grammatical or language errors and is easily readable. Sound progression of argument provides a well- structured and clearly developed approach. | Credit standard met. In addition: - report is virtually free from any grammatical or formatting errors and reads with fluency. Sentence structure demonstrates strong control of language and grammar. Highly developed writing style tailored to the assessment topic. Organisation of information provides high-level structure and development of argument. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - report is impeccably designed from coversheet through to table of contents, to headings, subheadings and reference list and appendices (if applicable). It would be ready for submission to the executive of a large organisation without amendments/editing. Excellent information structure and development of argument. | |
Weighting 15% | 0-7 marks | 8-9 marks | 10-11 marks | 12-13 marks | 14-15 marks | |
Criteria 2 Quality of analysis and critique | Data that is presented is not discussed or evaluated as to what it means for the chosen business. Limited interpretation of financial information | A sound financial interpretation and analysis put forward, supported by data analysis and a conceptual framework. Incorporates a variety of elements of financial statement interpretation. Should address the 4 main aspects of financial health as covered in the Unit. | Pass standard met. In addition: - able to make well informed interpretations of financial statement items and data analysis findings, across the 4 main areas of financial health. | Credit standard met. In addition: - in-depth and comprehensive financial analysis put forward, supported by concepts and the results of analysis. Identifies linkages between financial statement items and includes suitable benchmarks. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - formulates original insights of the financial information. Analysis at quality that could be used at Board level to inform decision making. Puts forward viewpoints that offer useful insights to the financial situation of the organisation. Notes limitations of the analysis tools. | |
Weighting 25% | 0-12 marks | 13-16 marks | 17-18 marks | 19-21 marks | 22-25 marks |
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% |
Criteria 3 Application of a range of financial analysis techniques | May have only used a very limited number of financial analysis techniques that only address one or two of the dimensions of business health. Omitted some key analysis techniques. Misinterpretation of results that relate to important concepts covered in the Unit - e.g. not noticed loss making situation, high levels of debt, liquidity crisis etc. | Correctly applies a limited but adequate range of analysis techniques, including key ratios, and as well a limited number of other techniques - e.g. trend or horizontal analysis. | Pass standard met. In addition: - provides a variety of ratios (or other analyses) across all main financial health aspects - ratio choices are pertinent - clearly relate to the key financial issues relevant to the case study. | Credit standard met. In addition: - practical application is highly developed examples are highly relevant and thorough, provides a variety of ratios from independently sourced research (e.g. industry ratios). Includes benchmarks and/or comparisons with other organisations. Demonstrates initiative in undertaking deeper analysis. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - demonstrates mastery over analysis techniques, which integrate the theory and the case study. Includes additional analysis techniques that have specific pertinence to the case study or its industry and are beyond the scope of this Unit. Takes an innovative approach to solving inconsistencies in the results. |
Weighting 25% | 0-12 marks | 13-16 marks | 17-18 marks | 19-21 marks | 22-25 marks |
Criteria 4 Concepts and application of theoretical frameworks to case | Does not cover all the 4 aspects of financial health covered in the Unit. Include some fundamental concepts errors and misunderstandings of essential concepts. | Satisfactory knowledge of financial statement content and associated accounting concepts. Satisfactory knowledge of the analysis techniques and their meaning. | Pass standard met. In addition: - understanding of topic knowledge and concepts is sound and well-developed. Covers all 4 areas of financial health. | Credit standard met. In addition: - understanding of topic knowledge and concepts is highly developed and demonstrates plausible and measured interpretation of the information on the financial statements. No important concepts errors/misinterpretations. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - demonstrates mastery of topic knowledge and concepts. - sophisticated integration of independently sourced theory research, e.g. may have developed knowledge of accounting treatments that are specific to the chosen industry, e.g. mining accounting, agricultural accounting etc. |
Weighting 25% | 0-12 marks | 13-16 marks | 17-18 marks | 19-21 marks | 22-25 marks |
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% |
Criteria 5 Research and referencing | Limited research and / or absence of referencing within the report. Unsatisfactory or incorrect referencing style applied: includes referencing errors, either in-text or in Reference list. | Correct application of at least 5 sources throughout the report and by referencing key concepts from the textbook. Applies satisfactory level referencing style with in-text citations and a reference list. There may be some inconsistency in referencing practice evident. | Pass standard met. In addition: - includes additional research and referencing from academic and industry sources throughout the report. Applies sound level of referencing style with in-text citations and a reference list. | Credit standard met. In addition: - report is virtually free from any referencing errors. High level of referencing style provided. A variety of high-quality references that add depth and credibility to the analysis within the report. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - quality of references able to withstand scrutiny by the executive of a large organisation by external stakeholders. References build knowledge beyond the scope of the Unit. Excellent level of referencing style provided. |
Weighting 10% | 0-4 marks | 5-6 marks | 7 marks | 8 marks | 9-10 marks |
Assessment Task 2
Budgeting and cost analysis Due: Week 7
Value: 45%
Format: Report
Word length: 3000 - 3500
Learning outcomes: 2, 3, 4, 5
Task description
This assignment aims to deepen your understanding of budgeting and cost analysis within an organisation. You are required to select a budget, either from your current workplace or an organisation of your choice, that has been approved by your facilitator and delve into its composition, preparation, monitoring process, and cost structure.
Instructions
1. Selecting the budget
Choose a budget from your current workplace or select an organisation from which you can access budgetary information. Clearly state the scope of the budget, specifying whether it pertains to a department, project, or the entire organisation. In addition, develop an understanding of the preparation and monitoring process for this budget. You may wish to meet with the individuals who are responsible for preparing, authorising, managing or implementing the budget and/or access relevant organisational documentation.
2. Budget elements analysis
Examine and analyse specific elements within the budget. This should include a detailed exploration of key revenue sources, expense categories, and the factors that drive these elements. Examples may include sales revenue, operating expenses, and cost of goods sold.
3. Structured report format
Structure your report as follows to ensure clarity and organisation:
Introduction: Provide an overview of the selected budget and its significance. Budget composition: Describe the components of the budget, including revenue and expense categories.
Preparation process: Analyse how the budget is prepared, including the methodologies, assumptions, and personnel involved.
Monitoring process: Discuss the methods used to monitor the budget's performance and any feedback loops.
Cost structure analysis: Examine the cost structure within the budget, distinguishing between fixed and variable costs, and identify cost drivers.
Analysis and critique: Offer a critical analysis of the budget, exploring underlying assumptions, potential challenges, and areas for improvement.
Pitfalls and recommendations: Identify pitfalls associated with the budget process and provide actionable recommendations for process enhancement or improved performance. Conclusion: Summarise your findings and insights.
4. Depth of analysis
In the discussion and analysis of the chosen budget, ensure that you include a discussion of the following aspects:
- How the budget aligns to broader organisational planning, strategies and
- The budget development process, including timing and timeframes, key stakeholders involved, signoffs, tools and systems used, and communications.
- The key cost elements (and revenues) in the In discussing these, describe whether the key cost elements and revenues are regarded as fixed or variable and what factors drive them.
- Any indirect costs that are allocated into this budget, and on what basis is the allocation done?
- Reflection on the costs and the cost structure in the budget and the implications of this structure in cost
- How information is gathered to support the budget and budget assumptions, including any costing models or costing systems that are used to generate information for the
- How performance against the budget is measured and
- Consideration of how the use of data analytics could impact the budget development or monitoring
- Emphasise the need for a comprehensive and critical Go beyond describing the budget; delve into the intricacies, assumptions, and implications. Evaluate the budget's strengths and weaknesses in depth.
5. Actionable recommendations
Ensure that your recommendations for improvement are specific, feasible, and directly linked to the pitfalls you have identified. Consider the practicality of your suggestions.
Assessment Submission Requirements
- Your assessment is to be written in a business report
- Include a minimum of 3 suitable journal articles or other references that support your You can search the AIM Library database or use some of the ones provided in the Additional Resources section under each topic in myABS. You may also have to research other articles related to your industry to support your research.
- Your report must not exceed 3,500
Note: The executive summary, table of contents, tables and reference list are not included in the word count.
- Appendices and tables may be used to clarify and support your arguments but should not be used to circumvent the word count If you use appendices, please use these sparingly.
- Submit to the Assessment section of myABS as one
Assessment Criteria
Please refer to the detailed marking rubric on the next page.
Rubric: Assessment Task 2
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% |
Criteria 1 Report structure, writing style and development of argument | Report structure is inaccurate or incomplete. Many inconsistencies in writing style apparent: errors in grammar. language and/or sentence structure. Argument is unclear or unsupported. Limited progression of argument or does not align with the assessment topic. | Assessment is submitted as a report following the recommended report format, meets the prescribed word count, is written in clear English with a logical flow between sections, is proofread and edited. Satisfactory writing style conveying clear information and meaning. Some language and grammatical errors may be evident. Satisfactory progression of argument. Some inconsistency in progression evident. Points flow in a sequence, and provide satisfactory support of argument | Pass standard met. In addition: - report is well written, contains tables and/or graphics which are correctly referenced and labelled. Clear writing style that includes few grammatical or language errors and is easily readable. Sound progression of argument provides a well- structured and clearly developed approach. | Credit standard met. In addition: - report is virtually free from any grammatical or formatting errors and reads with fluency. Sentence structure demonstrates strong control of language and grammar. Highly developed writing style tailored to the assessment topic. Organisation of information provides high level structure and development of argument | Distinction standard met. In addition: - report is impeccably designed from coversheet through to table of contents, to headings, subheadings and reference list and appendices (if applicable). It would be ready for submission to the executive of a large organisation without amendments/editing. Excellent information structure and development of argument. |
Weighting 15% | 0-7 marks | 8-9 marks | 10-11 marks | 12-13 marks | 14-15 marks |
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% |
Criteria 2 Quality of analysis, including critique of budget process and evaluation of costing | Information that is presented is not discussed or evaluated as to what it means for the chosen business. Limited interpretation budget process or costing. | A sound analysis of the chosen budget process and costs is put forward, supported by both research and theory frameworks. Demonstrates some level of evaluation of effectiveness of the budget and a limited number of plausible recommendations are proposed. | Pass standard met. In addition: - provides evidence- based evaluation of the budget process in relation to the theoretical models; and able to evaluate the costs and cost structure within the organisation to support useful conclusions and recommendations. | Credit standard met. In addition: - in-depth analysis of the budget and costings put forward, supported by best- practice concepts and the results of analysis. Puts forward recommendations that offer useful insights to improve the budgeting process. Identifies linkages between budgeting and costing. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - formulates original insights regarding budget process and costing implications. Recommendations and supporting analysis are at a quality that could be used at Board level to inform decision making. |
Weighting 25% | 0-12 marks | 13-16 marks | 17-18 marks | 19-21 marks | 22-25 marks |
Criteria 3 Application explanation of budget case and costings | Evidence of practical application is limited. Ideas, examples and supporting points are few, questionable in terms of relevance and substantiation, and/or are not well-linked to knowledge and concepts. | There is sufficient content to provide a clear description of the budget process and key costs within the organisation. | Pass standard met. In addition: - the explanation of the budget process is robust, with examples or illustrations to support the description. Key costs have been identified as well as their behaviour and drivers and these have explanations and illustrations to support the observations made. | Credit standard met. In addition: - a detailed description of budget process and costs is provided with relevant examples, that support the points being made. Examples and supporting points are wide-ranging, relevant and empirically- based and clearly illustrate knowledge and concepts. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - demonstrates mastery of the budget process that occurs within the chosen organisation. Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of the key costs and their drivers and behaviour within the chosen business. Has been able to apply budget and costing concepts to this specific context in a manner that evidences deep insights. |
Weighting 25% | 0-12 marks | 13-16 marks | 17-18 marks | 19-21 marks | 22-25 marks |
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% |
Criteria 4 Concepts and application of theoretical frameworks to chosen budget | Does not address all aspects of budget process (as covered in the task) or does not cover the key elements of the costing questions - e.g. does not discuss cost behaviour or cost drivers. | Has adequately addressed the aspects in the task and evidences understanding of the budget process and key responsibilities and activities in budgeting. Satisfactory knowledge of costing concepts and cost behaviour is demonstrated. | Pass standard met. In addition: - understanding of budgeting and costing knowledge and concepts is sound and well- developed. Provides sound knowledge to support arguments and formulate conclusions. | Credit standard met. In addition: - understanding of topic knowledge and concepts is highly developed and critically analyses budget process and its pitfalls. Incorporates the costing concepts and their relevance within the chosen context. Minimal concepts errors or misinterpretations. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - demonstrates mastery of topic knowledge and concepts. Sophisticated integration of independently sourced theory research e.g. may have developed knowledge of costing models specific to the chosen industry. |
Weighting 25% | 0-12 marks | 13-16 marks | 17-18 marks | 19-21 marks | 22-25 marks |
Criteria 5 Research and referencing | Limited research and / or absence of referencing within the report. Unsatisfactory or incorrect referencing style applied: includes referencing errors, either in-text or in Reference list | Correct application of at least 5 sources throughout the report and by referencing key concepts from the textbook. Applies satisfactory level referencing style with in-text citations and a reference list. There may be some inconsistency in referencing practice evident. | Pass standard met. In addition: - includes additional research and referencing of from academic and industry sources. throughout the report. Applies sound level of referencing style with in-text citations and a reference list. | Credit standard met. In addition: - report is virtually free from any referencing errors. High level of referencing style provided. A variety of high-quality references that add depth and credibility to the analysis within the report. | Distinction standard met. In addition: - quality of references would be able to withstand scrutiny by the executive of a large organisation and/or by external stakeholders. References have been used to build knowledge beyond the scope of the Unit. Excellent level of referencing style provided. |
Weighting 10% | 0-4 marks | 5-6 marks | 7 marks | 8 marks | 9-10 marks |
Assessment Task 3
Self-Reflective Assessment Due: Week 7
Value: 15%
Format: Written response
Word length: 1050 +/- 10%
Learning outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Task description
Select a key topic from the unit of study and critically reflect on your key learning/s as a self- reflection.
The written reflection considers key learnings from Topics 1-7 and how they may be applied to your role or industry.
Please use the following questions to structure your self-reflection:
- What have you learnt from the key activity or activities? Provide (Word count 350)
- Consider how you might apply the key learnings to your current role or Provide examples. (Word count 350)
- Critically reflect on why you have selected this key learning/s and why it might change your future approach to your role or Provide examples. (Word count 350)
Assessment Submission Requirements
- Your assessment will be written as a self-reflection with supportive examples from the key learning Use the above questions and word count to guide structure.
- Referencing is only required if you have used any precedents or Use APA 7 referencing style.
- Your response must not exceed 1050 words +/-10%. Note: there is no need for an executive summary or table of Reference lists do not count for the word count.
- Markers will stop marking at the word limit of 1155 words (nothing beyond 1155 words will be read or marked).
Submit to the Assessment section of myABS as one document. Assessment Criteria
Please refer to the detailed marking rubric below.
Rubric: Assessment Task 3
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% |
Criterion 1 Presentation | Presentation does not adequately respond to the 3 self-reflective questions. Limited to no examples provided to support insights. Inconsistency evident in writing style and presentation of key findings. | Presentation satisfactorily responds to the 3 self- reflective questions. Satisfactory level of insights and examples provided. Satisfactory level of writing style. May be some inconsistency evident in writing style and presentation of key findings. | Sound responses presented to the 3 self- reflective questions. Sound level of insights and examples provided. Clear and well-articulated writing style and presentation of key findings. | High-level responses presented to the 3 self- reflective questions. High level of insights and examples provided. High-level writing style and presentation of key findings. | Excellent responses to the 3 self-reflective questions. Superior level of insights and examples provided. Excellent level of writing style and presentation of key findings. |
Weighting 20% | 0-9 marks | 10-12 marks | 13-14 marks | 15-16 marks | 17-20 marks |
Criterion 2 Content | Unsatisfactory to limited responses provided with limited connection to class content. Limited to no examples provided to support insights. | Satisfactory responses provided with connection to class content. Satisfactory examples provided to support insights. | Sound responses provided with clear and well- articulated connection to class content. Sound-level examples provided to support insights. | High-level responses provided with detailed and well supported connection to class content. High-level examples provided to support insights. | Excellent responses provided with insightful connection to class content. Excellent examples provided to support insights. |
Weighting 40% | 0-19 marks | 20-25 marks | 26-29 marks | 30-33 marks | 34-40 marks |
Assessment criteria | Fail 0 to 49% | Pass 50% to 64% | Credit 65% to 74% | Distinction 75% to 84% | High Distinction 85% to 100% |
Criterion 3 Critical Reflection | Superficial responses with limited reference to key learnings and insights. Connections are not drawn or limited in approach between class content and experience. Limited insights provided about future application. | Satisfactory-level response to key learnings and insights. There may be some inconsistency evident between connections of class content and experience. Satisfactory level insights provided about future application. | Sound-level response to key learnings and insights. Sound connections clearly synthesised between experience and class content. Sound insights provided about future application. | High-level response to key learnings and insights well supported with examples. High-level connections well- articulated and synthesised between experience and class content. High-level insights provided about future application. | Excellent response to key learnings and insights. Excellent synthesis provided about the connections between experience and class content to provide insightful responses. Excellent insights provided about future application. |
Weighting 40% | 0-19 marks | 20-25 marks | 26-29 marks | 30-33 marks | 34-40 marks |
