Assignment Questions 1

Assessment brief
Module code and title Financial Strategy for Business growth

Assessment type Individual written submission
Submission date 10th July 2021, Students are advised to submit on or before the deadline. Late submissions
will not be accepted and will be treated as non-submissions, requiring re-sit.
Assessment limits Maximum 1,500 words on Task-1

Maximum 1,500 words on Task-1
Word count must not exceed the limit by more than 10%. In cases where this +10% limit is
exceeded, only the first 90% of words will be marked.
Assessment weighting 100% to the final grading
This assessment is testing the module learning outcomes

1. Understanding of the basic principles in Investment Decisions.
2. Application of these principles using the available techniques of evaluation.
3. Ability to apply to understand the implications of risk and inflation, and make adjustments to the basic calculations.
4. Understanding that the evaluation is only a ‘financial assessment’ consideration for qualitative factors is also required
1
Total marks are allocated in accordance with below criteria.
 In-depth Knowledge of the Topic – 25% marks
 Logical thinking and analytical skills – 30% marks
 Application of theories in to the selected company - 25% marks
 Referencing material and professional presentation - 20% marks
Referencing and Professionalism
A professional approach to assignment is expected from all candidates. You must therefore identify and acknowledge ALL sources
or/and an appropriate referencing system to achieve this. Please ensure you don’t ‘cut and paste’ from other people’s work. You are
advised to refer the annual reports/web sites or any other valid document and write in your own word. If you fail to do so, will be
considered as a plagiarism. You are expected to carry out a professional report format (No pictures please)
Assessment brief
You are required to produce an individual report based on your own independent work. Your work must be fully referenced in the
Harvard referencing style or any other acceptable referencing style.
2
Part A
1. Discuss the need for making investment decisions, and the different techniques available in evaluating such decisions.
2. As a part of the literature survey, critically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different investment appraisal techniques,
whilst discussing the most commonly used and acceptable method/s.
3. An opposing view is many entrepreneurs take risk on ‘gut feeling’ and has yet been very successful.
Quote “I never get the accountants in before I start up a business” Unquote – Richard Branson. Discuss the above statement in light of
acceptable business norms and practices.
Part B
Identify a project undertaken by your company/ associate and discuss the following:
a) Methodology adopted and techniques used in evaluating the decision
b) Identify the variables applicable and the basis of their estimation
c) Rationale in determining the Cost of capital
d) Risk factors related to the investment and its application in the evaluation process
e) What qualitative factors have been applicable
f) The rationale of the final outcome of the decision made.
Show the project cashflow estimates, identifying the relevant and irrelevant cash-flows, and all applicable calculations. All text book,
web based, journals or other references used must be appropriately acknowledged, using the Harvard referencing method
3
Assessment performance Indicators
The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%

This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a
90%-100% professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic debate which presents a
range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and a totally justified position.
The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current theory and/or practice and
specific, focused examples of contestability. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical
exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar
or syntax as appropriate.
80%-89% The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for future publication in a professional context.
The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence of a considered
understanding of the professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The work
enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples of contestability. There is evidence
of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical
applications has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar or
syntax as appropriate.
70%-79% There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major
debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity of the context in
which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognizance of differing perspectives and
interpretations and recognizes dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well
reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which current views are
based and to challenge received opinion. Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60%-69% The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an
articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement
of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to
professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative review of key
authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore
issues and to synthesize theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional
context. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
4
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement
50%-59% with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable
basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or
evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the
40%-49% outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles
of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only
minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments
or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.
There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that the participant will
be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
Grading scale – Bachelors’ Level qualification
MARK GRAD
S E
90-100 Distinction
70-89 Merit
50-69 Pass
0-49 Fail with Re-sit

Assignment Questions 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment Questions 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment Questions 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment brief

Module code and title Financial Strategy for Business growth

Assessment limits Maximum 1,500 words on Task-1

Assessment weighting 100% to the final grading

This assessment is testing the module learning outcomes

Referencing and Professionalism

The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%

Grading scale – Bachelors’ Level qualification

0-49 Fail with Re-sit

You might also like