Posted: September 17th, 2017

AC3409Finance for Management

AC3409Finance for Management

see the Marking Criteria and Assessment Criteria on pages 3 & 4 for guidance as to the content and level expected for this assignment.

Completed coursework should be placed in Bethan Atkinson’s mailbox on the second floor of Greenbankno later than 4:00p.m on MONDAY 10 August 2015. If you are unable to submit a hard copy then please e mail a copy to me on [email protected] before the 4pm deadline. An electronic copy of your coursework must also be submitted through Turnitin by the 4pm deadline- ANY SUBMITTED AFTER THIS TIME WILL BE DEEMED TO BE A LATE SUBMISSION.

Late submission will be subject to the penalties scale set out in the Academic Regulations and the MIP.

Requests for any extension to the allowed time should be made in advance of the deadline and, where possible, should include any supporting evidence available.

Your answer should be word-processed and secured by a staple in the top left hand corner. Please do NOT put the coursework in a plastic walletor any fancy bindings etc.

A completed coursework front sheet should be attached and please can you attach the Marking Criteria (page 3 of this handout) as the first page of your answer.

The marks from this coursework represent 50% of the total marks for this module.

Assignment brief

Financial statements are prepared for a variety of users but it is often stated that shareholders are the most important users because the preparation of financial statements is geared to meeting their needs.

You are required to:
i)    Discuss the reasons why  financial statements are prepared with the needs of shareholders in mind and also outline the main shareholder needs
(40 marks)

ii)    Who are the other main users of financial statements and what are their needs? Are these users less important than the shareholders?

(45    Marks)

Please note:
i)    To achieve good marks your assignment should show detailed evidence of research;
ii)    15% of the marks available are for quality of English (10%), and proper referencing according to the Harvard method (5%);
iii)    This assignment carries 50 % of the total module weighting
iv)    Please ensure you attach the marking grid as page 1 of your answer
v)    Please note that the marking grid gives guidance as to the content of the assignment whereas the Assessment Criteria tells you what you should be aiming for in terms of the level i.e year 3
(15 marks)

(Total 100 marks)

Would students please note that achievement of the learning outcomes for this assessment is demonstrated against the marking criteria shown below All marks/grades remain indicative until they have been considered and confirmed by the Assessment Board.

Marking Criteria    Marks available    Marks awarded
Why are financial statements geared towards the needs of shareholder?
You need to consider issues such as: reporting performance; keeping investors happy; comparability; regulations; consistency etc

20

What are the main needs of shareholders?
Why do shareholders use accounts? Consider issues such as return on investment; dividends; capital growth; assessing performance of managers; ethical& environmental investing etc

20

Who are the other main users of financial statements and what are their needs?
Discuss who else might use financial statements and why they are using them?

30
Are these users less important than the shareholders?
Give both sides of the argument: yes they are less important and no they are not. Try to ensure that you develop a debate

15
Quality of English

10
Range of sources and use of Harvard referencing
System
At least 10 Academic sources should be used

5
Overall     100
Level 6/Year 3 Assessment criteria

Grading & Marking Criteria for BA Programmes
80 +    Outstanding work of exceptional merit which is original in content or approach allowing a novel perspective, going beyond what is available in the literature.
70 – 79    Work which is clearly articulated and well substantiated, based on extensive reading, and demonstrates an authoritative grasp of the concepts, methodology and content appropriate to the subject and to the assessed task. There is clear evidence of originality and insight and an ability to sustain an argument, to think analytically and/or critically and to synthesise material effectively.
60 – 69    Work which demonstrates a very good level of understanding of the concepts, methodology and content appropriate to the subject and which draws on a wide range of properly referenced sources. There is clear evidence of critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content. The work demonstrates some ability to synthesise material and to construct responses which reveal insight and may offer some occasional originality.
50 – 59    Work derived from a solid basis of reading and which demonstrates a grasp of relevant material and key concepts and an ability to structure and organise arguments. The performance may be rather routine but the work will be accurate, clearly written and include some critical analysis and a modest degree of original insight. There will be no serious omissions or irrelevancies.
40 – 49    Competent and suitably organised work which demonstrates a reasonable level of understanding with minimal analysis and interpretation. It covers the basic subject matter adequately but is too descriptive and insufficiently analytical. There may be some misunderstanding of key concepts and limitations in the ability to select relevant material so that the work may be flawed by some omissions and irrelevancies. There will be some evidence of appropriate reading but it may be too narrowly focussed.
30 – 39    Work lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and/or significantly misuses terminology. There is either no evidence of literature being consulted or irrelevant to the assignment set. Inaccurate or inappropriate choice of theory. Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all. Lacks critical thought, analysis and reference to theory.
0 – 29    Insufficient level of understanding and knowledge base unacceptably weak. No evidence of logical structure and poorly presented. Referencing is unsystematic or absent.