7AC009 Financial Decision Making
Faculty of Arts, Business and Social Sciences – Assessment Brief for Students – 2022 / 2023
Module code and title Financial Decision Making 7AC009
Module leader Dr Osagie Igbinigie
Diet First attempt
Assessment type Report
Submission date 2pm on Monday 9th of January 2023 (09/01/2023). Students are advised to submit well ahead of this deadline. Late submissions will not be accepted without approved extenuating circumstances from the student office, and will be treated as non-submissions, requiring re-sit.
Submission method Via Canvas.
Assessment limits Maximum 4,500 words (excluding reference list & appendixes). Word count must not exceed the limit by more than 10%. In cases where this +10% limit is exceeded a penalty of 10% will be applied to the grade awarded.
Assessment weighting 100%
Assessment brief (if appropriate, please refer to module assessment briefing document)
You are required to produce an individual report based on your own independent work. Your work will automatically be passed through Turnitin text matching software. Your work must be fully referenced in the Harvard referencing style.
There are two equal parts to this assessment, each carrying 50% of the total module marks. You must answer the set questions in full. It is appropriate to weight your 4,500 total word count in an approximately similar split between the two parts.
Part 1 (50%)
Critically analyse the profitability of the organisation that you work for (or any FTSE 100 Company) for the year 2021. Analyse the role that budgeting might play in improving profitability in future years.
Part 2 (50%)
For the same organisation evaluate what would be the most appropriate investment appraisal techniques to use in reaching a decision as to whether to invest in a significant 30-year life project. Critically discuss how the financing of this project will affect your decision.
Assessment Criteria (The actual assessment components for this assignment)
Criteria Weighting (If applicable)
Part 1 50%
Part 2 50%
Return of assessments (Instructions for return / collection of assessments) Assessments to be submitted via Canvas before the submission deadline. Students are advised to submit at least 3 working days in advance of this deadline.
Assessments submitted after the published submission deadline with be awarded a non-submission zero (ONS) score, in line with University Regulations. Students will then have to re-sit the assessment.
This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomes Tick if tested here
LO1 Critically analyse and interpret the key financial statements of an organisation. √
LO2 Interpret budgeting and performance appraisal techniques used for managerial planning and control of an organisation. √
LO3 Critique the appropriateness of the main capital investment appraisal techniques for decision making. √
LO4 Advise on the potential suitability of available sources of funds to finance a business. √
Additional information for students
The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies, and develop your academic skills including a guide to academic referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
Your module guide and course handbook contain additional and important information regarding;
The required referencing style for your assignment
Whilst many modules require referencing in accordance with the Harvard Referencing convention, some modules – for example those within the School of Law – require Oxford Referencing. Please familiarise yourself with the requirements of your module.
Submission of your work
Marking, feedback and moderation in accordance with the University of Wolverhampton Assessment Handbook
Extensions on submission dates *
Additional support *
Academic conduct with regards to cheating, collusion or plagiarism *
Links to appropriate sources of relevant information *
* Further information regarding these and other policies can be accessed through your student portal on wlv.ac.uk.
Always keep a copy of your work and a file of working papers
The requirement to keep a file of working papers is important. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit your file and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration confirming that:
The submission is your own work
Any material you have used has been acknowledged and appropriately referenced
You have not allowed another student to have access to your work
The work has not been submitted previously.
The following information is important when:
Preparing for your assignment
Checking your work before you submit it
Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.
Module Learning Outcomes
Module Learning Outcomes are specific to this module, and are set when the module was validated.
The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assignment, and precise criteria against which your work will be marked are outlined in your assessment brief.
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
To help you further:
Re-sit opportunities are available for students who are unable to take the first sit opportunity, or who need to re take any component.
Refer to the VLE topic for contact details of your module leader / tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on the VLE module topic.
The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
FoSS Generic Assessment Performance Descriptors
Based on – University Performance Descriptors (updated September 2015)
Note that these are generic descriptors that apply mainly, though not exclusively, to written academic work. The relevant performance descriptors for the appropriate level (as below) should appear in the module guide.
Any further module-specific assessment criteria, such as number of words, should be clearly stated in the assignment brief.
The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%
L7 (Masters Level)
90-100% This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a 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 cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises 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 synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional context. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
50% Pass mark The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement 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.
40-49% Fail Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the 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.
30-39% Fail The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. There are fundamental misconceptions of the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the author will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
20-29% Fail This work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is little reference to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall the work is unduly descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.
10-19% Fail This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely badly presented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.
0-9% Fail No real attempt to address assignment brief or learning outcomes.