Analysis and Interpretation Case Study

Summary comment

Final mark

Marker s initial

Criteria P E*
1 2 3 4 5 Mark
1. PRESENTATION & RELATED ISSUES
a. An executive summary that is appropriate to purpose.
/6
b. A reference list is included that includes only those referenced in text in the body of the report. (Those not referenced in text don t count)
/5
c. Spelling, grammar and overall presentation /10
Comment:

2. MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT
a. Evidence of further research in reading, investigation &/or synthesis with relevant events/conditions (e.g. economic/industry climate at the time, relevant info re: rates of return on alternative investments etc).

/7
b. Discussion of the three sections of investigation.
Refer to the next page for the assessment criteria for this section.
Profitability
Liquidity
Financial Stability

/20
/16
/10
Comment:

3. RECOMMENDATIONS
a. Conclusion and recommendations
A well reasoned conclusion and recommendations that address a course of action relevant to the decision maker. It should be based upon an insightful synthesis of the sub-conclusions proffered earlier in the report.

/8
Comment:

4. SHORTCOMINGS/ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
a. Identified a range of shortcomings of financial statement analysis.
/9
b. Identified and justified additional sources/types of information which would enhance the analysis. /9
PENALTY MARKS
Word Limit Violation, Late Submission without prior approval, In a format other than a report (e.g. essay), calculations in the main body of the report rather than in appendices, etc.
Total /100

Assessment Criteria for section 2 Main body of the report (approximate):
Profitability /20 Liquidity /16 Stability /10
High Distinction 17 13.5 8.5
Distinction 15 12 7.5
Credit 13 10.5 6.5
Pass 1 11 9 5.5
Pass 2 10 8 5
Fail 1 8 – 9 7 “ 7.5 4 “ 4.5
Fail 2 < 8 < 7 <4 The descriptors for these are as follows: High Distinction - an excellent understanding of the task - ability to apply and interpret the analysis comprehensively including demonstration of how various measures inter-link to support the argument. - use of appropriate and concise language - revelation of insightful conclusions. Distinction - a very good understanding of the task - a very high standard of coverage of analysis relationships with good interpretation OR, a high standard of interpretation of good coverage of analysis relationships. - successfully used appropriate terminology in context - sound conclusions in light of interpretations Credit - good coverage of analysis relationships with good interpretation - reasonable attempt to use appropriate terminology in context or the meaning is otherwise made relatively clear. - basically sound conclusions in light of interpretations Pass 1 - reasonable coverage of analysis relationships with reasonable - interpretation - fair attempt to use appropriate terminology in context or the meaning is otherwise understandable - basically sound conclusions in light of interpretations Pass 2 - must have at least attempted to interpret both the percentage analysis and the ratio analysis - showed some basic understanding of the analysis relationships and interpretation Fail - only interpreted the percentage analysis OR only interpreted the ratio analysis BUT did not interpret both - poor to fair coverage of analysis relationships - poor analysis resulting in inadequate discussion - unjustified or badly argued conclusions, or lacking in conclusion altogether. - expression that is so poor that it seriously impedes understanding and thus achievement of the assignment"s communication for decision making objective.