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.

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!