International Finance | My Assignment Tutor

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONSAssessmentCourseworkAssessment code:010Academic Year:2020/2021Trimester:2Module Title:International FinanceModule Code:MOD006884Level:7Module Leader:Dr Fadime SahinWeighting:100%Word Limit:3,000 wordsThis excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of theAcademic Regulations: Learning1 – 4OutcomesSubmission Deadline:This assignment must be received by no later than 14:00 on Monday17th of May WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:• This assignment must be completed individually.• You must use the Harvard referencing system.• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceedthe specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use ofwords beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which resultsin a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on yourwork.• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in asingle document.• You must number all pages.1SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:To achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – upto five working days after the published submission deadline – will be accepted and marked. However,the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximummark of 40%.Work cannot be submitted if the period of 5 working days after the deadline has passed (unless thereis an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failedthe assessment.Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other causeconsidered valid by the iCentre Adviser. Please contact [email protected] A request mustnormally be received and agreed by the iCentre Adviser in writing at least 24 hours before thedeadline. See rules 6.56-6.65: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than fiveworking days after the submission date of this work. Please contact [email protected] rules 6.103 – 6.132: the following scenario:ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONScenarioYou are Lesley the new associate analyst of Landtech, a London based financial servicesconsultancy.Today is 09.00 am Monday 18th January 2021 and you have received the following e-mail:Subject Wandsleigh WandsSteve Jobbers [email protected] 17th January 2021 22.15Lesley [email protected] morningWe met during your induction and I am delighted to pass you your first assignment for thecompany.We have been contacted by a new client, Dr Louis Nurse, who is an international investorbased in the Caribbean. He has been in discussions with Wandsleigh Wands Ltd in the UKand is considering investing £30 million into the company purchasing 6% preference shares.Dr Nurse is interested in this as a potential investment, because the field of technologicaldevelopment is new to him and is disappointed, he missed an opportunity to invest inRicardo Plc in 2018. He sees Ricardo as a good benchmark company. However, do not feelconstrained by his preferences, so you may consider an alternative proxy company to use inyour evaluation of Wandsleigh Wands.Dr Nurse, who is a major advocate for CSR, seeks out help in evaluating this potentialinvestment.2Assignment TaskYou are required to prepare a report, using the information provided abovecovering the following areas:a) Benchmark the financial results of the Wandsleigh Wands against RicardoPlc and your preferred proxy company (10 marks).b) An up-to-date estimate of the company’s cost of capital using publiclyavailable data considering a risk neutral (DVM) and risk changing (CAPM) approach.Assess the impact of your revised cost of capital on the proposal (15 marks).c) A spreadsheet model forecasting the impact of the proposal over the next 5 years ofthe business case proposal and a critical evaluation of the proposal using investmentappraisal techniques and relevant benchmarking concluding with a critical discussion ofthe results of this analysis (30 marks).Note the initial revenue spreadsheet will be developed collaboratively by your colleagues and your tutorsd) Critically evaluate the proposal as it stands and make recommendations to improve theviability of the proposal (15 marks).e) Critically discuss whether the client should invest in Wandsleigh Wands and if the 6%preference share represents a good return for the risks involved (10 marks).f) A brief critical discussion of the corporate social responsibility issues raised bythe proposal (10 marks).g) A critical, supported conclusion providing recommendations for the adoptionor otherwise of the proposal (10 marks).Assessment CriteriaThe analysis must be supported by academic theories and concepts and the paper mustcomply with the format stated above and Harvard referencing guidelines. The reflection mustnot be descriptive in nature, IT IS AN APPLICATION OF THEORY; it should provide clearevidence of understanding of the issues under consideration with an applied review of thebusiness provided in the task scenario. IT IS ESSENTIAL YOU APPLY THEORIES ANDCONCEPTS AND NOT JUST EXPLAIN THEM.There is no correct number of academic references to be utilised as the student must drawas many references as required to provide a high-quality answer. However, a minimum of 5academic sources are expected, and a majority of these should be current, internationally3peer-reviewed articles/journals or accredited textbook references. Sources such asWikipedia and the like are not accepted. Sources available only online should be avoided.Specifically, you will address:1. Understanding a range of approaches and investment criteria for investment in securitiesand projects including the meaning of cost of capital and its application.2. Understand the range of financial options available to financial managers in selectingsources of finance taking into consideration the size and stage of growth of the business.3. Critically evaluate investment opportunities and using a range of financial analysis andinvestment appraisal techniques.4. Critically evaluate the criteria for developing a sustainable funding structure for a businessor project.Specific Module GuidanceDetailed assessment criteria and guidance are as follows:a) You should use the Capital Asset Pricing Model and Dividend ValuationModel to establish a cost of equity. Cost of each debt instrument needs to becalculated and the data combined to produce a Weighted Average Cost ofCapital (WACC). You must make clear your sources for data such as the riskfree rate and market risk premium and explain the basis for your choice ofgrowth rate and beta using suitable market comparables.b) A basic template for the model will be developed in class. You should use thisas template and critique the proposal and develop your own model using theassumptions provided.Although no specialist knowledge of the relevant industry is expected, you areexpected to demonstrate research into the reasonableness of theassumptions put forward in the scenario. This should be properly referencedand sourced. Credit will be given for specific “real-life” research in this area,and also for the ability to adapt the spreadsheet model to reflect justified,revised assumptions.You are expected to identify and justify your section of a proxy company.c) You should use NPV/IRR as the primarily tools for this evaluation althoughyou may also use payback period and Net margin as appraisal tools. Yourevaluation and critical discussion should focus on this particular company andnot take the form of a generic discussion of the mechanics or relative merits ofthe different approaches.d) You should consider the amount of funding required to implement the project andconsider the impact of different sources of finances on the company’s overallgearing and risk.4e) Whilst this is a single element of assessment with a module end submission thereare completion hurdles to adhere to throughout the module which will support yourinitial analysis in each section.5ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKINGSTANDARDSLEVEL 7 (was level 4)Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstratingindependence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify anddevelop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problemsand to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthyof publication or public performance or display. Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)Mark BandsOutcomeKnowledge & UnderstandingIntellectual (thinking), Practical,Affective and Transferable SkillsExceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics withExceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.Exceptional development of conceptual structures andvery clear originality and autonomy. Exceptionalargument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions.development of conceptual structures and argumentExceptional research skills, independence of thought, an90-100%making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions.extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency,Demonstrates independence of thought and a very highexceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantiallevel of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushescreativity and originality. Exceptional academic/intellectualthe boundaries of the discipline and may be considered forskills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline andexternal publicationmay be considered for external publicationOutstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. VeryOutstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics withhigh-level development of conceptual structures andclear originality and autonomy. Outstanding developmentargument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions.80-89%of conceptual structures and argument making anOutstanding research skills, independence of thought, aexemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrateshigh level of intellectual rigour and consistency,independence of thought and a very high level ofoutstanding expressive/professional skills, andAchieves moduleintellectual rigour and consistencyconsiderable creativity and originality. Exemplaryacademic/intellectual skillsBandoutcome(s) related toGLO at this levelExcellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. HighM a rkin gmaking consistent use of scholarly conventions. ExcellentExcellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Excellentlevel development of conceptual structures and argument,development of conceptual structures and argument70-79%research skills, independence of thought, a high level ofmaking excellent use of scholarly conventions.intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/Demonstrates independence of thought and a high level ofprofessional skills, and considerable creativity andintellectual rigour and consistencyoriginality. Excellent academic/intellectual skills, andbyconsiderable creativity and originalityAchievement60-69%Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.Development of conceptual structures and argumentDevelopment of conceptual structures and argument,making consistent use of scholarly conventionsmaking consistent use of scholarly conventionsSatisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics inSatisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in50-59%discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability todiscipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability tosynthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in usesynthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in useStudentof scholarly conventionsof scholarly conventions40-49%A marginal pass inBasic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics inBasic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics inmodule outcome(s)discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesisdiscipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesisofrelated to GLO at thisof existing scholarship and little argument. Use ofof existing scholarship and little argument. Use oflevelscholarly conventions inconsistentscholarly conventions inconsistent.CharacteristicsA marginal fail inmodule outcome(s)Limited knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics inLimited research skills impede use of learning resourcesrelated to GLO at thisand problem solving. Significant problems with30-39%discipline. Largely descriptive, with restricted synthesis oflevel. Possiblestructure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use ofcompensation.Professional skills not yet secure. Weak academic/scholarly conventions.Satisfies qualifyingintellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventionsmarkLittle evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethicsLittle evidence of research skills, use of learning resourcesand problem solving. Major problems with structure/20-29%in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis ofaccuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skillsexisting scholarship and little evidence of argument. Littlevirtually absent. Very weak academic/intellectual skills.evidence of use of scholarly conventions.Little evidence of use of scholarly conventionsFails to achievemodule outcome(s)Inadequate use of research skills, learning resources andrelated to this GLO.Inadequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics inproblem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in10-19%Qualifying mark notdiscipline. Wholly descriptive, with inadequate synthesissatisfied. Noof existing scholarship and inadequate argument.expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent.Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills. InadequatecompensationInadequate use of scholarly conventions.availableuse of scholarly conventionsNo evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics inNo evidence of use of research skills, learning resources1-9%discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorlyand problem solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy indescriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existingexpression. Team/Practical/Professional skills nonscholarship and no argument whatsoever. No evidence ofexistent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Nouse of scholarly conventions.evidence of use of scholarly conventions 6 0%Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address theassignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes 7


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *