London

School of Commerce Malta

MODULE TITLE: Financial Analysis Management & Enterprise – FAME

PROGRAMME: MBA – Full time

MODULE PERIOD: February – March 2020

GROUPS: XXXXX

Lecturer setting the Assessment: Stephen Fenech – stephenfenech71@gmail.com

DEADLINE FOR THE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED:

20th February 2020 at 23:59(Malta Time)

SUBMISSION METHOD/MODE:

Online via turnitin,

ASSESSMENT TYPE: 3000 Words Assignment Report

1. Your question is in 2 parts, as follows:

Daimler and Tesla are today classified as two of the major players in the automotive industry.

Your assignment is to

carry out a detailed

comparison between

these two companies as

specified below.

The following are the links to the mentioned company’s annual reports. These reports include all the required information to complete the tasks

1. Daimler (https://www.daimler.com/downloads/en/)

2. Tesla (http://ir.tesla.com/financial-information/quarterly-results)

Specifically you have been asked to undertake the following:

1. Critically compare and contrast the financial performance and financial position of the two listed companies (Daimler and Tesla) over the last FOUR years, (2015 – 2018). This should be done by using the respective tools including ratio analysis, together with vertical and horizontal analysis.

The purpose of this task

is to identify their

financial strengths and

weaknesses together

with a conclusion

highlighting the strongest

company based on

financial grounds.

2. Critically analyse the

cash position of both

companies over the

same period of time, and

write a brief report

commenting on your

findings.

2.

Presentation

· Your reports and briefing paper should be clearly and logically structured in whatever format appears to be the most suitable for supporting the analysis, arguments, conclusions and recommendations. Locate the ratio calculations in an appendix and only present the actual ratios in the body of the report.

· Key points of the comparative analysis may be summarised as a bulleted list to optimise the use of your words.

· Tables, graphs and charts are a convenient way of organising your findings and presenting data. They also make it easier for the end user of your report (and the marker) to understand your findings and so you are recommended to use visual aids where appropriate.

3. Assessment Requirements:

· The submission of your work assessment should be organised and clearly structured. · Maximum word length allowed is 3000 words, excluding words in Charts & Tables and in the Appendixes section of your report. · Student is required to submit a type-written document in Microsoft Word format with Times New Roman font type, size 12 and line spacing 1.5. · This assignment is worth 50% of the final assessment of the module. · Indicate any sources of information and literature review by including all the necessary citations and references adopting the Harvard Referencing System. · Students who have been found to have committed acts of Plagiarism are automatically considered to have failed the entire module. If found to have breached the regulation for the second time, you will be asked to leave the course. · Plagiarism involves taking someone else’s words, thoughts, ideas or essays from online essay banks and trying to pass them off as your own. It is a form of cheating which is taken very seriously.

4. Marking Scheme:

Word Limit	Marks (%)
Evaluation of the financial performance and financial position of Daimler and Tesla.	2000	60
Evaluation of Cashflow position of both companies.	1000	30
Presentation skills.	10
Total	3000	100%

5. Learning Outcomes tested in this assignment

Upon successful completion of this module the student will be able to: 1. Demonstrate a critical awareness, comprehension and synthesis of a business and its future prospects. 2. Identify, organise, analyse and critically evaluate financial information, articulate conclusions and form recommendations, based on a disciplined, thoughtful and well-structured appraisal of the evidence and founded on clear theoretical underpinnings. 3. Structure and communicate ideas based on an understanding and appreciation of the practical application of key issues and theories in corporate financial management. 4. Display an ability to evaluate complex business issues, synthesise concepts and to formulate and propose advice based on informed judgement. 5. Articulate conclusions and make recommendations, in an independent manner, which are based on informed analysis and critical appraisal.

6. Notes on Plagiarism

Plagiarism is passing off the work of others as your own. This constitutes academic theft and is a serious matter that is penalized in assignment marking.

Plagiarism is the submission of an item of assessment containing elements of work produced by another person(s) in such a way that it could be assumed to be the student’s own work. Examples of plagiarism are:

· The verbatim copying of another person’s work without acknowledgement

· The close paraphrasing of another person’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order of

presentation

without acknowledgement

· The unacknowledged quotation of phrases from another person’s work and/or the presentation of another person’s idea(s) as one’s own.

· It also includes
self-plagiarism’
(which occurs where, for example, you submit work that you have presented for assessment on a previous occasion). And the submission of material from ‘essay banks’ (even if the authors of such material appear to be giving you permission to use it in this way)

Copying or close paraphrasing with occasional acknowledgement of the source may also be deemed to be plagiarism is the absence of quotation marks implies that the phraseology is the student’s own.

Plagiarised work may belong to another student or be from a published source such as a book, report, journal or material available on the internet.

7. Harvard Referencing

The structure of a citation under the Harvard referencing system is the author’s surname, year of publication, and page number or range, in parentheses, as follows: The page number or page range is omitted if the entire work is cited. The author’s surname is omitted if it appears in the text. Thus we may say: “Jones (2001) revolutionized the field of trauma surgery.” Two or three authors are cited using “and” or “&”: (Deane, Smith, and Jones, 1991) or (Deane, Smith & Jones, 1991). More than three authors are cited using et al. (Deane et al. 1992).

An unknown date is cited as no date (Deane n.d.). A reference to a reprint is cited with the original publication date in square brackets (Marx [1867] 1967, p. 90).

If an author published two books in 2005, the year of the first (in the alphabetic order of the references) is cited and referenced as 2005a, the second as 2005b.

A citation is placed wherever appropriate in or after the sentence. If it is at the end of a sentence, it is placed before the period, but a citation for an entire block quote immediately follows the period at the end of the block since the citation is not an actual part of the quotation itself.

Complete citations are provided in alphabetical order in a section following the text, usually designated as “Works cited” or “References”. The difference between a “works cited” or “references” list and a bibliography is that a bibliography may include works not directly cited in the text.

All citations are in the same font as the main text.

Examples of book references are: Smith, J. (2005a). Dutch Citing Practices. The Hague: Holland Research Foundation. Smith, J. (2005b). Harvard Referencing. London: Jolly Good Publishing. In giving the city of publication, an internationally well-known city (such as London, The Hague, or New York) is referenced as the city alone. If the city is not internationally well known, the country (or state and country if in the U.S.) are given. Examples of journal references are: Smith, John Maynard. “The origin of altruism,” Nature 393, 1998, pp. 639-40. Bowcott, Owen. “Street Protest”, The Guardian, October 18, 2005, accessed February 7, 2006.

Name

TopicFAME AssignmentMarks29 or less30-3940-4950-5960-6970-100

Your assignment is to
carry out a detailed
comparison between
these two companies as
specified below.

The content is vague and

random and shows no

evidence of

understanding of the

ratio

analysis and financial

information. The

explanation given

shows

unclarity on the review of

the company, with little

evaluation, no

referencing to any

material, no examples or

ideas on the critical

issues, nor identification

of

capabilities in the

case

scenario.

The content is a

collection of unlinked

points that poorly

refer ro or applies

ratios and financial

information. The
explanation given

shows vague and

poor explanations on

the review of the

company and a weak

description of the

capabilities in the

case scenario.

The content barely

answers the question or

simply refers to ratio

analysis and its

interpretation. The

explanation given is

undeveloped and is a

simply a verbose review of

the company and limited

insight into the critical

issues of

the case scenario.

The content offers some good

use of ratio analysis but is

confined to basic ratios

without a deeper evaluation.

The interpretation is often

standalone with an uneven

review of the company, with

some examples, some good

observations and

interpretations into the

critical issues, but with no

clear detailed

argumentation, but with a

reasonable review of the

capabilities in the case

scenario.

The content is focused on the

analysis of the case with a good

application of the ratio analysis.

The interprestation makes good

use of a number and related

ratios. The interpretation gives

a detailed and clear review of

the company, with good

examples, a display of

independent analysis and an

appropriate interpretation into

the critical issues, with a

focused argumentation, and a

well presented review of the

capabilities in the case
scenario.

The content is highly focused

on the analysis of the case

with a detailed and

excellent application of ratio

analysis. The explanation of

the ratio analysis presents a

number of interpretations,

with an excellent range of

examples, a full critical

assessment and

independent insight into the

key issues, with an excellent

argumentation, and an

effective and detailed

review of the capabilities in

the case scenario.

Available Marks400 – 1213 – 1617 – 2021 – 2425 – 2829 – 40

Marks Awarded

The purpose of this task
is to identify their
financial strengths and
weaknesses together
with a conclusion
highlighting the strongest
company based on
financial grounds.

The response is based

only on vague description

and there is no

additional

information mentioned to

the practical scenario

proposed. There is no

apparent structure, no

alignment to any key

area, whilst the response

has a vague reference to

how

this information can

be different.

The response has

showed an implicit

understanding of the
additional

information required.

The analysis is vague

with poor

explanations of how

this information can

improve the

outcome. There is a

poor structure, no

identification or

analysis of key areas,

and the outcome is a

poor

presentation.

The response shows

a lack

of a developed

understanding of the

additional information

required. The analysis is

limited to inappropriate

examples of such

information. There is some

unacceptable structure

and identification of

information requirement

but no insight of how this

information can improve

the answer and the

response is a reasonable

presentation.
The response shows

confidence but with a degree

of looseness in the

presentation of this

additional information

required. The analysis is with

unclear or inexact examples

of how the additional

information can improve the

answer.

The evaluation is

good and reasonably

structure with a good

interpretation and

argumentation on key areas,

whilst the response offers a

good presentation.

The response is well-focused on

the information. The analysis is

reasonable with good examples

of how the information can

improve the answer. The

evaluation is very good, a well

presented and robust structure,

and an independent and critical

assessment of key areas,

whilst

in conclusion the structure

offers a very well presented

answer.

The response is a highly

focused on the additional

information required and

how this information can

give a better answer. The

analysis is full of excellent

examples. The evaluation is

outstanding, a very good and

excellent structure, with

individual and insightful

assessment of key areas,
whilst the response offers a

very effective presentation.

Available Marks200 – 67 – 89 – 1011 – 1213 – 1414 – 20

Marks Awarded
2. Critically analyse the
cash position of both
companies over the
same period of time, and
write a brief report
commenting on your
findings.
The response is based
only on vague description

and there is no additional

information mentioned to
the practical scenario
proposed. There is no
apparent structure, no
alignment to any key
area, whilst the response
has a vague reference to
how this information can
be different.
The response has
showed an implicit
understanding of the
additional
information required.
The analysis is vague
with poor
explanations of how
this information can
improve the
outcome. There is a
poor structure, no
identification or
analysis of key areas,
and the outcome is a

poor presentation.

The response shows a lack

of a developed
understanding of the
additional information
required. The analysis is
limited to inappropriate
examples of such
information. There is some
unacceptable structure
and identification of
information requirement
but no insight of how this
information can improve
the answer and the
response is a reasonable
presentation.
The response shows
confidence but with a degree
of looseness in the
presentation of this
additional information
required. The analysis is with
unclear or inexact examples
of how the additional
information can improve the

answer. The evaluation is

good and reasonably
structure with a good
interpretation and
argumentation on key areas,
whilst the response offers a
good presentation.
The response is well-focused on
the information. The analysis is
reasonable with good examples
of how the information can
improve the answer. The
evaluation is very good, a well
presented and robust structure,
and an independent and critical

assessment of key areas, whilst

in conclusion the structure
offers a very well presented
answer.
The response is a highly
focused on the additional
information required and
how this information can
give a better answer. The
analysis is full of excellent
examples. The evaluation is
outstanding, a very good and
excellent structure, with
individual and insightful
assessment of key areas,
whilst the response offers a
very effective presentation.

Available Marks300 – 910 – 1213 – 1516 – 18 19 – 2122 – 30

Marks Awarded

Logical and coherent

structure to argument

and effective

presentation

No structure apparent.

Poor presentation.

Poor structure. Poor

presentation.

Acceptable, but uneven

structure. Reasonable

presentation.

Reasonable structure. Good

presentation.

Good argument. Well presented

material.

Excellent argument. Very

effective presentation

format.

Available Marks100 – 33 – 4 4 – 55 – 66 – 77 – 10

Presentation

Task 1a

Task 2

Task 1b

1 | Page

Sheet2

Name

Topic FAME Assignment Marks 29 or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-100

Task 1a Your assignment is to carry out a detailed comparison between these two companies as specified below. The content is vague and random and shows no evidence of understanding of the ratio analysis and financial information. The explanation given shows unclarity on the review of the company, with little evaluation, no referencing to any material, no examples or ideas on the critical issues, nor identification of capabilities in the case scenario. The content is a collection of unlinked points that poorly refer ro or applies ratios and financial information. The explanation given shows vague and poor explanations on the review of the company and a weak description of the capabilities in the case scenario. The content barely answers the question or simply refers to ratio analysis and its interpretation. The explanation given is undeveloped and is a simply a verbose review of the company and limited insight into the critical issues of the case scenario. The content offers some good use of ratio analysis but is confined to basic ratios without a deeper evaluation. The interpretation is often standalone with an uneven review of the company, with some examples, some good observations and interpretations into the critical issues, but with no clear detailed argumentation, but with a reasonable review of the capabilities in the case scenario. The content is focused on the analysis of the case with a good application of the ratio analysis. The interprestation makes good use of a number and related ratios. The interpretation gives a detailed and clear review of the company, with good examples, a display of independent analysis and an appropriate interpretation into the critical issues, with a focused argumentation, and a well presented review of the capabilities in the case scenario. The content is highly focused on the analysis of the case with a detailed and excellent application of ratio analysis. The explanation of the ratio analysis presents a number of interpretations, with an excellent range of examples, a full critical assessment and independent insight into the key issues, with an excellent argumentation, and an effective and detailed review of the capabilities in the case scenario.

Available Marks 40 0 – 12 13 – 16 17 – 20 21 – 24 25 – 28 29 – 40

Marks Awarded

Task 1b The purpose of this task is to identify their financial strengths and weaknesses together with a conclusion highlighting the strongest company based on financial grounds. The response is based only on vague description and there is no additional information mentioned to the practical scenario proposed. There is no apparent structure, no alignment to any key area, whilst the response has a vague reference to how this information can be different. The response has showed an implicit understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is vague with poor explanations of how this information can improve the outcome. There is a poor structure, no identification or analysis of key areas, and the outcome is a poor presentation. The response shows a lack of a developed understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is limited to inappropriate examples of such information. There is some unacceptable structure and identification of information requirement but no insight of how this information can improve the answer and the response is a reasonable presentation. The response shows confidence but with a degree of looseness in the presentation of this additional information required. The analysis is with unclear or inexact examples of how the additional information can improve the answer. The evaluation is good and reasonably structure with a good interpretation and argumentation on key areas, whilst the response offers a good presentation. The response is well-focused on the information. The analysis is reasonable with good examples of how the information can improve the answer. The evaluation is very good, a well presented and robust structure, and an independent and critical assessment of key areas, whilst in conclusion the structure offers a very well presented answer. The response is a highly focused on the additional information required and how this information can give a better answer. The analysis is full of excellent examples. The evaluation is outstanding, a very good and excellent structure, with individual and insightful assessment of key areas, whilst the response offers a very effective presentation.

Available Marks 20 0 – 6 7 – 8 9 – 10 11 – 12 13 – 14 14 – 20

Marks Awarded

Task 2 2. Critically analyse the cash position of both companies over the same period of time, and write a brief report commenting on your findings. The response is based only on vague description and there is no additional information mentioned to the practical scenario proposed. There is no apparent structure, no alignment to any key area, whilst the response has a vague reference to how this information can be different. The response has showed an implicit understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is vague with poor explanations of how this information can improve the outcome. There is a poor structure, no identification or analysis of key areas, and the outcome is a poor presentation. The response shows a lack of a developed understanding of the additional information required. The analysis is limited to inappropriate examples of such information. There is some unacceptable structure and identification of information requirement but no insight of how this information can improve the answer and the response is a reasonable presentation. The response shows confidence but with a degree of looseness in the presentation of this additional information required. The analysis is with unclear or inexact examples of how the additional information can improve the answer. The evaluation is good and reasonably structure with a good interpretation and argumentation on key areas, whilst the response offers a good presentation. The response is well-focused on the information. The analysis is reasonable with good examples of how the information can improve the answer. The evaluation is very good, a well presented and robust structure, and an independent and critical assessment of key areas, whilst in conclusion the structure offers a very well presented answer. The response is a highly focused on the additional information required and how this information can give a better answer. The analysis is full of excellent examples. The evaluation is outstanding, a very good and excellent structure, with individual and insightful assessment of key areas, whilst the response offers a very effective presentation.

Available Marks 30 0 – 9 10 – 12 13 – 15 16 – 18 19 – 21 22 – 30

Marks Awarded

Presentation Logical and coherent structure to argument and effective presentation No structure apparent. Poor presentation. Poor structure. Poor presentation. Acceptable, but uneven structure. Reasonable presentation. Reasonable structure. Good presentation. Good argument. Well presented material. Excellent argument. Very effective presentation format.

Available Marks 10 0 – 3 3 – 4 4 – 5 5 – 6 6 – 7 7 – 10

Marks Awarded

Sheet3