Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

Assessment (non-exam) Brief

MSIN0161 Accounting for decision makers

Section B: Assessment Brief and Requirements

You are working as a summer intern as an investment analyst and have been asked to evaluate the financial performance of two well-known grocery stores. The two stores of interest are:

Tesco

Sainsbury’s

You are required to prepare a report which is a year-on-year financial comparison of both companies (over a three-year period). Each company is listed on the UK Stock Exchange. You are looking to assess relative performance over a three-year period and to assess each company’s underlying financial position.

You should use the 3 most recent years of FULL year accounts for each company. No interim or quarterly reports should be used. Below is a link to each company’s corporate website and the years which you MUST use for your analysis.

Tesco plc: Reports for years ending 2023, 2022 and 2021 (look under the investors tab/reports archive for 2022 and 2021).

J Sainsbury plc: Reports for years ended 2023, 2022 and 2021.

Required:

a) Carefully select and calculate 10 ratios for each company (these must be the same for each company to make a meaningful comparison) which give most insight into the performance of the grocery stores. You are required to calculate ratios for the 3 FULL years of financial reports. Please use the year-end figures provided in the accounts. (2 pages maximum) (20 marks)

b) Write a report analysing and comparing the relative financial performance of both companies for the past three years. Your report should make a fully justified recommendation on which one of the two companies you would advise your clients to invest in. (2,000 words) (80 marks). (Total 100 marks)

For further guidance please see section F below.

Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in this Assessment

This assessment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:

• Understand the context and purpose of financial accounting.

• Be able to appreciate the key financial statements and recognise their strengths and weaknesses.

• Evaluate and interpret accounting data accurately and appropriately.

Section D: Groupwork Instructions (where relevant/appropriate)

Specific requirements for groupwork are available here. If this section is blank, no specific requirements for groupwork are applicable to this assessment.

Section E: How your work is assessed

Within each section of this assessment you may be assessed on the following aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this assessment, and should thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:

• The accuracy of any calculations required.

• The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;

• Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and frameworks;

• The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;

• The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/recommendations/plans of action you put forward;

• Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;

• Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate, real world examples, academic materials and referenced sources. Any references should use either the Harvard OR Vancouver referencing system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)

• Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and communication of ideas, contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments, conclusions.

• Each assessment requirement(s) has allocated marks/weightings.

Student submissions are reviewed/scrutinised by an internal assessor and are available to an External Examiner for further review/scrutiny before consideration by the relevant Examination Board.

It is not uncommon for some students to feel that their submissions deserve higher marks (irrespective of whether they actually deserve higher marks). To help you assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of your submission please refer to SOM Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located on the Assessment tab of the SOM Student Information Centre Moodle site.

The above is an important link as it specifies the criteria for attaining the pass/fail bandings shown below:

At UG Levels 4, 5 and 6:

80% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - 1st; 70% to 79%: Excellent Pass - 1st; 60%-69%: Very Good Pass - 2.1; 50% to 59%: Good Pass - 2.2; 40% to 49%: Satisfactory Pass - 3rd; 20% to 39%: Insufficient to Pass - Fail; 0% to 19%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass - Fail.

At PG Level 7:

86% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - Distinction; 70% to 85%: Excellent Pass - Distinction; 60%-69%: Good Pass - Merit; 50% to 59%: Satisfactory - Pass; 40% to 49%: Insufficient to Pass - Fail; 0% to 39%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass - Fail.

You are strongly advised to review these criteria before you start your work and during your work, and before you submit.

You are strongly advised to not compare your mark with marks of other submissions from your student colleagues. Each submission has its own range of characteristics which differ from others in terms of breadth, scope, depth, insights, and subtleties and nuances. On the surface one submission may appear to be similar to another but invariably, digging beneath the surface reveals a range of differing characteristics.

Students who wish to request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examiners should refer to the UCL Academic Appeals Procedure, taking note of the acceptable grounds for such appeals.

Note that the purpose of this procedure is not to dispute academic judgement – it is to ensure correct application of UCL’s regulations and procedures. The appeals process is evidence-based and circumstances must be supported by independent evidence.