Financial analysis of a FTSE company

Assignment details and instructions
You work for the Salford Investment Bank. You have been asked to appraise the possibility of making a small-scale investment in a selected FTSE100 company. You are to provide a report to
the board to evidence your conclusions. The SIB is keen to invest in companies that are not only financially responsible, but also value sustainability, as the Bank is keen to be a responsible
investor.
The chosen FTSE 100 company should come from the London Stock Exchange, see
 https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-
 markets/stocks/indices/summary/summary-indices-constituents.html?index=UKX
Do not choose a bank or financial institution. Your report should contain the following:

  • An introduction to your chosen company, and the reason why this company, and the competitor, has been chosen;
  • Critical analysis of the performance of your chosen company, comparing the most recent financial statements to the prior year, and a chosen competitor;
  • Critical analysis of the cash flows of your chosen company, comparing the most recent financial statements to the prior year, and a chosen competitor;
  • Critical analysis of reasons for changes in investor information, comparing the most recent financial statements to the prior year, and a chosen competitor along with an analysis of movements in share price of your chosen company since the date of the latest financial statements, until 30th October 2020;
  • A discussion on the sustainability reporting of your chosen company, and how this compares to competitors; and
  • A conclusion on whether you would recommend investment in your chosen company

 
Your report will be 2,000 words maximum (excluding references and ratio appendix). This is subject to a 10% grace (over or under).
 

Assessment Criteria

You should look at the performance descriptors below to find out what we are specifically looking at during the assessment.

Performance descriptors (10% bands):

Extremely Poor (0-9%)
Totally inadequate demonstration of required knowledge. Not able to link theory to practice. No demonstration of analysis, evaluation or synthesis of performance, cash flow or investor information and share price movements. No analysis of sustainability. Unsatisfactory professional judgement. Presentation is extremely poor. Work has no structure or clarity. Extremely poor use of language. No attempt to provide evidence of sources used.

Very Poor (10-19%)

Virtually no relevant knowledge demonstrated. Fails to adequately demonstrate links between theory and practice. No meaningful analysis or evaluation of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability. Arguments presented are inappropriate and very poorly linked. Very poor professional judgement. Presentation is very poor. Work has little discernible structure or clarity. Very poor use of language. Lack of ability to source adequate material. Very poor referencing.

Poor (20-29%)

Inconsistent or inaccurate knowledge. Limited and inappropriate or inaccurate links between theory and practice. Descriptive occasionally attempts to analyse or evaluate performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability but lacks critical approach. Confusion and/ or weakness in argument. Identifies issues but lacks evidence of reflective processes. Poor professional judgement. Presentation is poor. Work is disorganised and lacks clarity. Poor use of language. Poor use of reference material. Inappropriate or out-dated sources with numerous referencing errors.

Inadequate (30-39%)

Limited evidence of knowledge. Inappropriate links between theory and practice. Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation or synthesis of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability. Follows processes of reflection but fails to demonstrate insight. Inconsistent and/ or inaccurate professional judgement. Presentation is unsatisfactory. Work is limited in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Limitations in academic style. Unsatisfactory referencing with frequent error. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources.

Unsatisfactory (40-49%)

Basic knowledge with occasional inaccuracies appropriate yet basic integration of theory and practice. Critical analysis evident, with some evaluation and synthesis of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability, although limited. Limited evidence of reflection. Some appropriate academic argument although not well applied and lacking in clarity. Unsatisfactory professional judgement. Presentation of work is unsatisfactory in terms of structure, coherence, clarity and academic style. Some inconsistencies. Some grammar and syntax errors which detract from the content. Narrow range of sources. Referencing in presented work is unsatisfactory with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies. References used are inappropriate in terms of currency.
 
 
 
 

Satisfactory (50-59%)

Mostly accurate knowledge with satisfactory depth and breadth of knowledge. Sound integration of theory and practice. Sound critical analysis and evaluation of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability. Relevant academic argument. Demonstrates basic ability of synthesise information in order to formulate appropriate conclusions. Presentation of work is satisfactory in terms of structure coherence, clarity and academic style. But some inconsistencies in grammar and syntax. Satisfactory range of sources identified with appropriate referencing and few inaccuracies. Appropriate use of primary and secondary sources.

Good (60-69%)

Consistently relevant accurate knowledge with good depth and breadth. Clear and relevant application of theory to practice. Clear, in depth critical analysis, evaluation of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability. Clear academic argument with synthesis of different ideas and perspectives. Presentation of work is well organised with good use of language to express ideas/argument. Very few inconsistencies; grammar and syntax good. Satisfactory range of sources identified with appropriate referencing and few inaccuracies. Appropriate use of primary and secondary sources.

Very Good (70-79%)

Comprehensive knowledge demonstrating very good depth and breadth. Clear insight into links between theory and practice. Demonstrates ability to transfer knowledge between different contexts appropriately. Very good analysis and synthesis of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability with evidence of critique and independent thought. Demonstrates ability to make sound decisions in complex and unpredictable contexts. Presentation is of a very good standard. Very good grammar and syntax. Clear evidence of referencing to a wide range of primary and secondary sources which are used effectively in supporting the work.

Excellent (80-89%)

Integrates the complexity of a range of knowledge and excellent understanding of it’s relevance. Excellent depth of knowledge in a variety of contexts. Coherent and systematic application of theory to practice. Excellent critical analysis and synthesis of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability. Arguments handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Willingness to challenge self and practice. Presentation is excellent, well-structured and logical. Excellent grammar and syntax. Detailed use of predominantly primary sources which are well referenced.

Outstanding (90-100%)

Outstanding knowledge. Theory is linked to practice to an exceptional level. Outstanding critical analysis and synthesis of performance, cash flow, investor information and sustainability. Presentation is outstanding demonstrating a fluent academic style. Synthesis of reference material from a wide range of sources both within and across professions